0
Anonymous Posted 13 years ago
Grammar
"that" introduces a non-identifying relative clause?
"that" introduces a non-identifying relative clause?
There is a sentence from 'The Scarlet Letter': He thrust aside the vestment, that hitherto had always covered it even from the professional eye.
I think this is a non-identifying clause. But is it true that in a non-identifying clause,"which" is used instead of "that"? How to explain this "that" here?
If there is any language errorr in my question,please point then out.
thanks
There is a sentence from 'The Scarlet Letter': He thrust aside the vestment, that hitherto had always covered it even from the professional eye.
I think this is a non-identifying clause. But is it true that in a non-identifying clause,"which" is used instead of "that"? How to explain this "that" here?
If there is any language errorr in my question,please point then out.
thanks
Top answer
Anonymous I think this is a non-identifying clause. No, it's an identifying clause. The rules for punctuation were different at the time this novel was written (1850).
- Anonymous I think this is a non-identifying clause.
- No, it's an identifying clause.
- The rules for punctuation were different at the time this novel was written (1850).
- In modern English we no longer use a comma in that situation.
- CJ
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 Answers
0
AnonymousI think this is a non-identifying clause.No, it's an identifying clause. The rules for punctuation were different at the time this novel was written (1850). In modern English we no longer use a comma in that situation.
CJ
0
Related Questions