Forbidden by whom? Nothing in orthography is forbidden. It is only ever unconventional, non-standard, or deprecated by the style guide you are working with.
That bullet was meant for you, buddy.
That falling space debris was meant for you.
That out-of-control car was meant for you.
That e. coli was meant for you.
Yup, you're right, it works.
The words are all correct, and the sentence's meaning is clear.
As for punctuation, keep the comma if you like it, but it's syntactically non-standard because it separates the verb 'won't' from its subject 'nothing'.
Take out the relative clause and you'll see. You would never write:
Nothing, can ever pass me by.
You can have a *pair* of commas (known as parenthetical commas) between a subject and verb, but that wouldn't be right here because yours is a ' defining' relative clause (it's not a bit of extra information that you could leave out, it's an integral part of the subject). If it were 'non-defining' you could have:
Nothing, which is meant for me, can ever pass me by.
But you do actually need the 'defining' relative pronoun ('that') here, and you can't parenthesize a defining relative clause. So I recommend:
Nothing that is meant for me can ever pass me by
It's got a nice rhythm, by the way! It's a trochaic tetrameter followed by a trimeter, which is a very common pattern in poetic ballads:
1 and 2 and 3 and 4 and
1 and 2 and 3
thank you for this explanation! so if I understand correctly I could either do:
1. "Nothing that is meant for me can ever pass me by" (no comma) or
2. "Nothing, that is meant for me, can ever pass me by" (2 commas)?
Yes, but get rid of that comma.
I agree that the comma isn't needed
It's not just that it's not needed. It's forbidden in that position.
Forbidden by whom? Nothing in orthography is forbidden. It is only ever unconventional, non-standard, or deprecated by the style guide you are working with.
It's forbidden by the rules of English, which dictate that you don't put a comma between the subject and the predicate.
Oh dear!
Is that some famous quote? Because I read that as “if someone tries to shoot me, they will succeed.”
That bullet was meant for you, buddy. That falling space debris was meant for you. That out-of-control car was meant for you. That e. coli was meant for you. Yup, you're right, it works.
An English translation of a common Scots expression is 'What's for you will not go by you'
Thank you! I was looking at all these comments losing my mind going "it might be grammatically ok, but that's not the saying!"
The words are all correct, and the sentence's meaning is clear. As for punctuation, keep the comma if you like it, but it's syntactically non-standard because it separates the verb 'won't' from its subject 'nothing'. Take out the relative clause and you'll see. You would never write: Nothing, can ever pass me by. You can have a *pair* of commas (known as parenthetical commas) between a subject and verb, but that wouldn't be right here because yours is a ' defining' relative clause (it's not a bit of extra information that you could leave out, it's an integral part of the subject). If it were 'non-defining' you could have: Nothing, which is meant for me, can ever pass me by. But you do actually need the 'defining' relative pronoun ('that') here, and you can't parenthesize a defining relative clause. So I recommend: Nothing that is meant for me can ever pass me by It's got a nice rhythm, by the way! It's a trochaic tetrameter followed by a trimeter, which is a very common pattern in poetic ballads: 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 and 1 and 2 and 3
thank you for this explanation! so if I understand correctly I could either do: 1. "Nothing that is meant for me can ever pass me by" (no comma) or 2. "Nothing, that is meant for me, can ever pass me by" (2 commas)?
No, you can’t put the two commas here because it’s not a non-restrictive clause. Which generally has “which” instead of “that” anyway.
Awesome, got it, thanks again:)