His car, which had been stolen, was found yesterday.
I have learned that this sentence with commas is correct.
If he has more than two cars, can't I say that His car that had been stolen was found yesterday.
that had been stolen modifies car here.
He has one car that was stolen and the other that was parked at the garage.
Or this sentence His car that had been stolen was found yesterday does not make sense at all?
What do you native English speakers think? Thank you so much as usual. Without this website and your help, I would give up studying English. Thank you all here!
Hans51If he has more than two cars, can't I say that His car that had been stolen was found yesterday. I think you mean 'more than one car'.
It's confusing to native speakers when you use a possessive (my, her, his, etc.) and a restrictive relative clause together like that. We almost inevitably interpret it as a non-restrictive clause. We'd probably phrase that as
The car of his that had been stolen (was found yesterday).
CJ
Right.
You mean more than one car.
Right, you are describing the difference between a defining clause and a non-defining clause, and you understand it, using "that" for the one and "which" for the other. But we wouldn't normally rely on such a fine point of grammar to convey that meaning. One of his cars was stolen. They found it yesterday.