+0
My apprehension about this dissipated after the first 10 minutes, by which point I knew that I was in great hands.



The man they called John died in 2009, at which time I was in Africa.

Are the above not examples of prepositions that can sit both before the relative pronoun and at the end of the clause, unlike with these examples where they can be in both positions? Why?



This is the house in which I live.

This is the house which I live in.



And:



This is the stool that I place my pen on.

This is the stool on which I place my pen.



Thanks





1 2
Comments  
I also have a sentence :

he stayed here six months, during which time he helped me a great deal in my study.

I'm sure the word "wich" in my sentence is used as an adjective rather than as an relative pronoun, so this is a appositive clause rather than a relative clause. I think we aslo can not place "during" at the end of the sentence, though I don't know why.

Your last four sentence are restrictive clauses. But the first two is not. I don't know it clearly, but I think the proble may be around here. May be I was wrong.

I hope someone can explain more about this.
Your example is another example, yes. I also used to think it was an adjective, but this site put me straight, saying it is in fact a relative pronoun.

I also hope someone clears this up.

Ta
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
English 1b3My apprehension about this dissipated after the first 10 minutes, by which point I knew that I was in great hands.


The man they called John died in 2009, at which time I was in Africa.
Strictly speaking, I suppose you could call which a relative adjective or relative determiner in these sentences, but the usual terminology is 'relative pronoun' anyway.

It is not at all usual to place the preposition at the end in these cases where which is followed directly by a noun (without any intervening article). I can't say that it is necessarily ungrammatical to move the preposition to the end, but if that pattern is used at all, it is very rare.

Placing the preposition at the end is usually only done with short, frequently used prepositions like in, on, with, to, etc. That placement at the end is never done for certain combinations. For example,

Under what circumstances would you sign the petition? [normal]

*What circumstances would you sign the petition under? [anomalous]

CJ
Strictly speaking, I suppose you could call which a relative adjective or relative determiner in these sentences, but the usual terminology is 'relative pronoun' anyway.

It is not at all usual to place the preposition at the end in these cases where which is followed directly by a noun (without any intervening article). I can't say that it is necessarily ungrammatical to move the preposition to the end, but if that pattern is used at all, it is very rare.

Placing the preposition at the end is usually only done with short, frequently used prepositions like in, on, with, to, etc. That placement at the end is never done for certain combinations. For example,

Under what circumstances would you sign the petition? [normal]

*What circumstances would you sign the petition under? [anomalous]

Thanks, CJ.

The relative pronoun does seem to have an adjectival function, doesn't it. That was why I used to think it was in fact not a pronoun, but rather a demonstrative adjective. So I used to treat cases like this 'by which point' as a new sentence, not a dependent clause.

Sorry, but I'm not quite sure where you were going with your final two examples. I can't see the relation between these two and the original.

Thanks.
English 1b3Sorry, but I'm not quite sure where you were going with your final two examples. I can't see the relation between these two and the original.
Just a little additional information mentioning another case where movement of the preposition to the end is not normal.

CJ
Try out our live chat room.
Hello English 1b3

I'll try to deal with your concerns:

1. My apprehension about this dissipated after the first 10 minutes, by which point I knew that I was in great hands.

The man they called John died in 2009, at which time I was in Africa.

Generally, relative clauses are introduced by a relative pronoun (who, which, that, etc.) or a phrase including one (by whom, for whom, at whom etc). Sometimes the relative clause uses a construction where ‘who’/’which’/’that’ etc. are not used as pronouns but as adjectives, and that is what is happening in your examples. In such cases it would be ungrammatical to put the preposition anywhere other than before the adjective.

In each example, ‘which’ is a function word being used to introduce a nonrestrictive relative clause, and to modify a noun, (‘point’ and ‘time’) in that clause - so ‘which’ is an adjective not a pronoun. Together with that noun it is referring to a word group (e.g. a phrase) in a preceding clause - in your examples: ‘after the first ten minutes’ and ‘in 2009’ respectively.

2. (a) This is the house in which I live.

(b) This is the house which I live in [ ]

And:

(c) This is the stool that I place my pen on [ ].

(d) This is the stool on which I place my pen.

You’re correct that these prepositions can be used in either position. There’s nothing ‘wrong’ with any of your examples, though (b) and (c) are perhaps more natural, despite them being examples of preposition stranding. ‘Stranding’ occurs where a preposition with an object is placed somewhere other than immediately next to its object. In both cases the head of the relative clause is implicitly related to a sort of 'silent pronoun' (indicated by where I’ve inserted open square brackets) following a preposition that has been ‘stranded’ in its expected place in the clause.

By attempting to avoid ‘stranding’, as in (a) and (d), the result can sometimes sound awkward and pretentious-sounding (you can decide for yourself if yours are), and considered a step down from the preposition-stranded alternatives, especially if the preposition is specified by the verb as in “* the letters across which I came”.

Traditionally, ‘stranding’ was criticised as being some sort of mistake; it is not seen that way today. I think the most important thing to remember is that if the ‘preposition-fronted’ alternative sounds inappropriate then don’t use it; instead stick with the ‘stranded’ form.

Best

Bill

BillJIn each example, ‘which’ is a function word being used to introduce a nonrestrictive relative clause, and to modify a noun, (‘point’ and ‘time’) in that clause - so ‘which’ is an adjective not a pronoun. Together with that noun it is referring to a word group (e.g. a phrase) in a preceding clause - in your examples: ‘after the first ten minutes’ and ‘in 2009’ respectively.

Hi, there.

But if it were solely an adjective, then my setences would be comma splices--ungramatical, which is not so.

I do see the adjectival function of these words, of course, but for it to be attached to the main clause by a comma they must be pronouns also, creating a subordinate clause, with the pronoun referring to its antecedent. Would you agree with this?
Hello

Definitely not. Forget about what word class ‘which’ belongs to. The important thing is that the second clause in each of your sentences is subordinate, not main; consequently, comma splicing (of run-on sentences) is not an issue here. You can test that by looking at each of the second clauses in isolation. In both cases the clause-initial prepositional phrases using ‘which’ act as a sort of compound subordinator meaning that they cannot be independent clauses, so they have to be seen as subordinate clauses.

In each of your examples, ‘which’ is an adjective (a determiner, to be precise) forming part of a prepositional phrase that acts in a relative way. Because the clause it introduces is subordinate (not main), the use of a comma to separate it from the preceding clause is perfectly acceptable and does not imply the ungrammatical use of comma splicing.

This type of subordinate clause is called sentential relative clause, so-called because its antecedent is not just a noun phrase, but a larger block of words, often an entire clause or sentence. A sentential relative clause is not adjectival; it is adverbial (a disjunct to be precise) because it represents a comment on the fact / action expressed by the preceding clause. Sometimes the ‘which’ of a sentential relative clause will get tucked into the clause as the determiner of a noun, which is what is happening in your two examples. Here are two other sentential examples:

‘The electric company might very well cut the supply to the building, in which case we might as well go home’.

‘I was confined to bed with flu for four days, as a result of which I missed all the celebrations’.

Best

Bill

Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Show more