0
Anonymous Posted 17 years ago
Grammar
Restrictive clause and the need for an article?
Hi. Please tell me if my interpretation of things (the things involved) is correct. I used these examples sentences in a thread I started named "There more definite way to make choice to use past perfect?"
1. He met people who had been rebuked/was rebuked.
2. He met people who had done the work/did the work.
I think CalifJim corrected example sentence 2 to include the definite article "the" before the word "people" in the above-mentioned thread but didn't make the correction for the example sentence 1 (but did correct the singular "was" to the plural "were" - to which I agree and appreciate).
This is what I think.
He met people who had been rebuked. -- the way it is, it means he met some people who had been rebuked, not all.
He met the people who had done the work. -- the way I see it, it means he met all the people who had done the work.
Could we mean this as regard to the number 2 sentence?
He met people who had done the work. -- He met some people who had done the work??
1. He met people who had been rebuked/was rebuked.
2. He met people who had done the work/did the work.
I think CalifJim corrected example sentence 2 to include the definite article "the" before the word "people" in the above-mentioned thread but didn't make the correction for the example sentence 1 (but did correct the singular "was" to the plural "were" - to which I agree and appreciate).
This is what I think.
He met people who had been rebuked. -- the way it is, it means he met some people who had been rebuked, not all.
He met the people who had done the work. -- the way I see it, it means he met all the people who had done the work.
Could we mean this as regard to the number 2 sentence?
He met people who had done the work. -- He met some people who had done the work??
Top answer
You are pretty much correct with a slight shade of meaning. For the second sentence, I wouldn't say 'all'. It is a little confusing.
- You are pretty much correct with a slight shade of meaning.
- For the second sentence, I wouldn't say 'all'.
- It is a little confusing.
- It means the specific people but not necessarily all of them.
- We might use it casually in this way.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
2 Answers
0
You are pretty much correct with a slight shade of meaning. For the second sentence, I wouldn't say 'all'. It is a little confusing. It means the specific people but not necessarily all of them. We might use it casually in this way. 'I met the people who built your house.' In this case, it probably would be referring to the general contractor but not necessarily every plumber, electrician,
00
Your interpretations are correct.
I don't think you wanted to imply that someone did the work, and then someone else did the same work, and then someone else did the same work, and so on. Then you could have people who had done the work, as in people who had taken the test. That's why I think it's more idiomatic, absent any other context, to say the peopl
I don't think you wanted to imply that someone did the work, and then someone else did the same work, and then someone else did the same work, and so on. Then you could have people who had done the work, as in people who had taken the test. That's why I think it's more idiomatic, absent any other context, to say the peopl
0
Related Questions