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

that or which

Anonymous — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 01:04:55 GMT

Hi,

I tried to find some good information of "which and that" distinction online and have acquired some good information, thanks to them.

In the suite101.com's website with what I would call an online search phrase of "That or Which? Don't Misuse These Relative Pronouns." it had this as an exception to the usual rule of that for a restrictive clause and which for a non-restrictive clause.

Exception to the Rule

Like a number of grammatical rules in English as well as other languages, this one has an exception. The exception should only be used when a sentence has more than one dependent clause or when âthatâ has been used in another role. Take a look at the following example.

That idea, which has been discussed thoroughly, no longer needs to be addressed.

If âthis,â âthat,â âthese,â or âthoseâ has already been used to either as an adjective or to introduce the first clause, use âwhichâ to introduce the next one, whether the information is essential or nonessential.

1. Can you tell me what it means by its last sentence?
2. I think I heard that 'which' is used for a restrictive clause that doesn't have commas. What confuses me is that it seems to be the words that describe the recommendation for the use of 'that'. I think I also heard that 'which' can and should be used for some restrictive clause cases -- and with which I agree.

Re: has/have?

CalifJim — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:11:03 GMT

You are mistaken. Bangkok is ... has the subject and verb of the main clause. cities is the antecedent of the relative pronoun that. The verb within the relative clause must agree in number with the antecedent cities, not with the subject of the main clause (Bangkok) nor with its subject complement one.

Multiple cities are having problems, so it's cities ... have.

Compare: John is one of the many people who make this mistake. (Not makes.)

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: help for my thesis about english as a global language.

Cool Breeze — Thu, 10 May 2007 13:38:44 GMT

Hi Newforspeed

Welcome to the forums. Anyone with some knowledge of English can tell that you didn't write your questions yourself. Someone else did that for you, but I'll give you some answers anyway.

1. There were only 4.5 million speakers of English in Shakespeare's day. There are three major reasons for English having become what it is.

One: The British exported their language in the colonial days. (Some other languages got exported as well.)

Two: By the time English was taken overseas, it had become extremely simple structurally. Of the languages I have studied and of whose grammar I have some knowledge, English is by far the simplest. This makes it easy for nonnatives to acquire a working knowledge of English even though mastering the language is just as difficult as it is to master any other language. (The only problem is the inconsistent spelling.)

Three: About 100 years ago, the economic rise of the USA began and that contributed to making English number one. It gradually replaced French and Spanish in the western world. These two languages had been more important than English in the 19th century. In Finnish schools English 'dethroned' German in the 1950s, by the way. French remains an important language in diplomacy.

2. Not in the foreseeable future.

3. Economic growth does not depend on language. China has had massive economic growth for years and few Chinese speak English.

4. To some extent, yes. Not all minor cultures will disappear, though.

5. No. The natives will understand each other as well as they do now and the rest of the world will understand each other as well - or badly - as they do now. Many Brits don't undertand other Brits at the moment.

6. Languages have come and gone before. I can't see why English should be blamed for the disappearance of languages. Many languages die out owing to a lack of speakers, not because these people start to speak English all of a sudden.

7. Not any more than whatever has been a 'danger' before. All living languages have always changed. Nothing living remains constant for hundreds of years. A language that changes is not in danger. Language can take care of itself. For example, in Old English there was only one relative pronoun. That wasn't enough, so other relatives developed. Change doesn't always simplify a language.

8. ?

9. The Internet is one of the factors that promote the use of English.

10. No doubt many native speakers of English delight in the fact that their language is the lingua franca. We have nothing to worry about because of that. Every other English-speaking stranger I talk to has an inferiority complex due to his nonexistent command of other languages.

11. It is neither.

12. I wouldn't call it a danger. It's an inevitability that all languages have always faced and will always face. Nothing lasts forever. We need not worry about that, though, it's too far in the future.

13. No.

14. I wouldn't rate a scholar very high just because he speaks English. A writer who writes in English has a larger audience than one who writes in a small language and therefore he stands a better chance of being recognised. He is more likely to get rich and become famous than other writers.

15. I don't think all nations will want to have just one officia language in the EU.

16. Yes, in the foreseeable future. I think it will have lost some of its importance by the year 5275.

17. It makes sense to teach languages. One of the consequences is the fact that there will be more multilingual people. The more languages people speak, the better they understand one another and foreign cultures.

18. English doesn't enrich my country's culture in the least. English is just a language like many others, it's not a danger.

19. It's understandable that Brits, Americans and Australians - New Zealanders as well - don't want to spend time learning foreign languages as much as the rest of the world. The teaching of foreign languages is often of abysmal quality in those countries; in some cases the pupils have a better knowledge of the target language than the teacher! One might think that the English-speaking countries would do very well in tests measuring, say, mathematical skills because they don't 'waste' time learning languages. They can devote more time to science in schools.

Cheers
CB

Re: A question about whose and relative clauses

Cool Breeze — Fri, 04 May 2007 11:19:30 GMT

Hi SOP

SeekerOfPeace wrote:
Would I be correct to say that relative clauses:

Ã¼ modify a noun or a pronoun Correct, but they can also modify a clause: He didn't say anything, which was a surprise.

Ã¼ Are either defining or non-defining Correct.

In the following sentence:

âShe gave me one of the flowers which she was holding.â

The relative pronoun âwhichâ could be omitted because flowers is the object of the relative clause. Hmmm... Correct. I would say flowers is the object of the relative pronoun. By the way, you can't omit the relative even though it is the object in non-defining relative clauses: He took a trip to Rome, which he had never seen before.

In the following sentence:

âThe book comes with a CD ROM which includes additional exercises.

Which cannot be omitted because CD ROM is the subject of the relative clause. Correct. If only one CD ROM comes with the book, a comma could be used after CD ROM. Usage varies in short sentences, though. Some skillful/skilful writers may omit the relative even when it's the subject: There's somebody at the door [who] wants to see you.

The two previous sentences are both relative defining clauses. Better: defining relative clauses (also known as restrictive relative clauses).

In the following sentence:

âWhichever party wins the election, income tax is likely to rise in the near future.â

The reason why âwhoeverâ wouldnât be acceptable, grammatically speaking, is because one out of a limited number of parties will win, thus the use of whichever. Correct. However who and whoever can never be followed by a noun:
Who boy wouldn't like a holiday like that! WRONG.
What boy wouldn't like a holiday like that! RIGHT.

In the following sentence:

âHe climbed up Mount Brecon, from whose peak he could see three countries.â

I donât understand why the answer is âfrom whoseâ

According to my book, whose is used to:

When we talk about something belonging or associated with a person, animal or plant.

Not the sentence above, Mount Brecon is neither a person, an animal or a plant, itâs a mountain. Why is âwhoseâ the correct answer??
The wording in your book is not very good. Whose is always possible when a relative in the genitive is needed.

Cheers
CB

Re: Please come in help me with this, grammar help

CalifJim — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 20:46:54 GMT

It would make more sense to present these in the reverse order.

1. Subject and verb agree in number (singular or plural).

The girl is always boasting. [girl (the subject) is singular; is (the verb) is singular.]
The girls are always boasting. [girls (the subject) is plural; are (the verb) is plural.]

2. A relative pronoun takes the number (singular or plural) of its antecedent.
(Antecedent is what your book means by 'immediately preceding' word.)

(3. If the relative pronoun is also a subject of a clause, it will affect agreement with its verb by the principle stated in 1. above.)

She is the one who is always boasting. [one (the antecedent) is singular; who (the relative pronoun; the subject of the clause) is therefore also singular; is (the verb) is singular.]
She is one of those girls who are always boasting. [girls (the antecedent) is plural; who (the relative pronoun; the subject of the clause) is therefore also plural; are (the verb) is plural.]

CJ

Please come in help me with this, grammar help

Aaron1988 — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 17:21:15 GMT

I dont understand these two, it seems like abit same, and different x_X, please help/teach me. Sighz

(a)   The relative pronoun must agree in number (singular or plural) with the word immediately preceding it.

Example:       Incorrect:      She is one of those girls who is always boasting.
                    Correct: She is one of those girls who are always boasting.

(b)    The verb and subject of a clause or sentence must always agree in number (singular or plural) and person (1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd).

Example:    Incorrect:      A wide range (of goods) were displayed.
                    Correct: A wide range (of goods) was displayed.

Please help me with this !!

Anonymous — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 17:19:55 GMT

A question about whose and relative clauses

SeekerOfPeace — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 08:24:02 GMT

Would I be correct to say that relative clauses:

Ã¼ modify a noun or a pronoun

Ã¼ Are either defining or non-defining

In the following sentence:

âShe gave me one of the flowers which she was holding.â

The relative pronoun âwhichâ could be omitted because flowers is the object of the relative clause.

In the following sentence:

âThe book comes with a CD ROM which includes additional exercises.

Which cannot be omitted because CD ROM is the subject of the relative clause.

The two previous sentences are both relative defining clauses.

In the following sentence:

âWhichever party wins the election, income tax is likely to rise in the near future.â

The reason why âwhoeverâ wouldnât be acceptable, grammatically speaking, is because one out of a limited number of parties will win, thus the use of whichever.

In the following sentence:

âHe climbed up Mount Brecon, from whose peak he could see three countries.â

I donât understand why the answer is âfrom whoseâ

According to my book, whose is used to:

When we talk about something belonging or associated with a person, animal or plant.

Not the sentence above, Mount Brecon is neither a person, an animal or a plant, itâs a mountain. Why is âwhoseâ the correct answer??