0
JJDouglas Posted 10 years ago
Grammar

Is this phrase beginning with "when" non-restrictive?

"He is now happily married to Emily, whom he married in 2009, when they were both 26."

I can't decide whether "when they were both 26" is restrictive or non-restrictive and therefore if it needs a comma preceding it or not.
  

Top answer

When doesn't begin a relative clause, so when they were both 26 is neither restrictive nor non-restrictive. The comma is optional, but as the clause it begins is very short, I would leave the comma out. CB

— Cool Breeze

  • When doesn't begin a relative clause, so when they were both 26 is neither restrictive nor non-restrictive.
  • The comma is optional, but as the clause it begins is very short, I would leave the comma out.
  • CB
Free · every Monday

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.

10 Answers
0
When doesn't begin a relative clause, so when they were both 26 is neither restrictive nor non-restrictive. The comma is optional, but as the clause it begins is very short, I would leave the comma out.

CB
0
0
JJDouglasin 2009, when they were both 26.
No comma. Subordinate clauses after the main clause are not set off by commas. A comma comes into the picture only if the subordinate clause comes before the main clause.

When they were 26, they got married.
They got married when they were 26.

The same principle applies in your sen
0
0
A comma is acceptable in BrE.
0
0
fivejedjonA comma is acceptable in BrE.
You're talking about the OP's example, I suppose? Or my two sentences? Or both?

CJ
0
0
I was talking about the OP's example.

In your examples,

When they were 26, they got married.
They got married when they were 26.

we'd use a comma in the first but not normally in the second.
0
0
But I don't think "whom he married in 2009" is the main clause. I think my confusion comes from the fact that it's a subordinate clause after a non-restrictive clause.
0
0
JJDouglasI think my confusion comes from the fact that it's a subordinate clause after a non-restrictive clause.
0
0
I
Cool BreezeHe is now happily married to Emily is a main clause and consequently neither restrictive nor non-restrictive.
I understand that. I'm talking about "whom he married in 2009". That's a non-restrictive clause, right?
0
0
JJDouglasThat's a non-restrictive clause, right?
Right. - CB
0
0
So it is a subordinate clause following a non-restrictive clause?
0

Related Questions