0

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?

2
  • 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, 2015 at 8:04
  • Thanky you @Catija Then 3 sentences are still fine, right?
    – jihoon
    Mar 6, 2015 at 8:09

1 Answer 1

1

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.

1
  • @jihoon Welcome, Added second option to show that it's not the could that's clunky.
    – Catija
    Mar 6, 2015 at 8:25

You must log in to answer this question.

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