0
Zazzex Posted 16 years ago
Grammar
Restrictive/Non-Restrictive Relative Usage
Hello,
I am reading The Elements of Style, one of the most prominent works of teaching writing.
In the book, I see something like the followings.
A proposal to amend the Sherman Act, which has been variously judged, became the national issue.
This leaves the readers wondering whether it is a proposal or the Act that has been variously judged. So the book recommends as follows:
A proposal, which has been variously judged, to amend the Sherman Act became the national issue.
So far, I understand well.
But, what if I want to use restrictive relative, with which I need to remove the comma between the antecedent, a proposal, and the relative, which?
In this case, is the following correct?
A proposal which has been variously judged, to amend the Sherman Act became the national issue.
Do I remove the first comma and leave the second comma to enable a restrictive relative sense?
Please try to disregard meaning, it does not have to be this example.
Just trying to figure out grammar-wise not meaning-wise.
For example,
5. I had a dog, which suffered to death because of loneliness, after moving to Italy.
6. I had a dog which suffered to death because of loneliness after moving to Italy.
#5 indicates in a non-restrictive relative form with commas:
I possibly have owned more than one dog in various periods of my life, and only one died after I moved to Italy
In #6, I want to make #6 indicates:
I had only one dog that died after I, not the dog, moved to Italy, but in a restrictive relative sense. Here how should I apply commas?
To my knowledge, for a restrictive relative, I should remove commas,
So, I did that, but then it looks like the dog, not I, moved to Italy.
So, in this case, do I remove only the first comma but leave the second comma as follows?
7. I had a dog which suffered to death because of loneliness, after moving to Italy.
In restrictive relative clauses, is it ok to remove the first comma between the antecedent and the relative but to leave the second comma ending the relative clause?
Thanks a lot.
I am reading The Elements of Style, one of the most prominent works of teaching writing.
In the book, I see something like the followings.
A proposal to amend the Sherman Act, which has been variously judged, became the national issue.
This leaves the readers wondering whether it is a proposal or the Act that has been variously judged. So the book recommends as follows:
A proposal, which has been variously judged, to amend the Sherman Act became the national issue.
So far, I understand well.
But, what if I want to use restrictive relative, with which I need to remove the comma between the antecedent, a proposal, and the relative, which?
In this case, is the following correct?
A proposal which has been variously judged, to amend the Sherman Act became the national issue.
Do I remove the first comma and leave the second comma to enable a restrictive relative sense?
Please try to disregard meaning, it does not have to be this example.
Just trying to figure out grammar-wise not meaning-wise.
For example,
5. I had a dog, which suffered to death because of loneliness, after moving to Italy.
6. I had a dog which suffered to death because of loneliness after moving to Italy.
#5 indicates in a non-restrictive relative form with commas:
I possibly have owned more than one dog in various periods of my life, and only one died after I moved to Italy
In #6, I want to make #6 indicates:
I had only one dog that died after I, not the dog, moved to Italy, but in a restrictive relative sense. Here how should I apply commas?
To my knowledge, for a restrictive relative, I should remove commas,
So, I did that, but then it looks like the dog, not I, moved to Italy.
So, in this case, do I remove only the first comma but leave the second comma as follows?
7. I had a dog which suffered to death because of loneliness, after moving to Italy.
In restrictive relative clauses, is it ok to remove the first comma between the antecedent and the relative but to leave the second comma ending the relative clause?
Thanks a lot.
Top answer
Hello Zaz, It might be easier to change the examples slightly. To make the clause restrictive, remove both commas: 1. I bought a dog which died of loneliness in Italy.
- Hello Zaz, It might be easier to change the examples slightly.
- To make the clause restrictive, remove both commas: 1.
- I bought a dog which died of loneliness in Italy.
- Cf.
- 2.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
3 Answers
0
Hello Zaz,
It might be easier to change the examples slightly.
To make the clause restrictive, remove both commas:
1. I bought a dog which died of loneliness in Italy.
Cf.
2. I bought a dog, which died of loneliness, in Italy.
(You bought a dog in Italy. It died of loneliness somewhere.)
Cf. also
3. I bought a dog, which died
It might be easier to change the examples slightly.
To make the clause restrictive, remove both commas:
1. I bought a dog which died of loneliness in Italy.
Cf.
2. I bought a dog, which died of loneliness, in Italy.
(You bought a dog in Italy. It died of loneliness somewhere.)
Cf. also
3. I bought a dog, which died
00
Thanks for reply.
What about this?
A proposal, which has been variously judged, to amend the Sherman Act became the national issue.
If I remove both commas to make it restrictive, then its meaning becomes different as "to amend" is not linked to "a proposal."
Or is there some way I need to learn?
Or can I just remove the fir
What about this?
A proposal, which has been variously judged, to amend the Sherman Act became the national issue.
If I remove both commas to make it restrictive, then its meaning becomes different as "to amend" is not linked to "a proposal."
Or is there some way I need to learn?
Or can I just remove the fir
00
If you remove the commas that make it nonrestrictive (and by the way, if you did so, I would also change "which" to "that" but I understand that this interpretation of the which/that rule is not shared by everyone), you are referring to the proposal that was variously judged, in contrast to a proposal that was universally liked, I guess, or universally hated.
There's no good way to show
There's no good way to show
0
Related Questions