To settle a debate, Monty, Bishop or other grammarians around? Which of these is correct grammar?

"....a boy companions had found dull and hadn't let hope he'd come to much..."

or "a boy companions had found dull and hadn't let hope would come to much.."

Am I allowed to say that it is hard to choose because they're both so clumsily written? Need to see a bit more and then rewrite.

Assuming the boy is the subject of the sentence (or, God help us, of the subordinate clause) it has to be the first option.

What me reckons is dat dis is wrong a so many levels innit, who did dat?

Thank you, all. It came up in a poetry workshop.
I accept that the idea could be expressed more fluently, but it has to scan. The alternative seemed to be to rewrite the whole sodding poem.

So if I parse this correctly, we're talking about a boy that had mates who found him dull and didn't allow him to entertain the hope of coming to much.

Let's try reinserting the dropped pronouns and see:
a boy [whom] companions had found dull and [whom they] hadn't let hope [that] [he] would come to much

I think we're asking a bit too much of the second (implied) "whom" if we ask it to represent the object of the hope as well as of the companions’ letting.

So it's the first for me.

Yes, I agree with Monty and Malcolm.
But I suppose, in the end, the line's so problematic it should probably be abandoned altogether.

It's a bit on the lines of Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.
The author is asking readers to work too hard to find what ought to have been a clear meaning.

if you were a signwriter,making a new sign for a pub called the pig and whistle...how big would the space be between pig and and and and and whistle

Yes

The circumference of a chocolate hobnob.

Oh well, different rules apply with poetry.

Latin was one of my subjects at school. Our teacher advised us to learn the passages of the Aeneid that we had to study for exams by rote, because however good we were at Latin, Virgil's language was so compressed we'd never be able to translate him.

As a native speaker I feel I am best qualified to answer this.

The first one.

I would of thought....a boy whose companions found dull and with nare hope he'd come to much.

posting.php?mode=quote&f=2&p=789504#

" a boy, his companions found dull, and hadn't let hope, he'd come to much......"

Without a rewrite this seems to me to be the best way to express the implied sentiment of the sentence. Breaking it down into sub compartments. Hope this helps.

Or to use the reduction approach, "a boy with no mates".

Or to reduce that even further..........Monkeybutt

I think the first, but yes, I wasn't taken by either sentence personally and agree they both scanned clumsily and I'd find a way around the problem by rewriting.
Otherwise, if you included the whole stanza it would help ...
I preferred the one about Adam Boyd

Interestingly, that's probably the subtext, but the mates wouldn't agree with this description of themselves, which is one reason for the convoluted grammar, I suppose.

I would send the whole stanza if I knew no-one but interested parties would read it! Glad you liked the Adam B one anyway. That was another workshop thing. The tutor suggested we write summat containing mediaeval-style alliteration, so I decided to apply the concept to an account of a footie match.

Has it already been established that it shouldn't be "....a boy companions had found dull and hadn't let hope he'd come too much..."

Re-reading the thread Monsieur Toulouse has a very valid point. What is the context of the sentence in relation to the poem? Also how are the pros in the rest of the poem? Can you copy the full poem or the para for perusal Ms Grabec? This has got me thinking too much!

... a boy, whose companions had found him dull, had little hope he'd come to much.....

I think you all need to get out more.

Show some respect for the boy who comes too much.

Surely.... 'I think you all need to get out of the house more'

Thanks again for other suggestions.