Please Check My Sentences?

CalifJim

chhiring sherpa 5439

can we use “that” as subject for people in defining relative clauses? For eg.

A: Ram is a person that has five houses.

B: Ram is a person who has five houses.

Yes, but 'who' usually sounds better.

(The sentences are very artificial, of course, but I think you know that. We just say Ram has five houses.)

CJ

I just some little confusion that I would like to clear up from you. How is the sentence defining relative clause?

Ram is a person that has five houses.

Since Ram is a personal name and it’s clear which person we are talking about. Shouldn’t it be a non-defining relative clause with a comma? I know I should’ve asked this question at first. For eg.

Ram is a person, who has five houses.

Is this sentence wrong with a comma? Please explain. Thank you. 🙏🙏

I have another follow up question. Please take a look at the sentence below.

A: The couple who live next to us have sixteen grandchildren.

I understand that the above sentence has a defining relative clause. “Who lives next to us” defines which couple we are talking about BUT when we the article “the”, doesn’t it already tell you which couple we are talking about? “The” is used with a noun that is specific, in the sentence, specific couple, not any couple. Why do we need to add “who lives next to us” to tell which couple we are talking about? I feel like as soon as “the” is used, we don’t need to use defining clause to clarify which couple we are talking about. Please help me with this confusion. Thanks.

chhiring sherpa 5439How is the sentence defining relative clause?
Ram is a person that has five houses.
Since Ram is a personal name and it’s clear which person we are talking about, shouldn’t it be a non-defining relative clause with a comma? I know I should’ve asked this question at first.

It's not "Ram that"; it's "person that". In other words, the antecedent of 'that' is not "Ram"; it's "person", and "a person that/who has five houses" is a much more specific idea than just "a person", so we say the clause is defining.

"Who is Ram?" "He is || a person that/who ..."

chhiring sherpa 5439Ram is a person, who has five houses.
Is this sentence wrong with a comma?

Yes, it's wrong.

CJ

chhiring sherpa 5439when we the article “the”, doesn’t it already tell you which couple we are talking about?

No. It's telling you believe that all of the information you're giving is enough for the listener to know which couple you are referring to.

chhiring sherpa 5439“The” is used with a noun that is specific

No. That's irrelevant. Once your listener already knows which couple you're talking about, you still use 'the' in the expression 'the couple' to show that you believe that your listener already knows which couple you're talking about, but since you've already said the part about the couple being neighbors, you don't have to add the relative clause anymore.

chhiring sherpa 5439Why do we need to add “who lives next to us” to tell which couple we are talking about?

You add that when your listener doesn't know which couple you're talking about. As explained above, after they know who you mean, you don't add the extra information every time you mention that couple.

Suppose I tell you "The couple decided not to get married". Do you know which couple I'm talking about? No. So there should have been more explanation, more information given, about this couple so you would know who I mean. Saying 'the couple' when your listener doesn't know which couple you're talking about means you have misused the word 'the'.

chhiring sherpa 5439I feel like as soon as “the” is used, we don’t need to use defining clause to clarify which couple we are talking about.

I think you are wrongly looking at this as a purely grammatical problem. It's not. It's a conversational problem. The use of 'the' is almost completely wrapped up in the context of a real-world conversation. You absolutely cannot say whether 'the house', 'the car', or 'the book' refer to a specific house, car, or book just by looking at those words. In some contexts within a conversation they may have specific referents for the people talking; in other contexts (usually near the beginning of a conversation), they are not enough to specify their referents. [The "referent" is the real world thing that a word refers to. Expressions like 'the moon' do not normally need further explanation (modification), but most other nouns do.]

CJ

CalifJim

chhiring sherpa 5439when we the article “the”, doesn’t it already tell you which couple we are talking about?

No. It's telling you believe that all of the information you're giving is enough for the listener to know which couple you are referring to.

chhiring sherpa 5439“The” is used with a noun that is specific

No. That's irrelevant. Once your listener already knows which couple you're talking about, you still use 'the' in the expression 'the couple' to show that you believe that your listener already knows which couple you're talking about, but since you've already said the part about the couple being neighbors, you don't have to add the relative clause anymore.

chhiring sherpa 5439Why do we need to add “who lives next to us” to tell which couple we are talking about?

You add that when your listener doesn't know which couple you're talking about. As explained above, after they know who you mean, you don't add the extra information every time you mention that couple.

Suppose I tell you "The couple decided not to get married". Do you know which couple I'm talking about? No. So there should have been more explanation, more information given, about this couple so you would know who I mean. Saying 'the couple' when your listener doesn't know which couple you're talking about means you have misused the word 'the'.

chhiring sherpa 5439I feel like as soon as “the” is used, we don’t need to use defining clause to clarify which couple we are talking about.

I think you are wrongly looking at this as a purely grammatical problem. It's not. It's a conversational problem. The use of 'the' is almost completely wrapped up in the context of a real-world conversation. You absolutely cannot say whether 'the house', 'the car', or 'the book' refer to a specific house, car, or book just by looking at those words. In some contexts within a conversation they may have specific referents for the people talking; in other contexts (usually near the beginning of a conversation), they are not enough to specify their referents. [The "referent" is the real world thing that a word refers to. Expressions like 'the moon' do not normally need further explanation (modification), but most other nouns do.]

CJ

Thank you so much for your detailed explanation. I think I still have some confusion over the use of “the” and defining/non-defining relative clauses. I would like to present some context and ask you questions.

Example 1:

I am going to wash the car. Doesn’t the listener automatically mean “the car” as my car? Or, the listen should be informed in the earlier conversation that I do own a car? If I say to a random person, “I am going to wash the car”, that random person can’t assume that it’s my car, right?

Context 2:

Suppose I tell my friend that I own a car. And I say the following sentences to my friend afterwards.

The car’s model is Chevy bolt. The car, that is red, has 4 cylinder engines.

Does the sentence in bold have a non/defining relative clause? It’s because we already know “the car” means my car. There is no need for additional information to let the listener know which car. In this case, isn’t the information, “that is red”, extra making it non-defining relative clause with a comma? If a listener already know which noun we are talking about with “the”, isn’t it that any information provided about the noun is extra information? That means non-defining relative clause as a result with a comma?

I would appreciate your help. Thank you.

CalifJim

chhiring sherpa 5439How is the sentence defining relative clause?
Ram is a person that has five houses.
Since Ram is a personal name and it’s clear which person we are talking about, shouldn’t it be a non-defining relative clause with a comma? I know I should’ve asked this question at first.

It's not "Ram that"; it's "person that". In other words, the antecedent of 'that' is not "Ram"; it's "person", and "a person that/who has five houses" is a much more specific idea than just "a person", so we say the clause is defining.

"Who is Ram?" "He is || a person that/who ..."

chhiring sherpa 5439Ram is a person, who has five houses.
Is this sentence wrong with a comma?

Yes, it's wrong.

CJ

Also,

Shouldn’t the sentence be, “Ram is the person who has five houses.”? Shouldn’t “the” be used since Ram is not any person but the person with five houses? This confused me. 🤨

chhiring sherpa 5439Example 1:

I am going to wash the car. Doesn’t the listener automatically mean “the car” as my car? No. Not 'automatically'. Or, the listener should be informed in the earlier conversation that I do own a car? That would certainly help. If I say to a random person, “I am going to wash the car”, that random person can’t assume that it’s my car, right? Absolutely right. Saying one sentence to random people is not the same as having a conversation.

Like many other sentences, "I'm going to wash the car" can occur in several different contexts, so there's nothing automatic about 'the' meaning 'my'.

You may be a worker at a car wash. A car and a truck have to be washed. You say to your co-worker "I'm going to wash the car". Then he says, "OK. Then I'll wash the truck". Neither the car nor the truck belong to either of them, so they can't say 'my', and 'the' doesn't mean 'my'.

However, if a married couple with no children own one car, and one of the couple says "I'm going to wash the car" with no further explanation, they both take it to mean "I'm going to wash our car" because there is nothing else in the scope of that conversation that causes any ambiguity about exactly which car is the referent.

chhiring sherpa 5439

Context 2:

Suppose I tell my friend that I own a car. And I say the following sentences to my friend afterwards.

The car’s model is Chevy bolt. The car, that is red, has 4 cylinder engines.

Actually, you're going to say

It's a red Chevy Bolt. It has a 4-cylinder engine.

But for the sake of the grammar lesson, we'll pretend that someone wrote

The car, that is red, has a 4-cylinder engine.

Does the sentence in bold have a non/defining relative clause?
It has a non-defining clause, so you can't use "that". It’s because we already know “the car” means my car. There is no need for additional information to let the listener know which car. In this case, isn’t the information, “that is red”, extra making it non-defining relative clause with a comma? All that is right, but note that you can't use "that" with a non-defining clause. It should be

The car, which is red, has a 4-cylinder engine.

I don't see a need to obsess about "the" in these cases. "the" is less important than this fact: If the clause is parenthetical (adds extra information that does not specify the referent more precisely), it's a non-defining clause. But just don't use "that" at the beginning of the non-defining clause. If a listener already knows which noun referent (object, person) we are talking about with “the”, isn’t it that any information provided about the noun is extra information? I'm not so sure about this point. It's correct if you take it seriously that a listener already knows which referent is intended. That depends very closely on the text you read or the conversation you're part of. That means non-defining relative clause as a result with a comma?

The most common use of the kind of non-defining relative clause you are interested in here is the one after a sports team. Naming the team (the Broncos, the Yankees, the Kings, the Bulldogs, etc.) specifies a unique referent, so a non-defining clause may follow with 'who'.

the Yankees, who won both games, ...
the Kings, who play their ninth game tonight, ...
the Captains, who ended a three-game losing streak last night, ...

But not every noun that specifies a group of people makes a unique reference. For example, the Arabs, the Italians, the Americans, or just the people. These will normally take defining clauses with 'who'. In these cases, the relative clause limits the group to a specified subgroup.

the Arabs who evicted them
the people who build pianos
the marines who served in Iraq

The speaker or writer uses 'the' to indicate that he believes he has given enough information for the listener or reader to recognize the referent.

CJ