0

Are any of these correct? What rules are at play here?

  • I saw the car which has five wheels and which we passed by earlier.

  • I saw the car which has five wheels which we passed by earlier.

  • I saw the car which has five wheels that we passed by earlier.

4
  • This question currently includes multiple questions in one. It should focus on one problem only. Nov 17 '20 at 8:22
  • 1
    What do you mean by "rules"?
    – BillJ
    Nov 17 '20 at 8:22
  • @BillJ Well for starters I'd like to know if all of the sentences are grammatical correct. By rules I mean surely one cannot keep concatenating relative clauses on the same antecedent forever, and under what circumstances are conjunctions between the relative clauses required. For example I saw the car which is red which crashed into the fence feels (at least to me) like an and is required between the two relative clauses. Also, is there a name for these types of relative clauses where one antecedent is followed by more than one relativizer?
    – Joe
    Nov 17 '20 at 13:28
  • I see no way of answering that has a concise and unequivocal answer. As @marcellothearcane points out, "This question currently includes multiple questions in one. It should focus on one problem only." As it stands, your question would require a lot of work to answer. For some questions, the extra effort is justified but not this one in my opinion. I suggest you edit the question and ask for it to be reopened, or write a new one that is more focused. I hope this helps. Nov 18 '20 at 19:01
1

We do not have rules as such but there are conventions. Here is what native speakers would say.

I saw the car with five wheels that we passed by earlier.

I saw the five-wheeled car that we passed by earlier.

There's something that's hilarious and also quite rude.

There's something hilarious and also quite rude.

6
  • I know how native speakers would phrase the sentences. Those are artificial constructions; see my comment above.
    – Joe
    Nov 18 '20 at 5:10
  • Okay, but the title of the SE is English Language and Usage, it isn't English Language and Artificial Constructions. It would help perhaps if you explained your motivation for asking. Nov 18 '20 at 10:24
  • I don't see what the problem is. Sure I made those sentences up to ask about the rules when you have one antecedent followed by many relative pronouns, but they are still sentences that are likely to be said even by native speakers. So if you'd could address the questions I made in the aforementioned comment that'd be appreciated.
    – Joe
    Nov 18 '20 at 17:08
  • I see no way of answering that has a concise and unequivocal answer. As @marcellothearcane points out, "This question currently includes multiple questions in one. It should focus on one problem only." As it stands, your question would require a lot of work to answer. For some questions, the extra effort is justified but not this one in my opinion. I suggest you edit the question and ask for it to be reopened, or write a new one that is more focused. I hope this helps. Nov 18 '20 at 19:02
  • I've removed the second sentence so what's left is essentially one sentence with small variations, variations which may very well have to do with the very rules I'm enquiring about. RE your being unable to give a concise and unequivocal answer, couldn't your answer just be in sections each dealing with just one of the sentence? I don't see any point making 3 questions each with small variations of the same sentence when they are all about the same specific phenomenon. Or maybe someone can enlighten me as to how these sentences are wildly different?
    – Joe
    Nov 19 '20 at 17:38

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.