Here'a sentences written in my textbook.

Hello, I'm staying in roon 124. I've got a problem and I was wondering if you could help me. I seem to have misplaced my wallet somewhere; it could have been in the hotel.

'it could have been in the hotel' doesn't sound enough because of omitting subject. So, what if I change into followings to make it sound fully?

  1. It could have been in the hotel WHERE I misplaced my wallet.

  2. It could have been in the hotel THAT I misplaced my wallet.

  3. THE PLACE where I misplaced my wallet could have been in the hotel.

Are all of the three sentences right?

  • 1
    The original sentence is perfectly fine... the semicolon tells you that the independent clauses are closely related, in this case about the wallet. writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/Semicolons.html There's no grammatical need to repeat the topic. – Catija Mar 6 '15 at 8:04
  • Thanky you @Catija Then 3 sentences are still fine, right? – jihoon Mar 6 '15 at 8:09

As I said in my comment, this is actually perfectly fine due to the usage of the semicolon.

Link two independent clauses to connect closely related ideas:

  • The cow is brown; it is also old.

So, in this example, the semicolon links the wallet as the topic of discussion in both independent clauses.

As to your sentences, while I don't believe they're grammatically incorrect, they all sound overly complicated.

As an AmE speaker, I'd say the more common statement would be something like:

I may have misplaced my wallet in the hotel.

I could have misplaced my wallet in the hotel.

  • @jihoon Welcome, Added second option to show that it's not the could that's clunky. – Catija Mar 6 '15 at 8:25

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.