Subordinate clause following a pronoun with a comma
Hi. I have difficulty knowing having a non-restrictive (subordinate?) clause after what seems to be a pronoun like "this" and "them." Could you help me with these individual cases?
1. I feel it is awkward to have a subordinate clause (is it?) that refer to the pronoun "this" in this sentence. Should I reword it? If yes, how?
He shouldn't have told you this, which was meant to remain a secret.
2. I also feel it is awkward to have a subordinate clause (is it?) that refer to the pronoun "them" in this sentence. I think it is not incorrect. Could we replace it with the word "those" and do away with comma?
He was surprised to see them, who were at the meeting yesterday.
I think nos. 3 and 4 are correct. What do you think? I think the underlined part in no. 3 modifies the main clause as a whole, whereas no. 4 modifies the object.
3. He was able to lift a 100-pound weight, which he wasn't able to do a few months ago.
4. He was able to lift a 100-pound weight, which is made of steel.
Top answer
1. He shouldn't have told you this, which was meant to remain a secret. -- No grammatical problem.
— Mister Micawber
1.
He shouldn't have told you this, which was meant to remain a secret.
-- No grammatical problem.
this.
'.
Free · every Monday
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
1. He shouldn't have told you this, which was meant to remain a secret. -- No grammatical problem. A speaker would make two sentences: '...this. It was meant...'.
2. He was surprised to see them, who were at the meeting yesterday.-- Yes, too awkward to occur. '...them. They were at...'.
3. He was able to lift a 100-pound weight, which he wasn't able to d