|
|
|
|
|
|
|
awesome95
#21864 Mon, 09 Feb 04 12:28 PM
|
|
This drink is designed for weightlifters, who need the extra energy.
This drink is designed for weightlifters that need the extra energy.
I always see the comma before who as needless.
Can anyone please extrapulate on this, please?
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined on
Wed, Jan 28 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rommie
#21866 Mon, 09 Feb 04 12:53 PM
|
|
Sentence 1 tells you that the drink is designed for people who lift weights. As an aside, it also casually mentions the opinion that these people may need extra energy.
Sentence 2 tells you that the drink is designed for people who meet two simultaneous criteria, these being (1) they must lift weights, and (2) they must need the extra energy. Anyone not meeting both criteria simultaneously is not a person for whom the drink was designed.
Rommie
|
|
|
|
|
Joined on
Mon, Jan 26 2004
Earth orbit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
daniel salas
#21913 Mon, 09 Feb 04 08:06 PM
|
|
in my opinion the "," make the sentences different,without the comma they will mean the same
|
|
|
|
|
Joined on
Sun, Nov 30 2003
caracas
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
awesome95
#21927 Mon, 09 Feb 04 09:59 PM
|
|
I was not aware that it had to do with criteria meeting.
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
suzi
#22013 Tue, 10 Feb 04 05:35 PM
|
|
I think you are missing the main problem, I would say it is not standard to use the second wording, at all! It is usual to use "who" for people in that sort of context. You dont need the comma either!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined on
Wed, Jan 7 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
awesome95
#22105 Wed, 11 Feb 04 09:29 AM
|
|
Accrding to a gramma book, I don't need a comma?
I come across a lot of sentences, which don't have commas before who or which(as in this sentence), and I consider them wrong according to a grammar book's rules.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
awesome95
#22106 Wed, 11 Feb 04 09:30 AM
|
|
I have a good grammar book, but, to be honest, I can't really use it in comma usage, because I never know what qualifies as an independent clause or anyhitng like that!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
maj
#22107 Wed, 11 Feb 04 09:37 AM
|
|
I am going for a walk, would you join me? Have I used the comma correctly?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined on
Mon, Mar 31 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rommie
#22120 Wed, 11 Feb 04 10:58 AM
|
|
Listen guys - this is a difference between British English and American English. Your grammar book will depend on where it was published. (And Microsoft Word's grammar checker will use the American rules even if you tell it you live in Britain, because it's stupid).
What I said in my earlier post on this thread is correct FOR AMERICA, which I shall repeat here, hopefully more clearly -
"That" (without a comma) is used to connect two clauses, where the clause on the left is incomplete without the clause on the right. For example, as in "This is the house that Jack built".
"Which," and "who," (with a required comma) is used to connect two clauses, where the clause on the left is complete in itself, and where the clause on the right merely provides additional descriptive information. For example "This is my house, which I built".
In the first form, "that" is used for both people and things. In the second form, "which," is used for things and "who," is used for people.
On the other side of the Atlantic, the rules are different. In Britain, "which" and "that" are completely interchangable in this context, as are "who" and "that". In Britain, the difference between the two meanings is carried ENTIRELY by the comma.
I gave you the American rules because the American rules will be correct everywhere in the world, even in Britain, whereas the British rules would be considered incorrect in America.
Rommie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|