1

I sat there, lost and cold because I was betrayed by the person I didn’t expect to hurt me.

I think the actual sentence is:

I sat there, lost and cold because I was betrayed by the person whom I didn’t expect to hurt me from.

So we see that the relative pronoun whom and the preposition from are ommited here.

How can we recognize this type of sentences? Is there any rule to omit the relative pronoun and the preposition in such a way? I know about ommiting the relative pronouns. When the relative pronoun refers to the object of the verb then it can be done. But above that one has confused me.

2
  • "From" is impossible in your second example, so forget that. The general 'rule' is that the relative word or "that" can be omitted provided it does not function as subject of the relative clause – BillJ Jun 2 '19 at 12:27
  • The only way to have from in your second sentence is if it ends with whom I didn't expect hurt to come from. But while changing the verb to a noun is possible, it would sound a little unnatural. It would also change the meaning of the sentence. – Jason Bassford Jun 3 '19 at 3:39
1

I sat there, lost and cold because I was betrayed by the person I didn’t expect to hurt me.

is a perfectly fine sentence. It is technically an elision of

I sat there, lost and cold because I was betrayed by the person whom I didn’t expect to hurt me.

but almost no one would use that form. More common would be to substitute "who" for "whom". This is technically incorrect, but the usage is comm enough that I expect it will be listed as proper, and "whom" as obsolete, in another generation.

In neither case can "from" be used at the end of the sentence nor is it needed. It could be recast as:

  • I sat there, lost and cold because I was betrayed by the person from whom I expected only kindness.
  • I sat there, lost and cold because I was betrayed by the person from whom I expected no hurt.

but I am not sure that either is an improvement.

As the comment by BillJ said, the relative pronoun can be omitted when it is not the object of the relative clause. Here 'me" is the object of the clause.

Your Answer

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

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.