|
|
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 41
newbie
|
OP
newbie
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 41 |
The police had been looking for the snatch thief for the past two weeks. Rupert was the snatch thief. (This is a question which tests students on synthesis of sentences.)
Where I live, the second sentence refers to the fact that Rupert was the snatch thief. I wonder whether native speakers interpret it that way.
I have joined above underlined sentences as follows and wonder which sentence is correctly joined? If neither, how should the sentences be joined? Thanks.
Rupert was the snatch thief, whom the police had been looking for the past two weeks.
Rupert, whom the police had been looking for for the past two weeks, was the snatch thief.
Last edited by Lionel Koh; 11/13/13 08:15 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 41
newbie
|
|
OP
newbie
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 41 |
Could somebody please help?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,554
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,554 |
The police had been looking for the snatch thief for the past two weeks. Then Rupert was found to be the snatch thief.
But remember, Lionel.
Rupert is innocent until proven guilty by a jury of his peers.
Is not your world the same?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
Rupert is PRESUMED innocent till found guilty.
I'd go with:
Rupert was the snatch thief that the police had been looking for the past two weeks.
No comma and that instead of whom. This is a good old fashioned restrictive clause. Presumably there are other snatch thieves out there that the police were either not looking for or who they had not been looking for for the past two weeks.
The other version assumes the police already knew Rupert was the snatch thief or that he was being sought by the police for some other matter. I'm assuming that the police were looking for the snatch thief and that all you are saying is that that snatch thief was, in fact, Rupert. And if you want to go all high-register I would pied-pipe that whom up front and say:
Rupert, for whom the police had been looking for the past two weeks, was the snatch thief.
If you want good old colloquial English, who is just fine in this context:
Rupert, who the police had been looking for for the past two weeks, was the snatch thief.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
while we're about this, what's the origin of "snatch thief"? it certainly isn't an idiom you hear in American English.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
Google ngrams doesn't find it in British English, either.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 41
newbie
|
|
OP
newbie
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 41 |
[quote=tsuwm]while we're about this, what's the origin of "snatch thief"? it certainly isn't an idiom you hear in American English. (This link ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snatch_theft)defines "snatch thief".)
Last edited by Lionel Koh; 11/17/13 06:59 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
>a criminal act, common in Southeast Asia and South America
yes, I gathered this much, but those are rather geographically separate areas, and this doesn't really address my question as to the origin of the term.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
I, for one, don't see a problem with the phrase snatch thief. It's not used in American, or apparently British, English but it is immediately obvious what it means.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
I don't have a problem with it either, I was just wondering about the origin (he said for the third time).
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,915
Posts229,993
Members9,198
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
1,238
guests, and
3
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
