1. The climbers who reached the summit were exhausted.

2. The climbers, who reached the summit, were exhausted.

Q1) Does intonation in #1 and 2 apply otherwise?

3. Professor Fish gave everyone an A, which was just fine with Alice

4. Professor Fish gave everyone an A which was just fine with Alice

Q2) I found two of the restrictions of restrictive clause: 1. Does not usually modify proper nouns. 2. May not modify an entire proposition, only a head noun.

But I think the relative cluase in #3 modifies 'an A' while the non-restrictive one in #4 does the whole clause. What do you think?
1 2
moon72961. The climbers who reached the summit were exhausted.
2. The climbers, who reached the summit, were exhausted.
There's a short pause where the commas are but no change is needed in the intonation. The difference in meaning is that in sentence 2 all the climbers reached the summit, in sentence 1 only some of the climbers did.
moon72963. Professor Fish gave everyone an A, which was just fine with Alice.
4. Professor Fish gave everyone an A which was just fine with Alice.
A full stop is needed after each sentence. Sentence 3 is ambiguous: either Alice was satisfied with the A she got or she was satisfied that Professor Fish gave everyone an A. In other words, the antecedent can be either an A or the entire main clause Professor Fish gave everyone an A. As English doesn't have a specific relative pronoun for these two possibilities, it's impossible to say which is the intended meaning without context.

Sentence 4 is incorrect.

CB
Thank you CB.

Actually, it's really difficult for me to understand why #2 is acceptable while #4 which has a comma is thought to be ungrammatical.

I have another example which says only a non-restrictive relative cluase is correct:

5. John, who is a linguist, was not impressed by Professor Fish's arguments.(0)

6. John who is a linguist, was not impressed by Professor Fish's arguments.(X)
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Hi,

I have another example which says only a non-restrictive relative cluase is correct:

5. John, who is a linguist, was not impressed by Professor Fish's arguments.(0)

6. John who is a linguist, was not impressed by Professor Fish's arguments.(X)

I'll just comment on #6, as it is a little tricky because of the proper name.

It's not correct. Most native speakers would say

The John who is a linguist (no comma) was not impressed by Professor Fish's arguments.

When you say 'the John', it alerts the listener to the fact that there is more than one John in the context.

Which John? The John who is a linguist.

Not eg The John who is a bus driver.

Clive
CliveThe John who is a linguist (no comma) was not impressed by Professor Fish's arguments.
When you say 'the John', it alerts the listener to the fact that there is more than one John in the context.
Which John? The John who is a linguist.
Very good, Clive! Emotion: beerEmotion: beer Very good.

CB
Hi,

Ah.. then I think I can see #4 in the same way, can't I?

Professor Fish gave everyone an A which was just fine with Alice.

Since, when I say 'Professor Fish, it alerts the listner to the fact there is more than one professor Fish in the context, #4 is wrong, right?Emotion: smile
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
moon7296Professor Fish gave everyone an A which was just fine with Alice.
The sentence is wrong. A comma is needed after an A because the relative clause is non-restrictive/non-defining.

CB
Hi,

No, no, no, You have a completely wrong understanding.

Simply saying someone's name does not mean that there is more than one person with that name in the context. Why would you think that?

Please reread what I wrote concerning the use of the definite article and a relative clause with a name..

Clive
Actually, there is my mistake; I should have chosen #3 which has a comma.

"Simply saying someone's name does not mean that there is more than one person with that name in the context."

Does this mean #3 does not apply the same rule?
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
Show more