Some important points I can realize

Question

Hello my friends.I have realized some important points about the position of things in English.1-) A relative clause should not create any ambiguity.If grammar does not give any clarity, the context should do.(That is the conflict in the house which we have been dealing with for a long time.)(As grammar, "which" can refer either "the house" or "the conflict" but the context tell us "the conflict".)If the context does not, grammar should do.(I am thinking about people in the garden who are smoking.)("Who" tells us what it refers to)2-) English native speakers do not like seeing any thing at the end separately.Even though they are correct gramatically, they do not use or prefer.I received an e-mail ,which I had been waiting for a long time, from my universityI will buy the gift, which I saw in the jewelry store, for his birthday.(I can easily say that I have almost never seen these kinds of sentences in English, especially ones having a relative clause being in the middle of the sentence and separating the sentence from the middle like the sentences above.)Instead of them, they prefer the following ones:I received ,from my university, an e-mail which I had been waiting for a long time.orFrom my university, I received an e-mail which I had been waiting for a long time.I will buy ,for his birthday, the gift which I saw in the jewelry store.orFor his birtday, I will buy the gift which I saw in the jewelry store.They are general opinions of people who have shared their ideas/thoughts with me until now.Do you find my opinion to be acceptable and relevant to English?

AlpheccaStars · Accepted Answer

I have realized some important points about the position of syntactic elements in English.

If grammar does not give any clarity, the context should do.

If the context does not, grammar should do.

Jawel2-) English native speakers do not like seeing anything at the end separately. Even though they are correct gramatically, they do not use or prefer this wording.

That is patently not true. There are many native sentences ending with separated adjuncts (optional elements).

You are talking about a specific case, that is, the position of nonessential (non-defining) relative clauses.

Have you studied essential (restrictive, defining) and nonessential (non-defining, non-restrictive) relative clauses? Here is a reference:

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/grammar/relative-clauses

Defining (restrictive) relative clauses are usually positioned with no commas directly after the noun they modify.

They are essential to the meaning of the sentence. For example, this is a preferred arrangement for a defining relative clause in your first sentence:

I received the e-mail that I had been waiting for for a long time from my university. (In American English, "that" signals a defining clause. Note the difference in the article used before the noun.)

If the clause is nonessential (non-defining), then the idea is expressed parenthetically (as an aside comment). However, given the context, the relative clause in your first sentence is likely a defining one. You are defining a particular email.

I received an e-mail from my university. I had been waiting for it for a long time.
I received an e-mail from my university which I had been waiting for for a long time.

Here is your second example as a defining (essential) relative clause:

I will buy the gift that I saw in the jewelry store for his birthday.

As a non-essential element:

I will buy a gift for his birthday. I saw some nice things in the jewelry store.

Some important points I can realize

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions