The 4-year-olds often chose to look at the marshmallows while waiting, a strategy that was not terribly effective.
Can I omit "that was" in the sentence above?
-
2Yes: you can. The AdjP "not very effective" would then be a post-head modifier of "strategy". – BillJ Apr 19 '19 at 9:55
Add a comment
|
The 4-year-olds often chose to look at the marshmallows while waiting, a strategy not terribly effective.
That sounds perfectly fine and concise.
From what I understand, usually you drop a relative pronoun when it's followed by a present/past participle, or when it is the object in the second clause:
- [It was a strategy.] [It was needing some adjustments.] = It was a strategy (that was) needing some adjustments.
- [It was a strategy.] [It was devised by Tom.] = It was a strategy (that was) devised by Tom.
- [It was a strategy.] [She didn't like it.] = It was a strategy (that) she didn't like.
Those make sense...
But for some reason you can drop it in your example when it's the subject, yet not followed by a present/past participle:
- [It was a strategy.] [It was not terribly effective.] = It was a strategy (that was) not terribly effective.
I would NOT say "The 4-year-olds often chose to look at the marshmallows while waiting, a strategy not effective." (I would just say "... an ineffective strategy.") So perhaps it's a phrasal thing? I'm honestly not sure. For some reason the "not terribly effective" part sounds a bit British to me.
Absolutely not, the sentence would not make sense without.
If you really want to drop that was then try:
... a not terribly effective strategy.
answered Apr 19 '19 at 9:25
-
1
-
@MichaelHarvey While vaguely intelligible, I cannot see any way to regard it as grammatically correct, and would challenge you to show any native speaker doing so. – Mike Brockington Apr 19 '19 at 12:13
-
@MichaelHarvey None of those example have the same structure as the OP's post. – Mike Brockington Apr 19 '19 at 13:50
-
1
