Správné vyjádření skutečnosti

Shackelia shromáždila desítky rodin, kterým také policie protiprávně někoho zabila.

Shackelia assembled tens of families, some members of which were also unlawfully killed by police force.

Shackelia assembled tens of families, to whom also the police unlawfully killed somebody.

To druhé určitě ne. To první je myslím správně, ale je to docela formální vyjádření, který vypadá dobře jenom na papíře.

V běžném hovoru bych asi řekl toto:

Shackelia assembled dozens of families who had some of their members unlawfully killed by police.

To už se tady přece řešilo, ne?

“Shackelia assembled dozens of families who had had some of their members unlawfully killed by police.” (had had – plusquamperfektum) Souhlasím s touto verzí s tím, že by mohlo v jiném kontextu dojít k nedorozumění. Logika nám tady napovídá, že smysl není “rodiny, které nechaly zabít …” tedy smysl kauzativní: nechal se ostříhat = he had his hair cut. Jiná možnost je “… families, some of whose members had been unlawfully …”

…families, some of whose members had been unlawfully …”

Mě tady ten posun času nějak utekl.

…some members of which by bylo taky přijatelné? Ta vaše verze je z pohledu rodilého mluvčího jasná, o tom není pochyb.

Díky za korekce a příspěvky, vítejte na fóru HFE. Vaše čeština je na dosti vysoké úrovni, skoro to vypadá, jako že jste bilingvní mluvčí.

Díky za kompliment. Snažím se, ale některé prvky češtiny mi pořád unikají . " … some members of which had been unlawfully …" je také dobré. Verze s “some of whose members” je kratší, šikovnější, plynulejší, a z hlediska prosodie je věta o to libozvučnější …

Is it really necessary to use the past perfect had had here? I know people often omit one had in common speech for simplicity even if it's grammatically wrong, but in this sentence I don't see a reason why the (arguably better-sounding) past simple could not be used. It's clear from the context that these two actions didn't happen at the same time, plus it doesn't remove the (merely theoretical) ambiguity either. Thank you in advance for your answer.

You're right, Boffin. The sentence is grammatically acceptable without “had had” so it's not strictly necessary, but I would add it for two reasons: (1) without the pluperfect it begins to sound like the causative “had some of their members killed” (nechaly zabít), and (2) this is evidently a written narrative (not conversational style) so we would be more likely on stylistic grounds to make it pluperfect. You're right too that one “had” sounds better than two (who wants two snakes, eh? ), but even in written style the first “had” could be contracted to 'd. Only one “had” grates on my ear in this sentence, but the sentence would be acceptable

Thank you for your reply. It's great to have a native English speaker here and I agree with Josef that your Czech is really good. If you ever need help explaining anything in Czech, feel free to send me a PM.