Navigating landscapes that are varied, that offer trials and occasional conflicts, is more helpful to creativity than hanging out in landscapes that pose no challenge to our senses and our minds.
Think about something that you bought that you never ended up using.
My book says that that are varied and , that offer trials and occasional conflicts, modify landscapes respectively in the first sentence.
And it also says that that you bought and that you never ended up using modify something respectively as well in the second sentence.
In the first sentence, there are commas in the second that-clause, but there is no comma in the second that-clause in the second sentence.
The book says the two that-clauses modify the antecedent respectively and then why are there commas or no commas in the second that-clause?
Although I got an answer here, I am still confused. Please help me out again.
Thank you so much as usual in advance.
Hans51 Navigating landscapes that are varied, that offer trials and occasional conflicts, is more helpful to creativity than hanging out in landscapes that pose no challenge to our senses and our minds. " are a coordination of relative clauses modifying "landscapes". Since the two relative clauses are separate constituents within the coordination, a comma is used to separate them.
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
Hans51Navigating landscapes that are varied, that offer trials and occasional conflicts, is more helpful to creativity than hanging out in landscapes that pose no challenge to our senses and our minds.
Yes: "that are varied" and "that offer trials ..." are a coordination of relative clauses modifying "landscapes". Since the two relative clauses are separate