2

It's not the Hawaii you're used to thinking of and seeing ads for tourism.

I always feel that seeing ads for tourism is a little odd here. Should it add a preposition at the end of the sentence, such as "in"? Just as follows:

It's not the Hawaii you're used to thinking of and seeing ads for tourism in.

I guess the latter part of the object "seeing ads for tourism" means that "you can see ads everywhere in the Hawaii". So if there is an of in the former part, why is there also a preposition( in ) in the latter part?

Improve this question
1
  • It's not "you can see ads everywhere in the Hawaii". It's you're used to seeing ads for the Hawaii tourism.
    – Damkerng T.
    Jan 22, 2014 at 9:15

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
2

The sentence is, as you suspect, awkward and ungrammatical. The reason is clear if you separate the two relative clauses it includes:

It's not the Hawaii which you're used to thinking of.
It's not the Hawaii which you're used to seeing ads for tourism.

The second relative clause has no evident role for the pronoun which: it's not the subject of used to seeing (which is you) and it's not the direct object of used to seeing (which is ads).

What is almost certainly meant is

It's not the Hawaii which you're used to seeing in ads for tourism.

In this version which is the direct object of used to seeing and in ads for tourism is an adjunct: where you see this Hawaii.

Improve this answer
3
  • 1
    Could also be It's not the Hawaii which you're used to seeing ads for tourism about. (or for instead of about)
    – starsplusplus
    Jan 22, 2014 at 13:09
  • @starsplusplus It could, but that would imply the constituent tourism about Hawaii, which isn't English. Careless writers might say that, meaning ads for Hawaii tourism, but they should not be encouraged in such slovenliness.
    – StoneyB on hiatus
    Jan 22, 2014 at 14:21
  • Hmm. I was thinking the "about" applied to the adverts: (tourism) adverts about Hawaii. I'm not sure if "tourism about Hawaii" is necessarily implied but at best it is ambiguous. Good point.
    – starsplusplus
    Jan 22, 2014 at 15:25
1

You're right that there is a preposition missing. It seems that you are trying to say "thinking of" and "seeing ads for" and then "for tourism" (the ads are for the purpose of tourism). Note that "seeing ads for tourism in" means that you see the tourism ads in Hawaii, not that Hawaii is in tourism ads.

Without changing the sentence structure, you could say

"It's not the Hawaii you're used to thinking of and seeing ads for for tourism"

but of course "for for" is awkward, so try rephrasing the sentence. Others have suggested some good alternatives, or, if you want to stick more closely to the original sentence, you could use "in" or just a single "for":

"It's not the Hawaii you're used to thinking of and seeing ads for" or "It's not the Hawaii you're used to thinking of and seeing tourism ads for"

or

"It's not the Hawaii you're used to thinking of and seeing in ads for tourism" or "It's not the Hawaii you're used to thinking of and seeing in tourism ads."

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .