0
Hans51 Posted 6 years ago
Grammar

, which / which

Rio is a Brazilian city, which has a lot of attraction.


Is the sentence grammatically wrong?

Should it be like ‘Rio is a Brazilian city which has a lot of attractions’ without a comma?

I think that the one with a comma and an additional information for the city is also fine to use.


What do you native English speakers think? Thank you so much as usual in advance.

  

Top answer

For some reason, I could not change my original question and the original sentence should be ‘Rio is a Brazilian city, which has a lot of attractions’.

— Hans51

  • For some reason, I could not change my original question and the original sentence should be ‘Rio is a Brazilian city, which has a lot of attractions’.
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.

4 Answers
0

For some reason, I could not change my original question and the original sentence should be

‘Rio is a Brazilian city, which has a lot of attractions’.

0
0

Right, attractions.

Hans51Is the sentence grammatically wrong?

Yes, if you mean what you almost certainly intend.

Hans51Should it be like ‘Rio is a Brazilian city which has a lot of attractions’ without a comma?

Yes, and in my dialect, "that" is far more natural, to the point where I would call "which" wrong.

0
0
Hans51Should it be like ‘Rio is a Brazilian city which has a lot of attractions’ without a comma?

Yes. Both which and that are correct. However, if you leave out the indefinite article (a Brazilian city), only which with a comma is possible: Rio, which is

0
0

Rio is a Brazilian city which / that has a lot of attractions.

I can't see any reason for saying that "which has a lot of attraction" is a supplementary (non-restrictive) relative clause, so I would omit the comma, as shown.

In the integrated (defining) construction only, you could replace "which" with "that".

0

Related Questions