Skip to main content
English Language & Usage

Return to Answer

added 3 characters in body
Source Link
LPH
LPH
  • 23.9k
  • 3
  • 23
  • 50

  1. Yes, those clauses are relative clauses, without doubt.

  2. No, it is not possible to change "which" to "that", the reason being that this relative clause being a non-defining relative clause it can't retain its non-defining property if "that" is used. Let's recall that the comma is the mark of a non-defining clause, otherwise called a non-determining clause or non-restrictive clause. https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/grammar/clauses

  3. No, the clause in which "which makes" is replaced by "making" is not a relative clause. It is a nonfinite clause without subject. However, the nonfinite verb form ("making") is a formal indicator of subordination, just as the relative pronoun (in this case, "which") is such a formal indicator. The comma is not a part of the clause: it is a sentence element with the purpose of articulating the sentence. It can be considered as a marker of syntax, this being so because the syntax is different when it is absent.

  1. Yes, those clauses are relative clauses, without doubt.

  2. No, it is not possible to change "which" to "that", the reason being that this relative clause being a non-defining relative clause it can't retain its non-defining property if "that" is used. Let's recall that the comma is the mark of a non-defining clause, otherwise called a non-determining clause or non-restrictive clause. https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/grammar/clauses

  3. No, the clause in which "which makes" is replaced by "making" is not a relative clause. It is a nonfinite clause without subject. However, the nonfinite verb form ("making") is a formal indicator of subordination, just as the relative pronoun (in this case, "which") is such a formal indicator. The comma is not a part of the clause: it is a sentence element with the purpose articulating the sentence. It can be considered as a marker of syntax, this being so because the syntax is different when it is absent.

  1. Yes, those clauses are relative clauses, without doubt.

  2. No, it is not possible to change "which" to "that", the reason being that this relative clause being a non-defining relative clause it can't retain its non-defining property if "that" is used. Let's recall that the comma is the mark of a non-defining clause, otherwise called a non-determining clause or non-restrictive clause. https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/grammar/clauses

  3. No, the clause in which "which makes" is replaced by "making" is not a relative clause. It is a nonfinite clause without subject. However, the nonfinite verb form ("making") is a formal indicator of subordination, just as the relative pronoun (in this case, "which") is such a formal indicator. The comma is not a part of the clause: it is a sentence element with the purpose of articulating the sentence. It can be considered as a marker of syntax, this being so because the syntax is different when it is absent.

deleted 15 characters in body
Source Link
LPH
LPH
  • 23.9k
  • 3
  • 23
  • 50

  1. Yes, those clauses are relative clauses, without doubt.

  2. No, it is not possible to change "which" to "that", the reason being that this relative clause being a non-defining relative clause it can't retain its non-defining property if "that" is used. Let's recall that the comma is the mark of a non-defining clause, otherwise called a non-determining clause or non-restrictive clause. https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/grammar/clauses

  3. No, the clause in which "which makes" is replaced by "making" is not a relative clause. It is a nonfinite clause without subject. However, the nonfinite verb form ("making") is a formal indicator of subordination, just as the relative pronoun (in this case, "which") is such a formal indicator. The comma is not a part of the clause: it is a sentence element with the purpose of giving a articulation toarticulating the sentence. It can be considered as a marker of syntax, this being so because the syntax is different when it is absent.

  1. Yes, those clauses are relative clauses, without doubt.

  2. No, it is not possible to change "which" to "that", the reason being that this relative clause being a non-defining relative clause it can't retain its non-defining property if "that" is used. Let's recall that the comma is the mark of a non-defining clause, otherwise called a non-determining clause or non-restrictive clause. https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/grammar/clauses

  3. No, the clause in which "which makes" is replaced by "making" is not a relative clause. It is a nonfinite clause without subject. However, the nonfinite verb form ("making") is a formal indicator of subordination, just as the relative pronoun (in this case, "which") is such a formal indicator. The comma is not a part of the clause: it is a sentence element with the purpose of giving a articulation to the sentence. It can be considered as a marker of syntax, this being so because the syntax is different when it is absent.

  1. Yes, those clauses are relative clauses, without doubt.

  2. No, it is not possible to change "which" to "that", the reason being that this relative clause being a non-defining relative clause it can't retain its non-defining property if "that" is used. Let's recall that the comma is the mark of a non-defining clause, otherwise called a non-determining clause or non-restrictive clause. https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/grammar/clauses

  3. No, the clause in which "which makes" is replaced by "making" is not a relative clause. It is a nonfinite clause without subject. However, the nonfinite verb form ("making") is a formal indicator of subordination, just as the relative pronoun (in this case, "which") is such a formal indicator. The comma is not a part of the clause: it is a sentence element with the purpose articulating the sentence. It can be considered as a marker of syntax, this being so because the syntax is different when it is absent.

Source Link
LPH
LPH
  • 23.9k
  • 3
  • 23
  • 50

  1. Yes, those clauses are relative clauses, without doubt.

  2. No, it is not possible to change "which" to "that", the reason being that this relative clause being a non-defining relative clause it can't retain its non-defining property if "that" is used. Let's recall that the comma is the mark of a non-defining clause, otherwise called a non-determining clause or non-restrictive clause. https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/grammar/clauses

  3. No, the clause in which "which makes" is replaced by "making" is not a relative clause. It is a nonfinite clause without subject. However, the nonfinite verb form ("making") is a formal indicator of subordination, just as the relative pronoun (in this case, "which") is such a formal indicator. The comma is not a part of the clause: it is a sentence element with the purpose of giving a articulation to the sentence. It can be considered as a marker of syntax, this being so because the syntax is different when it is absent.