She had two sons who
Hello...
A: She had two sons who were studying law at university and a daughter who was still at high school.
The A above, does it mean...
B: She had only two sons and one daughter
C: We cannot be sure. She could have more than two sons and more than one daughter.
What should be native speaker's sense of English here?
CGEL(p 1065) seems to be saying C is correct.
But until now, I have believed B is correct.
There is no comma before who.
Top answer
There are no commas before the relative clauses, which means that they are defining/restrictive. This automatically means that she had at least three sons, of whom two were studying law, and at least two daughters, of whom one was at high school. Had she had only two sons and only one daughter, a comma would have been used before 'who'.
- There are no commas before the relative clauses, which means that they are defining/restrictive.
- This automatically means that she had at least three sons, of whom two were studying law, and at least two daughters, of whom one was at high school.
- Had she had only two sons and only one daughter, a comma would have been used before 'who'.
- CB
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
There are no commas before the relative clauses, which means that they are defining/restrictive. This automatically means that she had at least three sons, of whom two were studying law, and at least two daughters, of whom one was at high school.
Had she had only two sons and only one daughter, a comma would have been used before 'who'.
CB
0Also CGEL in the same page says that
D is correct and E is not.
I don"t know the logic.
D. She could hear her father in the next room, who was angrily complaining about the horrific telephone bill.
E. John came into the room, who looked just like Uncle Oswald.
0
Related Questions