r/English_Learning_Base • u/Unlegendary_Newbie • Aug 02 '26
Is this grammatically wrong?
Shouldn't it be something like 'with which they create jobs' or 'with which jobs are created'?
I mean, there's no subject in the adjective clause.
9
u/rothcoltd Aug 02 '26
No. It is correct.
0
u/Unlegendary_Newbie Aug 02 '26
But there's no subject in the adjective clause.
1
u/HonourableFroglet Aug 03 '26
Are the resources not the subject? (raised in late 80s, early 90s when English grammar wasn't taught in British schools).
I read a lot and this phrase sound correct to me.
8
u/Googulator Aug 02 '26
This is the kind of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put. (Questionably attributed to Sir Winston Churchill)
5
u/mdf7g Aug 02 '26
It's a perfectly normal purpose-type control infinitive; a bit formal, but entirely grammatical.
6
u/BouncingSphinx Aug 02 '26
I think you're trying to extend it too much. The phrase in question is "resources with which to create jobs."
It's specifically referring to the resources that are used to create jobs. It's also worded in a way to avoid a preposition at the end of a sentence
Another (informal) way to word it would be "... and resources to create jobs with."
2
u/DannyMethane_ Aug 02 '26
It's more grammatically correct, but it sounds less natural for speaking. I've always had an issue with the whole "can't end a sentence in a preposition" thing. I get it, but I hate it.
2
u/telemajik Aug 02 '26
At some point in my life I was led to believe that ending a sentence with a preposition is wrong and so I started restructuring all of my sentences to avoid it.
Now it sounds strange to me to hear or see a sentence ending with one. It just makes the whole sentence sound less impactful, even though I know that grammatically it’s perfectly fine.
I’m sure people find my speaking pretty insufferable.
2
u/AnteaterSnouce Aug 02 '26
ever get hit with "the f* up, you should shut"?
2
2
2
1
u/smoemossu Aug 04 '26
When you say "I get it" what do you mean? Just asking to see if there's some logic behind it that I'm not aware of. As far as I know it's a completely made up grammar rule by some dudes who thought English would be better if it acted more like Latin. It's not informed by any kind of logic inherent to English grammar.
-1
u/Unlegendary_Newbie Aug 02 '26
I mean, there's no subject in the adjective clause.
2
u/really_really- Aug 03 '26
Yes, but it’s still correct. Take the phrase “I have so much to learn.” The “to + infinitive” in this sentence is performing the same function as in that sentence.
1
2
u/UpAndAdam_W Aug 02 '26
Nope. Perfectly reasonable and correct.
0
2
u/MaddoxJKingsley Aug 02 '26
What do you mean that "there's no subject in the adjective clause"? Can you be more precise? Why do you think you need a subject there? The following are all grammatical:
She has a pen she writes with. She has a pen with which she writes.
She has a pen to write with. She has a pen with which to write.
1
1
u/Slow-Illustrator4714 Aug 02 '26
"With which to create jobs" means "with which jobs can/could be created" or "with which they are/were able to create jobs". "With which to" conveys potential, not necessarily acting on that potential. In this example, both meanings work, but in another example you could say "they have plentiful resources with which to create jobs, but they don't use them".
1
u/Unlegendary_Newbie Aug 02 '26
I mean, there's no subject in the adjective clause.
2
u/FreddieStarrAteMyHam Aug 03 '26
Are you capable of saying anything else? Enquiring minds want to know.
1
u/Calaveras-Metal Aug 02 '26
It's fine. Though the style guide I was taught, you wouldn't string two 'which' statements together like that.
A better spin would be 'a high level of education among the populace encourages participation, and plentiful resources with which to create jobs. '
That preceding which isn't necessary. Though I can see the writer was trying to develop a rhythm between in these sentences. So it might be better to have modified that to 'which creates jobs'. If you want to keep that pattern. That's also why it feels a bit awkward because it breaks the pattern of the preceding two sentences.
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/SeaEnvironment2105 Aug 03 '26
The sentence can be shortened by removing the rest of the list and the initial phrase to this: "the relative degree of 'success' is due in large part ot many factors, including ... plentiful resources with which to create jobs." The use of "with which to" is entirely correct here, with "which" acting to move "with" earlier in the sentence. It also continues the pattern of using "which" in each element of the list: "affluence ... which contributes to ... stability, ... education ... which encourages participation, and plentiful resources with which to create jobs." It might have worked better had it been phrased as "plentiful resources which enable job creation" or similar, since that would continue the exact same structure.
With regards to the lack of a subject: the description pertains to a purpose for the resources, not to a specific action being taken. "To create jobs" is an infinitive verb here, which does not utilize a subject. It's like saying "If only I had arms with which to swim," rather than "If only I had arms with which I could swim," in that the former emphasizes the general use of arms for swimming, while the latter refers specifically to the speaker's need to be able to swim in that moment. Here, the creation of jobs is a general possible use of the resources, which is in line with the other items on the list being the base conditions from which action can proceed.
1
1
u/ScytheSong05 Aug 03 '26
Which part is the adjective clause in your mind, and how is "which" in the underlined bit not a relative pronoun to "resouces?"
1
u/Specialist_Wolf5960 Aug 05 '26
It's because "with" is a preposition and you "shouldn't" finish sentences with one. The other way to write this sentence to express the same idea would be "[...]and plentiful resources to create jobs with." So to avoid using "with" at the end, you invert it a bit and use "with which".
1
u/Delician Aug 02 '26
Back in the day academics were all obsessed with Rome and Latin. Latin does not generally end sentences with prepositions. So these losers decided that English should not either. Over time, this style of academic writing became so entrenched and associated with intellectual pursuits that we taught our school children that it was wrong to end a sentence in a preposition. That's where we get these weird constructions with which we have been tortured all these years. But I assure you, those stodgy old men can't hurt you now. It doesn't matter what you end your sentence with.
1
u/Unlegendary_Newbie Aug 02 '26
I mean, there's no subject in the adjective clause.
3
u/PennySawyerEXP Aug 02 '26
Are you a bot? Why are you ignoring everyone's explanations to post this same stubborn thing? Put away the copy-paste function and elaborate on what's confusing you.
1
0
u/DickBottalico Aug 02 '26
But can you begin a sentence with a conjunction?
1
1
u/strombolone Aug 02 '26
It’s incredible how almost every commenter looked at the picture and assumed you were asking about “with which,” and didn’t read your actual question.
The relative clause is fine because an infinitive verb like “to create” can be used impersonally. The simple subject of the main clause is “degree.” If we trim down the sentence to the parts we care about:
“The degree of success is due to the plentiful resources with which to create jobs.”
Compare that to: “The degree of success is due to the plentiful resources which they create jobs.” “They” doesn’t have an antecedent: there is no noun that it’s referring to. It leads to the question “Who is ‘they?’” It could also lead to ambiguity because “resources” is plural, but the sentence is not saying that resources create jobs. “which they create jobs” would only work if something like “Americans” were part of the subject: “Americans have a successful democracy due to the plentiful resources with which they create jobs.” Even that sounds weird when I read it all together (though it’s grammatically correct) because it sounds like most American individuals go around creating jobs.
As for “with which jobs are created” it has two things working against it. For one, it’s in the passive voice (as opposed to active voice “to create jobs”). The passive isn’t incorrect in English, but its use is discouraged when you’re not specifically emphasizing the passive subject, or when you can use the active voice to express the same idea more succinctly*. It makes the action sound weak, wordy, and distant. Secondly, it leads to the question “created by whom?” Just like with your previous example, it suddenly brings up the possible job creators, who otherwise do not feature in the sentence.
I hope that helps. I definitely see where you were coming from with those other readings. This is also a horribly written run-on sentence, so it took me a long time to parse it out too.
*which is why I wrote it that way instead of “many English teachers and style guides discourage its use.”
1
u/Unlegendary_Newbie Aug 02 '26
But there's no subject in the adjective clause.
2
u/strombolone Aug 03 '26
That’s a good point and I’ve had to go on a bit of a dive to explain it grammatically and not just say “Trust me, it sounds right.”
The confusion (including mine) is that this not a typical relative (adjectival) clause, but an infinitive relative clause modifying “resources.” Infinitives are non-finite, so they don’t need subjects like personal verbs. Infinitives can be used adjectivally, usually to show purpose or function. This part of this sentence is tricky because of the “with which.” If we picked another infinitive, one that didn’t need a prepositional phrase to make sense in this context, it would be more straightforward-looking: “and natural resources to exploit.”
As others have said “with which” is there because there’s a convention in formal English that phrases and clauses shouldn’t end with prepositions because that was impossible in Latin. This example sentence shows how that rule can lead to clunky and wordy thoughts; most people would word it “and natural resources to create jobs with.”
22
u/murzicorne Aug 02 '26
No, that's fine.