0
Moon7296 Posted 15 years ago
Grammar
Intonation in restrictive relative clause
1. The climbers who reached the summit were exhausted.
2. The climbers, who reached the summit, were exhausted.
Q1) Does intonation in #1 and 2 apply otherwise?
3. Professor Fish gave everyone an A, which was just fine with Alice
4. Professor Fish gave everyone an A which was just fine with Alice
Q2) I found two of the restrictions of restrictive clause: 1. Does not usually modify proper nouns. 2. May not modify an entire proposition, only a head noun.
But I think the relative cluase in #3 modifies 'an A' while the non-restrictive one in #4 does the whole clause. What do you think?
2. The climbers, who reached the summit, were exhausted.
Q1) Does intonation in #1 and 2 apply otherwise?
3. Professor Fish gave everyone an A, which was just fine with Alice
4. Professor Fish gave everyone an A which was just fine with Alice
Q2) I found two of the restrictions of restrictive clause: 1. Does not usually modify proper nouns. 2. May not modify an entire proposition, only a head noun.
But I think the relative cluase in #3 modifies 'an A' while the non-restrictive one in #4 does the whole clause. What do you think?
Top answer
moon7296 1. The climbers who reached the summit were exhausted. 2.
- moon7296 1.
- The climbers who reached the summit were exhausted.
- 2.
- The climbers, who reached the summit, were exhausted.
- There's a short pause where the commas are but no change is needed in the intonation.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
16 Answers
0
moon72961. The climbers who reached the summit were exhausted.There's a short pause where the commas are but no change is needed in the intonation. The difference in meaning is that in sentence 2 all the climbers reached the summit, in sentence 1 only some of the climbers did.
2. The climbers, who reached the summit, were exhausted.
00
Thank you CB.
Actually, it's really difficult for me to understand why #2 is acceptable while #4 which has a comma is thought to be ungrammatical.
I have another example which says only a non-restrictive relative cluase is correct:
5. John, who is a linguist, was not impressed by Professor Fish's arguments.(0)
6. John who is a linguist, was not impressed by Prof
Actually, it's really difficult for me to understand why #2 is acceptable while #4 which has a comma is thought to be ungrammatical.
I have another example which says only a non-restrictive relative cluase is correct:
5. John, who is a linguist, was not impressed by Professor Fish's arguments.(0)
6. John who is a linguist, was not impressed by Prof
00
Hi,
I have another example which says only a non-restrictive relative cluase is correct:
5. John, who is a linguist, was not impressed by Professor Fish's arguments.(0)
6. John who is a linguist, was not impressed by Professor Fish's arguments.(X)
I'll just comment on #6, as it is a little tricky b
I have another example which says only a non-restrictive relative cluase is correct:
5. John, who is a linguist, was not impressed by Professor Fish's arguments.(0)
6. John who is a linguist, was not impressed by Professor Fish's arguments.(X)
I'll just comment on #6, as it is a little tricky b
00
CliveThe John who is a linguist (no comma) was not impressed by Professor Fish's arguments.Very good, Clive!
When you say 'the John', it alerts the listener to the fact that there is more than one John in the context.
Which John? The John who is a linguist.
00
Hi,
Ah.. then I think I can see #4 in the same way, can't I?
Professor Fish gave everyone an A which was just fine with Alice.”
Since, when I say 'Professor Fish, it alerts the listner to the fact there is more than one professor Fish in the context, #4 is wrong, right?
Ah.. then I think I can see #4 in the same way, can't I?
Professor Fish gave everyone an A which was just fine with Alice.”
Since, when I say 'Professor Fish, it alerts the listner to the fact there is more than one professor Fish in the context, #4 is wrong, right?
00
moon7296Professor Fish gave everyone an A which was just fine with Alice.The sentence is wrong. A comma is needed after an A because the relative clause is non-restrictive/non-defining.
CB
00
Hi,
No, no, no, You have a completely wrong understanding.
Simply saying someone's name does not mean that there is more than one person with that name in the context. Why would you think that?
Please reread what I wrote concerning the
No, no, no, You have a completely wrong understanding.
Simply saying someone's name does not mean that there is more than one person with that name in the context. Why would you think that?
Please reread what I wrote concerning the
00
Actually, there is my mistake; I should have chosen #3 which has a comma.
"Simply saying someone's name does not mean that there is more than one person with that name in the context."
Does this mean #3 does not apply the same rule?
"Simply saying someone's name does not mean that there is more than one person with that name in the context."
Does this mean #3 does not apply the same rule?
00
Hi,
Actually, there is my mistake; I should have chosen #3 which has a comma.
3. Professor Fish gave everyone an A, which was just fine with Alice.
"Simply saying someone's name does not mean that there is more than one person with that name in the cont
Actually, there is my mistake; I should have chosen #3 which has a comma.
3. Professor Fish gave everyone an A, which was just fine with Alice.
"Simply saying someone's name does not mean that there is more than one person with that name in the cont
00
Ah...
#3 and #5 which have the commas are the same case, and #4 and #6 are the same if I understood correctly.
#3 and #5 which have the commas are the same case, and #4 and #6 are the same if I understood correctly.
0
Related Questions