Modifier Help

Question

I know the following sentence is not correct because the adjective clause does not immediately follow the noun it modifies:

We first learned about Gyrodyne shortly after the favorable decision from the Court of Claims, which caused Gyrodyne's stock to more than double.

In other words, someone could read this sentence as meaning that the Court of Claims caused the stock to double and that is not correct. The decision caused the stock to double.

I suggested the following alternative:

We first learned about Gyrodyne shortly after the favorable decision from the Court of Claims, an event that caused Gyrodyne's stock to more than double.

My business partner wants me to explain why "an event that" makes it correct. I think "an event that" is certainly incrementally more clear, but I can't explain why it is correct. I am not even entirely sure it is correct.

I tried to figure this out with internet searches to no avail. Any help would be appreciated!

(I recognize that I could easily separate this into two sentences to make it correct, but I want to know the answer to this)

THANKS!

CalifJim · Accepted Answer

It's so unlikely that a court of claims could on its own cause stock to double that it is unnecessary, in my opinion, to reword the original. It certainly would have been the decision that caused the doubling of the stock. I also see the which-clause as restrictive, so I would not use a comma. You also have a very interesting split infinitive there!

Adjective clauses don't always have to follow nouns directly, especially when common sense disambiguates the situation.

Nevertheless, your "an event that" forms an appositive, and that's grammatical, if that's your concern.

CJ

Anonymous · Answer

I know the following sentence is not correct because the adjective clause does not immediately follow the noun it modifies:

We first learned about Gyrodyne shortly after the favorable decision from the Court of Claims, which caused Gyrodyne's stock to more than double.

In other words, someone could read this sentence as meaning that the Court of Claims caused the stock to double and that is not correct. The decision caused the stock to double.

But it is correct. It means that the favorable decision from the Court of Claims caused the stock to more than double. The clause which caused Gyrodyne's stock to more than double is known as a relative clause in which the relative word is which. Very often a relative word has a single-word noun phrase as antecedent; but in your example the antecedent of which is the whole of the larger noun phrase the favorable decision from the Court of Claims. So no cause for concern; the relative clause does immediately follow the noun phrase it modifies and the sentence is perfectly correct and understandable.

We first learned about Gyrodyne shortly after the favorable decision from the Court of Claims, an event that caused Gyrodyne's stock to more than double.

This is an equally correct relative construction and just another way of saying the same thing. It is slightly different grammatically though because the two noun phrases the favorable decision from the Court of Claims and an event are appositive (they refer to the same thing). The second NP an event modifies the first NP the favorable decision from the Court of Claims, and they combine to form one large noun phrase the favorable decision from the Court of Claims, an event, the whole of which is the antecedent for the relative word that. The relative clause is that caused Gyrodyne's stock to more than double.

Incidentally, in your first example the relative clause is of the integrated (or restrictive) kind, so a comma is not required before which. Your second example is also integrated so you are correct to omit the comma before that.

Hope that helps.

Modifier Help

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions