1

During that time, I got way more nervous with I'm in physical contact with him.

What's the thing possibly omitted between with and I'm in? Or if that's grammatical and being seen natural to natives, what am I missing?

2
  • 1
    The sentence is ungrammatical as written. What's the context? Where have you taken it from?
    – Gustavson
    Apr 2, 2019 at 22:39
  • @Gustavson Thanks. It's satisfying enough just to know it's ungrammatical. The sentence is from some third-rate novel which was double translated.
    – dolco
    Apr 2, 2019 at 22:53

1 Answer 1

2

That sentence is ungrammatical and, at the point of the grammar error, incomprehensible. Absent any context, I would guess with was an error for when, or I'm was an error for being.

I'm not aware of any English dialect in which that would be considered an acceptable sentence.

3
  • Thanks. It's satisfying enough just to know it's ungrammatical. The sentence is from some third-rate novel which was double translated.
    – dolco
    Apr 2, 2019 at 22:54
  • Another possibility is that "with" should be replaced by "with when".
    – Jasper
    Apr 2, 2019 at 22:58
  • @Jasper: That would at least make meaning clear, though I find it unappealingly redundant. I'm sure it's a perfectly natural way to say it for some folks, though.
    – SamBC
    Apr 2, 2019 at 23:01

You must log in to answer this question.

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