0
Xczzhh Posted 17 years ago
Grammar
Which one should be the antecedent?
Dear speakers of English. I have a question concerning English relative clause which had long been my headache.
Here is my sentence: He is the son of Mike, who is my best friend.
My question is: which one should be the antecedent of the italicised who, son or Mike?
Actually the overall structure in question is:
" NP1+Preposition ". (NP= Noun Phrase, e.g., the son, Mike, etc.)
Now the question is, which NP is the Relative Clause modifying, NP1 or NP2 ?
PS: the italicised sentence I wrote in the begining ( I have a question concerning English relative clause which had long been my headache) also has a similar pattern. It was my intention that "a question" rather than "English relative clause" be the antecedent of "which". Am I correct?
Thank you very much in advance!
Here is my sentence: He is the son of Mike, who is my best friend.
My question is: which one should be the antecedent of the italicised who, son or Mike?
Actually the overall structure in question is:
" NP1+Preposition ". (NP= Noun Phrase, e.g., the son, Mike, etc.)
Now the question is, which NP is the Relative Clause modifying, NP1 or NP2 ?
PS: the italicised sentence I wrote in the begining ( I have a question concerning English relative clause which had long been my headache) also has a similar pattern. It was my intention that "a question" rather than "English relative clause" be the antecedent of "which". Am I correct?
Thank you very much in advance!
Top answer
I have a question concerning English relative clauses, which have long been my headache. He is the son of Mike, who is my best friend. It remains grammatically ambiguous in the second sentence, while the verb form ('have') reveals the antecedent in the first sentence.
- I have a question concerning English relative clauses, which have long been my headache.
- He is the son of Mike, who is my best friend.
- It remains grammatically ambiguous in the second sentence, while the verb form ('have') reveals the antecedent in the first sentence.
- If common sense does not reveal the antecedent, then proximity will determine it.
- If the nearest noun is not the intended antecedent, the sentence should be recast.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
4 Answers
0
I have a question concerning English relative clauses, which have long been my headache.
He is the son of Mike, who is my best friend.
It remains grammatically ambiguous in the second sentence, while the verb form ('have') reveals the antecedent in the first sentence. If common sense does not reveal the antecedent, then proximity will determine it. If the nearest noun
He is the son of Mike, who is my best friend.
It remains grammatically ambiguous in the second sentence, while the verb form ('have') reveals the antecedent in the first sentence. If common sense does not reveal the antecedent, then proximity will determine it. If the nearest noun
00
Thank you, Mr. Micawber for your prompt reply.
You have corrected my original sentence, which, I confess, really was not appropriate in the grammatical tense. So what if I write the sentence as:
I have a question concerning English relative clauses which HAS long been my headache.
In which I have taken off the comma and changed "have" to "has". So NOW,
You have corrected my original sentence, which, I confess, really was not appropriate in the grammatical tense. So what if I write the sentence as:
I have a question concerning English relative clauses which HAS long been my headache.
In which I have taken off the comma and changed "have" to "has". So NOW,
00
0
Dear Mr. Micawber, thank you so much for the clarification. Have a good day. 
0
Related Questions