We have partnered with TradePub to bring you free industry magazines and resources - no coupons or credit cards required!
Visit: englishforums.tradepub.com
This question is Not Answered
|
|
|
|
|
|
paco2004
+
224098
Wed, 10 May 06 02:18 AM
Hello guys
I'm sorry I am always an asker, but could you help me? What I would like to know is the difference in the usage and the meaning between the simple "where" and "which is where".
(EX) The truth of the matter is that in the United States, which is where this debate really is about, nine states have already taken the same position that the Congress took in 1996, saying we should not be destroying human embryos.
Do you find it odd if I change "which is where" here into simple "where"? If simple "where" is OK, why do you think the writer uses "which is where" instead of "where"?
paco
Joined on
Wed, Nov 17 2004
Senior Member
4,095
In Japan today even dogs are learning how to bow-wow in English.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clive
+
224114
Wed, 10 May 06 05:08 AM
Hi Paco,
I'm sorry I am always an asker, but could you help me? What I would like to know is the difference in the usage and the meaning between the simple "where" and "which is where".
(EX) The truth of the matter is that in the United States, which is where this debate really is about, nine states have already taken the same position that the Congress took in 1996, saying we should not be destroying human embryos.
Do you find it odd if I change "which is where" here into simple "where"? If simple "where" is OK, why do you think the writer uses "which is where" instead of "where"?
Which is where has the effect of giving a definition. 'where' would just make it seem adjectival. eg
Compare I live in China, which is where the government tries to control population growth.
to I live in China, where the government tries to control population growth.
I don't like the clause which is where this debate really is about. It seems to confuse subject and place in an odd way. The subject of the debate is abortion, not the United States.The clause seems written rather carelessly to me. It's just a quick, casual interjection.
Best wishes, Clive
Joined on
Thu, Oct 28 2004
Canada
Veteran Member
29,665
El tango argentino es un pensamiento triste que se puede bailar (The tango argentino is a sad thought which can be danced) Enrique Santos Discépolo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Welkins2139
+
224117
Wed, 10 May 06 05:28 AM
i think
in the sentence above, " which " refers to the pervious clause and " where" functions as adverb.
can " where " refers to the previous clause ? I think not.
Joined on
Sun, Oct 9 2005
Full Member
414
Determination, Dedication and Devotion!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pinenut
+
224121
Wed, 10 May 06 05:38 AM
 Paco2004 wrote: | Hello guys
I'm sorry I am always an asker, but could you help me? What I would like to know is the difference in the usage and the meaning between the simple "where" and "which is where".
(EX) The truth of the matter is that in the United States, which is where this debate really is about, nine states have already taken the same position that the Congress took in 1996, saying we should not be destroying human embryos.
Do you find it odd if I change "which is where" here into simple "where"? If simple "where" is OK, why do you think the writer uses "which is where" instead of "where"?
paco |
|
(EX) The truth of the matter is that in the United States, which is the place where
this debate really is taking place, nine states have already taken the same
position that the Congress took in 1996, saying we should not be
destroying human embryos.
I made a few changes for clairity and hope you will more clearly see what the writer tried to convey. pinenut
Joined on
Fri, Oct 14 2005
Illinois, U.S.A.
Full Member
108
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
paco2004
+
224131
Wed, 10 May 06 06:34 AM
Hello guys Thank you for the replies. I picked up this sentence from CNN.com online where two Congressmen are talking about the issue of human cloning. The sentence is actually spoken by Mr Dennis Kucinich from Cleveland. | KUCINICH wrote: | | Well, you have other nations that, such as France and Germany, that have taken a position that is similar to what the U.S. Congress has enunciated. The truth of the matter is that in the United States, which is where this debate really is about, nine states have already taken the same position that the Congress took in 1996, saying we should not be destroying human embryos. |
|
I take "about" here as "going on", and I don't have any doubt about the grammatical credibility of the sentence. What I really want to know is whether you would feel any semantic difference if I replace "which is where" with simple "where" and which one you would feel more formal if there is no semantic difference. paco
|
|
|
|
|
Marius Hancu,
3 yr 200 days ago
I take about here as active/astir, you might know up and about
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grammar Geek
+
224279
Wed, 10 May 06 03:41 PM
Paco, I think the sentence would have exactly the same meaning. As you know, when people are speaking, they don't always compose their thoughts well.
The "which is where" makes the entire U.S. the location of the debate and keeps the comment parenthetical. If it were "in the U.S. where this debate is taking place" (without a comma before "where") it could be seen as restrictive, specifying that there is some location in the U.S. in the midst of this debate, but it's not universally taking place across the U.S.
Like:
In the U.S., where they drink more carbonated beverages than anywhere else, the rate of obesity is rising. Parenthetical - "which is where" could be used here.
In the U.S. where it snows for more than three months of the year, the residents are more likley to own three coats than elsewhere in the U.S. where there's less than one month with snow.
(And these dumb sentences are entirely made up. No statistics were actually employed.)
Joined on
Tue, Jan 10 2006
Veteran Member
19,683
Barbara, who answers in American English. My housekeeping skills attest to the truth of the second law of thermodynamics: Left to themselves, things get more and more random!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
paco2004
+
224373
Thu, 11 May 06 12:26 AM
| Grammar Geek wrote: | | The "which is where" makes the entire U.S. the location of the debate and keeps the comment parenthetical. If it were "in the U.S. where this debate is taking place" (without a comma before "where") it could be seen as restrictive, specifying that there is some location in the U.S. in the midst of this debate, but it's not universally taking place across the U.S. |
|
Hello Barb Thanks a lot for the detailed explanation. I really appreciate it very much because I cannot find no dictionary, no grammar book, no web site that explains this collocation of "which is where". I understand you are saying that you use the collocation "which is where" to make it clear that the where-relative clause is used as a non-restrictive clause. Am I right? And, if my understanding is right, does the sentence #4 in the example below sound to you a bit weird or too wordy? 1.) The airplanes bombed the rural areas, where enemies were most active. 2.) The airplanes bombed the rural areas, which is where enemies were most active. 3.) The airplanes bombed the rural areas where enemies were most active. 4.) The airplanes bombed the rural areas which is where enemies were most active. paco
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grammar Geek
+
224416
Thu, 11 May 06 04:11 AM
Yes, I agree. 1 & 2 are the same in meaning. You could infer that the enemies were active in all the rural areas. 3 is a restrictive - referring to particular areas amongst the all the rural areas. 4 is wrong (without the comma, which would make it the same as 2).
I had never thought about this construction before, but now that I have, I think we're in complete agreement.
|
|
|
|
|
|