Relative Clauses

Question

Hi. I hope you're all doing well!I have some some questions and I'll start with defining relative clauses. I know how to use them correctly. But I was bored, so I thought I'd learn something more about them.Anyway, let's do it.We bought a house that is 200 years old. - In this case, the clause comes after the object of the sentence and we can't omit it.John met a woman I had been to school with. - Okay. In this sentence I could have used who or that. My question is, what's the difference between these two? In both cases the clause comes after the object and yet, in the first example I couldn't omit it.Please, if you're not a native speaker don't reply. Thanks.

BillJ · Accepted Answer

Dusan StojilkovicWe bought a house that is 200 years old. - In this case, the clause comes after the object of the sentence and we can't omit it.

The reason you can't omit "that" is because it is the subject of the relative clause: "the house is 200 years old". When a relative word like "that" is the subject of a relative clause it cannot be omitted. The fact that the relative clause comes after the object of the main clause is irrelevant.

Dusan StojilkovicJohn met a woman I had been to school with. - Okay. In this sentence I could have used who or that. My question is, what's the difference between these two? In both cases the clause comes after the object and yet, in the first example I couldn't omit it.

Again, it has nothing to do with the fact that the relative clause comes after the object. In this case, "a woman" is the complement of the preposition "with" in the relative clause: "I had been to school with a woman". Complements of prepositions in relative clauses are omissible.

BillJ

AlpheccaStars · Answer

Ok, let's try to change the first sentence:

We bought a house that is 200 years old.
X We bought a house 200 years old.

English does not allow the adjectives to come after the noun.
The way this sentence is written is:
We bought a 200-year-old house .

CalifJim · Answer

Dusan StojilkovicWe bought a house that is 200 years old. - In this case, the clause comes after the object of the sentence and we can't omit it.

You have the rule wrong. That fact that the clause comes after the object is irrelevant.
The fact that "that" is the subject of the relative clause means you can't omit it.
___________

As for "who" or "that" to refer to a person, there is no meaning difference. Many people feel that "that" is dehumanizing and prefer "who", but both are used.

CJ

Anonymous · Answer

OK. I took some time off because this is more advanced grammar than I am used to. Meanwhile I have found a great online guide that explains things clearly.

Anyways, I've got a question about non-essential clauses. I will try to explain the meaning of the following sentence, and I would like to hear your opinion if I'm wrong or not. The sentence is very simple so it's not going to be difficult to explain it.

I would like you to meet our auditor, who has worked here for three years. - In this case, the word 'our' tells us which auditor we are talking about. The second part of the sentence gives us extra information about the auditor. And here's the thing that interests me a lot. The meaning would be completely different if I had omitted the comma? I think it would mean that we are talking about some random person who has worked here for three years. Am I right about that? Also, I have noticed that native speakers, usually teenagers, do not use commas after such situations. I am talking about casual conversations, of course. But I understand the meaning though. Ops, another question came to my mind after writing the last sentence. Do they realize that a comma can change the entire meaning of a sentence?

Clive · Answer

Hi,

I've got a question about non-essential clauses. I will try to explain the meaning of the following sentence, and I would like to hear your opinion if I'm wrong or not. The sentence is very simple so it's not going to be difficult to explain it.

I would like you to meet our auditor, who has worked here for three years. - In this case, the word 'our' tells us which auditor we are talking about. The second part of the sentence gives us extra information about the auditor. And here's the thing that interests me a lot. The meaning would be completely different if I had omitted the comma? It would mean that we are talking about some random person who has worked here for three years.
It wouldn't mean a random person. It would mean 'an auditor who has worked here for 3 years.
It would also imply that there is at least one other auditor, and that he/she has not worked here for 3 years.

Am I right about that? Also, I have noticed that native speakers, usually teenagers, do not use commas after such situations. I am talking about casual conversations, of course. I assume you are talking about casual writing.

The more educated a person is, the more likely they are to use commas appropriately.

But I understand the meaning though. Ops, another question came to my mind after writing the last sentence. Do they realize that a comma can change the entire meaning of a sentence? If they are not educated well, probably not.

Clive

Anonymous · Answer

I have questions about which and that.

Let's say a friend of mine and I are looking at some animals. There are various animals but among them is only one horse.

Look at the horse which is black.... - Is that correct here too? I'm asking because it's only one horse there. Would it be grammatically incorrect if I used that?

CalifJim · Answer

Dusan StojilkovicLook at the horse which is black.... - Is that correct here too?

Both which and that are correct. Any time you can use which at the beginning of a relative clause you can use that instead. They are equivalent. That there is only one horse is irrelevant.

the horse [which / that] is black
the horses [which / that] are black
the fence [which / that] I fixed last week
the fences [which / that] I fixed last week
the fortune [which / that] Sam made in the stock market
the letter [which / that] Henry received
the letters [which / that] Henry received

CJ

Clive · Answer

Hi,

Let's say a friend of mine and I are looking at some animals. There are various animals but among them is only one horse.

Look at the horse which / that is black....

Let me just add that in "real English", a native speaker would simply say 'Look at the horse'.

Clive

Relative Clauses

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions