0
Ahn Posted 19 years ago
Grammar

Please explain this

Last month, he began a new job overseeing the design of factory production lines at Powerchip Semiconductor, a chip maker in this suburb just southwest of . As a deputy director, he said he received stock options, which are rare in , has a secretary and is climbing the top rungs of management at the company of 6,500 employees.



What does 'which' refer to here? 'stock options'? or 'the fact that one receives stock options'?

  

Top answer

stock options. If it were the fact that he receives stock options, it would say 'which is rare in Japan'

— Nona the brit

  • stock options.
  • If it were the fact that he receives stock options, it would say 'which is rare in Japan'
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.

14 Answers
0
stock options.

If it were the fact that he receives stock options, it would say 'which is rare in Japan'
0
0
I think the writer is referring to the "stock options"

Ciao,

IF [A]
0
0
Then, if it is written without comma before which, does it make the meaning of this sentence change?
0
0
No, you should always have a comma before which. The only way to change the meaning is to change 'are' for 'is'.
0
0
I see. Thank you very much!
0
0
Then, if it is written without comma before which, does it make the meaning of this sentence change?
Stock options which are rare in Japan (no comma) would be in contrast to those stock options which are not rare in Japan. It doesn't seem likely that this meaning could have been intended.

(There is some difference of opinion about whether
0
0
Thank you CalifJim.

If there is some difference of opinion about it, can there be an opinion that 'Stock options which are in Japan'(using restrictive which) is wrong as it doens't have comma?

I didn't know that there are different views on this because all my grammar book say that there are restrictive and non-restritive which as you said and that restrictive which
0
0
I assume you meant to write "stock options which are rare in Japan" for your example of restrictive which. There is nothing wrong with it grammatically, but, as I explained above, it's not likely what the original quote meant.

The idea that restrictive which could be wrong if it didn't have a comma makes no sense. Restrictive which never has a comma.
0
0
So the veiw that which should be used without comma is premised on the assumption that there should not be a restrictive which, right?

I wonder whether they generally use restrictive which in USA or most of them replace it with 'that'.
0
0
I think you may have got some misconceptions during the course of this thread.

View I about which. (Opinion I) (The same as your textbook)

a. You MAY use "no-comma which" for a restrictive relative construction.
b. You MAY use that for a restrictive relative construction.
c. You use "comma which" for a non-restrictive relative cons
0

Related Questions