Is the clause in this statement restrictive or non-restrictive?

Question

Hi there, I am racking my brains trying to work out whether the following sentence needs commas or not. Can someone please help me?
"Many celebrities who I am too discreet to name have hired me to play at their weddings".
Or, is it, "Many celebrities, who I am too discreet to name. have hired me to play at their weddings"?

Fivejedjon · Accepted Answer

leemiguel"Many celebrities who I am too discreet to name have hired me to play at their weddings".

The people who have hired me are many-celebrities-who-I-am-too-discreet-to-name.

leemiguel"Many celebrities, who I am too discreet to name. have hired me to play at their weddings"

The people who have hired me are many celebrities. I am giving you the additional information that I am too discreet to name them.

Leemiguel · Answer

Thank you for your response. I'm still not sure which meaning I am trying to convey; I always find sentences like this difficult.

Leemiguel · Answer

Can anyone else shed light on this, as well?

Clive · Answer

I agree with what has been said. But let me try another approach.

Both are right, with different meanings.

"Many celebrities, whom I am too discreet to name, have hired me to play at their weddings".
What you really want to stress is"Many celebrities have hired me to play at their weddings".
The fact that you are too discreet to name them is just parenthetical, and not really important..

"Many celebrities whom I am too discreet to name have hired me to play at their weddings".
Here, it sounds like I need this extra information in order to identify the celebrities.
Imagine there are two groups of celebrities standing in the room. One group are celebrities whom I am too discreet to name. Another group is celebrities whom I am not too discreet to name.
And I am saying to you, 'I mean the first group, not the second!'
This is a rather odd and unlikely meaning to intend.

But, it's your choice. Which meaning do you intend?

Clive

Leemiguel · Answer

Thank you so much, Clive. That has totally cleared up my confusion. It's actually the first meaning which I was trying to convey.

Anonymous · Answer

Hi. Please help.

You wrote:

I agree with what has been said. But let me try another approach.

Both are right, with different meanings.

As to the second sentence of your response above, is it correct to say that the part "with different meanings," which comes after a comma is parenthetical and not the main part which is meant to be stressed, but is something (like information) extra?

Also, as to the example sentence below, would the restrictiveness (or essentiality?) of the part underlined, which I think is an adverbial phrase, be lost and become a sentence with a different meaning if the part underlined is moved to the front of the sentence? Let's assume the part underlined "carrying a backpack" is essential to the sentence. Thank you for your help in advance.

He went home carrying a backpack.

(moving the part to the front of the sentence)

Carrying a backpack, he went home.

Clive · Answer

Please help.

You wrote:

I agree with what has been said. But let me try another approach.

Both are right, with different meanings.

As to the second sentence of your response above, is it correct to say that the part "with different meanings," which comes after a comma is parenthetical and not the main part which is meant to be stressed, but is something (like information) extra? Yes.

Also, as to the example sentence below, would the restrictiveness (or essentiality?) of the part underlined, which I think is an adverbial phrase, be lost and become a sentence with a different meaning if the part underlined is moved to the front of the sentence? Yes

Let's assume the part underlined "carrying a backpack" is essential to the sentence. Thank you for your help in advance.

He went home carrying a backpack.

(moving the part to the front of the sentence)

He went home, carrying a backpack makes the last part seem parenthetical.
.
Carrying a backpack, he went home. To me, putting the phrase at the front gives it more importance than putting it at the end.

Clive

Anonymous · Answer

Hi. Thank you so much. I still have a question in my mind. I wish you could help me. Could we move the underlined phrases to the front of the sentences assuming there are restrictive (essential) to the sentences, and could either phrase retain its restrictiveness and either sentence have the same meaning, although there might be a difference in the degree of emphasis each phrase might have in either sentence? (I am not sure I wrote the question to correctly reflect what I wanted to say. It's hard to write the one that correctly reflects what you had in mind sometimes.) Thank you again for your help in advance.

He went to the park in the morning.
He went home today.

Clive · Answer

He went to the park in the morning.
He went home today.

Yes, fine to move these phrases to the front..

I wouldn't use the terms 'restrictive' or 'essential' to describe these. I don't understand what you mean by these terms in sentences like these.

Clive

Anonymous · Answer

Hi. Thank you again. I think we can set up a context whereby the phrases like 'in the morning" and "today" can be considered essential to the meaning of the sentence each of them is in. For example, if a person doesn't like mornings to jog around the park, but if for some reason today he was seen jogging in the morning, I believe the phrase "in the morning" can be essential to the sentence.

Would you take a look at this? At the same time, would you help me with the question in parentheses. Again, thank your very much for your help in advance.

To John Doe mornings weren't his favorite times to jog around the park. But for some reason today he was seen jogging around the park in the morning. It (Could I use "that" here?) surprised everyone.

Is the clause in this statement restrictive or non-restrictive?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions