Sentence 1: A is friend of B who is eating an apple.
Sentence 2: A is friend of B , who is eating an apple.
In which Sentence it can be said that A is eating apple? Does the usage of comma change the context of who is eating apple?
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It only takes a minute to sign up.Sign up to join this community
In both cases, it is B who is eating the apple. However, the addition of the comma in sentence 2 results in a subtle difference in meaning between the two sentences.
If the relative clause "who is eating an apple" is providing essential information about B, then sentence 1 is correct. If it is providing additional information that is not essential to defining B, such that the sentence would still work if the relative clause were dropped, then sentence 2 is correct.
For example, consider the sentence:
Sarah is a friend of the boy who is wearing a red jacket.
Imagine the speaker is referring to a group of boys. The boy who is Sarah's friend is the one wearing the red jacket. In this case, dropping the relative clause is not an option (i.e., "Sarah is a friend of the boy" does not tell us what we need to know); thus, no comma is needed. On the other hand,
Sarah is friend of Tom, who wore a red jacket to the dance.
Here, the comma is necessary because Sarah's friend is clearly identified by his name. Even if the relative clause were dropped (i.e., "Sarah is a friend of Tom"), there would be no ambiguity as to who Sarah's friend is.
If you want it to be A who is eating the apple, you have to move the relative clause:
A, who is eating an apple, is a friend of B.