0
Navitasan Posted 10 years ago
Grammar
Someone else who...
Which is correct:
1) I saw someone standing in front of the door and someone else who was running down the street.
2) I saw someone standing in front of the door and someone else, who was running down the street.
The clause is non-restrictive (non-defining) so technically, the second one should be considered correct and the first one incorrect, but it seems to me that in practice both work.
Gratefully,
Navi.
1) I saw someone standing in front of the door and someone else who was running down the street.
2) I saw someone standing in front of the door and someone else, who was running down the street.
The clause is non-restrictive (non-defining) so technically, the second one should be considered correct and the first one incorrect, but it seems to me that in practice both work.
Gratefully,
Navi.
Top answer
navitasan The clause is non-restrictive (non-defining) ... meaning that you hear it that way. There is no objective proof of this claim.
- navitasan The clause is non-restrictive (non-defining) ...
- meaning that you hear it that way.
- There is no objective proof of this claim.
- ) navitasan it seems to me that in practice both work It happens.
- Some relative clauses can be interpreted both ways.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
5 Answers
0
navitasanThe clause is non-restrictive (non-defining)... meaning that you hear it that way. There is no objective proof of this claim. (I hear it as restrictive.)
navitasanit seems to me that in practice both workIt happens. Some relative clauses can be interpreted both ways. There is no need for alarm.
00
Thank you very much, Jim.
So if you read:
I saw someone standing in front of the door and someone else who was running down the street.
You would think that there were at least two people who were running down the street?
Gratefully,
Navi.
PS. No need for alarm?!!! Are you joking?!!!! I won't be able to sleep for
So if you read:
I saw someone standing in front of the door and someone else who was running down the street.
You would think that there were at least two people who were running down the street?
Gratefully,
Navi.
PS. No need for alarm?!!! Are you joking?!!!! I won't be able to sleep for
00
navitasanSo if you read: I saw someone standing in front of the door and someone else who was running down the street.You would think that there were at least two people who were running down the street?The words "someone" and "someone else" alone would lead me to conclude there were two people. One standing, one running.
It seems I'm
00
navitasan2) I saw someone standing in front of the door and someone else, who was running down the street.My non-native understanding tells me the comma is redundant here. That "someone else" may be anybody, someone not determined, described, etc. You've got a set of somebody's to choose from. To choose the only one from that group of somebody's
00
AnonymousThat "someone else" may be anybody, someone not determined, described, etc.Your explanation sounds reasonable.
CJ
0
Related Questions