I know some relative clauses refer to a whole clause.
My example:
She just thought that I was proud and stuck-up which I won’t defend myself.
Is it right to say "which" can refer to the whole of the previous clause here ?
-
1Well, no, not in that sentence. I won't defend myself is a complete sentence all by itself and has no room for which, nor for the clause it's supposed to represent. So it can't be a relative clause. However, if you said which is not true or which I don't believe instead, it would be perfectly grammatical, since which could be a part of the relative clause.– John LawlerCommented Jul 17, 2020 at 15:18
-
@John Lawler. (1) If not a relative clause, what kind of clause is it? (If we had to give it a name). (2) And what is its function? (Maybe just "modifier" and leave it at that?) Thanks.– PuzzledCommented Jul 17, 2020 at 15:47
-
Does this answer your question? 'Which' with non-noun-phrase antecedent– Edwin AshworthCommented Jul 17, 2020 at 15:52
-
I take your meaning to be 'She just thought that I was proud and stuck-up, which accusation I won’t defend myself.' / 'She just thought that I was proud and stuck-up, which accusation I won’t myself defend.' Very garden-pathy.– Edwin AshworthCommented Jul 17, 2020 at 15:53
-
1Absent context, I think the problems are (i) the "myself" - it can be omitted, (ii) the verb defend and (iii) the lack of a comma: She just thought that I was proud and stuck-up, which I will not defend. or She just thought that I was proud and stuck-up, which I will not respond to.– GreybeardCommented Jul 17, 2020 at 16:14
|
Show 2 more comments