Search results for 'tag:Commas tag:Relative pronouns' matching tags 'Commas' and 'Relative pronouns'

Re: , that/which are intended to help smokers quit

Cool Breeze — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 20:53:34 GMT

Angliholic
Besides World No Tobacco Day, there are several similar holidays, such as No Smoking Day in the UK and the Great American Smokeout, that/which are intended to help smokers quit.

Hi all

Both pronouns are possible, as Kooyeen says. The comma has nothing to do with the relative pronoun but is used because such as No Smoking Day in the UK and the Great American Smokeout is set off with commas. No grammatical rule prevents the use of a comma before that if something else requires it. The same applies to that when it is a conjunction:

I knew that he had read the book.
But: I knew that he had bought the book, that he had read it and that he had thrown it away after that.

Re: which/that/who

Newguest — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 22:01:09 GMT

Kooyeen

1 - I don't think you can use "what", and for some reason I don't like "which". Also, I think that "everything" should be written separately, "every thing".
2 - You can leave it out. I don't know if it's used as a relative pronoun or a conjunction, though.
3 - With the comma "which" is ok, but not "that". If you use "that" without the comma, you get a restrictive relative clause that refers to the jackets and specifies what kinds of jackets those were: jackets that didn't fit him.
4 - If you use the commas you need to add "who". With no commas you can leave it out.

EDIT: I hadn't seen CB's post. I just read it and I think I don't agree on this:

3. The sentence is fine with that provided you leave out the comma and Martin tried on at least four jackets in all. If you use a comma, only which is possible and in that case Martin tried on a total of three jackets, none of which fitted him.

4. Your sentence with commas is wrong. If only two men came into the office and you had seen neither one before, write:

Two men, who/whom I had never seen before, came into the office.

If more than two men came and you hadn't seen two of them before, write:

Two men [who/whom/that] I had never seen before came into the office

I don't think the number of jackets or men is important when considering relative clauses.

I think this would be impossible to distinguish the difference when speaking not writing.

If I said: Two men who I had never seen before came into the office, who would know if I used the comma or not and how to interpret it?

So in your opinion Kooyeen I can write: Two men I had never seen before came into the office.

Re: which/that/who

Kooyeen — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:35:12 GMT

Newguest
1. Everything that happened was my fault. Can I also say: Everything what/which happened was my fault.
2. The last time (that) I saw her, she looked fine. Is the word "that" the object of this sentence so we can omit it?
3. Martin tried on three jackets, which didn't fit him. Can I also write:..that didn't fit him. Do you think it is a non-restricitive relative clause?
4. Two men, I had never seen before, came into the office. Is it also OK to write: Two man, whom/who/th

1 - I don't think you can use "what", and for some reason I don't like "which". Also, I think that "everything" should be written separately, "every thing".
2 - You can leave it out. I don't know if it's used as a relative pronoun or a conjunction, though.
3 - With the comma "which" is ok, but not "that". If you use "that" without the comma, you get a restrictive relative clause that refers to the jackets and specifies what kinds of jackets those were: jackets that didn't fit him.
4 - If you use the commas you need to add "who". With no commas you can leave it out.

EDIT: I hadn't seen CB's post. I just read it and I think I don't agree on this:

3. The sentence is fine with that provided you leave out the comma and Martin tried on at least four jackets in all. If you use a comma, only which is possible and in that case Martin tried on a total of three jackets, none of which fitted him.
4. Your sentence with commas is wrong. If only two men came into the office and you had seen neither one before, write:
Two men, who/whom I had never seen before, came into the office.
If more than two men came and you hadn't seen two of them before, write:
Two men [who/whom/that] I had never seen before came into the office

I don't think the number of jackets or men is important when considering relative clauses.

Re: Which he isn't

Clive — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 17:29:10 GMT

Hi,

If Harrison isnt playing (which he isn't) I think Colts aren't gonna win.

Is which is a relative pronoun? Yes.
Which doesn't have to refer a particular thing,right? It has to refer to something, but it does not have to be a noun. eg it can be a clause.
If it has to, where does which refer? The phrase 'Harrison isn't playing'. Please note that this type of grammar in this sentence is quite lax and informal. Don't use it when you are writing a college essay or speaking in a job interview. Another example is that 'gonna' is said, bit is only spelled thus in informal writing.

Finally, can I write this with commas?Yes.

If Harrison isn't playing, which he isn't, I think the Colts aren't gonna win.

Best wishes, Clive

Which he isn't

Liveinjapan — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 17:11:19 GMT

If Harrison isnt playing (which he isn't) I think Colts aren't gonna win.

Is which is a relative pronoun?
Which doesn't have to refer a particular thing,right?
If it has to, where does which refer?

Finally, can I write this with commas?

If Harrison isnt playing, which he isn't, I think Colts aren't gonna win.

Thanks
LiJ

Re: Is it correct or not?

Philip — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:24:14 GMT

Darcy wrote:
5. Which is correct?Both are correct. (1) is more common.
(1) Today we're going to study 'relative pronouns'
(2) Today we'll study 'relative pronouns'.

6 Are they correct? (1) is awkward; both need a comma before 'and'.
(1) I'll make a list of relative pronouns and then we're looking at how to use them.
(2) I'll make a list of relative pronouns and then let's look at how to use them

7 What is the difference between them?
(1)I want you to write your introduction. (2)I want you to write out your introduction. Both are heard; the 'out' in (2) is not good.

8. Are they correct?
(1) Turn in your paper on Friday. (2) Present your paper on Friday.

Is "present" is used the same meaning as "turn in"? I turn in a paper to the teacher. I present a paper (read it) to the class.
If so, how can we know whether "present" means "turn in" or talking to students with his paper in class? Present also means talking to other students with his paper in class, doesn't it?

Thanks for reading long writing.

I hope this helps.

Welcome to EF!!

Re: reference

CalifJim — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 05:40:45 GMT

That's a good try, but unfortunately, it won't work.

the change in ideas about space and time that Einstein redefined.

Now we're working with one of these, depending how we interpret the referent of that.

the change that he redefined
the ideas that he redefined
the space and time that he redefined

Now recall that that makes the description restrictive, so it means that particular space and time that Einstein redefined -- excluding all other space and time (redefined by someone else, perhaps, or not redefined at all!)

So the most likely referent of that would be ideas, if ideas can be redefined, and that's a little doubtful. Nevertheless, it might be understood that way.

But if you want space and time to be the referent, you'll need a non-restrictive relative pronoun (and a comma), like this:

the change in ideas about space and time, which Einstein redefined.

CJ

Re: Change of Which to That

Cool Breeze — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 09:15:46 GMT

Which is wrong in Nos. 4 and 5 because the relative pronoun refers to both inanimate things (systems, organizations) and people (people, leaders). In these sentences that is the only alternative. No comma is required in either sentence.

Some people consider that a better choice if the antecedent is something, anything, everything or nothing. This would require that in the second sentence of No. 7. Despite the opinion of many usage experts, which has been used after the aforementioned pronouns for a long time even by distinguished writers.

CB

Re: Tricky 'Relative Pronoun'

Mister Micawber — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:17:51 GMT

'Precious' is too strong a word-- it sounds overly sycophantic.

Yes, 'to which' probably refers to 'a phase' if we must select a word (the commas are strange and distracting) in #1-- but it could as well refer to 'Art'. In cannot be 'life' because we do not turn to life in moments of leisure!

In #2, 'that' refers to 'give and take', not 'part'-- it is give and take that we expect daily.

Re: participle phrase

Cool Breeze — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 21:31:03 GMT

Chrismlangan wrote:

2) I was irritated by Bill, constantly interrupting.

Hi Cl

It seems to me as if constantly interrupting has been added as an afterthought, which explains the comma. Another way to interpret the sentence would be to consider constantly interrupting a shortened relative clause:

I was irritated by Bill, who was constantly interrupting.

In that case the comma would be required as the relative clause would be nonrestrictive. Who is the subject of a nonrestrictive relative clause and the relative pronoun is rarely omitted in such sentences. Omission occurs more frequently in restrictive clauses:

There is somebody at the door (who/that) wants to see you.

Cheers
CB