He was shackled by the remnants of guilt (which are) indissoluble with forgiveness.

migrated from english.stackexchange.com Feb 9 at 20:39

This question came from our site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts.

  • 1
    Yes, but the result is rather awkward and might be difficult to understand; partly because the clause indissoluble with forgiveness is itself awkward. I presume it is meant to mean indissoluble even with forgiveness: as written it required a couple of readings for me to make any sense of it. – Colin Fine Feb 5 at 10:10
  • The meaning of the sentence is changed when which are is omitted. The definite article in the remnants is also a factor in how we understand the sentence, either with or without which are. It's also a strangely mixed metaphor, FWIW. – Tᴚoɯɐuo Feb 5 at 13:45
  • In terms of the full sentence, which is normally only used in nonrestrictive clauses in US English. So, in this case, I'd expect to see that instead. (But it would be perfectly fine in UK English.) More importantly, however, I'd expect to see were rather than are. It also sounds better without the article. And incorporating the other comments, we end up with: He was shackled by remnants of guilt that were indissoluble even with forgiveness. – Jason Bassford Feb 5 at 16:50
  • Based on that interpretation of the full sentence, I don't see the lack of the relative pronoun resulting in much of a difference—aside from making it slightly harder to understand. – Jason Bassford Feb 5 at 16:51
  • You're not deleting the relative word, but the verb as well. The result is that what remains is an adjective phrase post-modifying "guilt". I don't see any real difference in meaning, though. – BillJ Feb 5 at 16:54

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.