3

This "that" does not modify a noun, but rather it introduces a restrictive relative clause, and the relative clause is what modifies the noun it goes with. Your examples also involve extraposition of relative clauses, which makes their structure hard to understand. John held parties for his kids that featured clowns, numerous exotic animals, and lots of ...


3

If a native English speaker says my car that is run down, (in one breath group, so written without a comma), other native English speakers will probably conclude that the speaker has more than one car, and is identifying one of them. They could have substituted which for that, but that is less common, and a bit formal. If they started a new breath group ...


3

Once you've decided to include the state, and place a comma between city and state, the reason for the comma after is fairly simple: The tallest building in Portland, ME, is 16 stories tall. In this sentence "ME" is parenthetical, and meaning of the entire sentence is reasonably clear. The tallest building in Portland, ME is 16 stories tall. In this ...


2

The Chicago Manual of Style, sixteenth edition (2010), offers the following guidance for dealing with punctuation before "such as": 6.27 Commas with "such as" and "including." The principles delineated in 6.26 ("Commas with restrictive and nonrestrictive phrases") apply lo to phrases introduced by such as or including. Phrases introduced by these terms ...


2

Yes, the comma belongs there. The "as an English naval captain" could be left out and the sentence make perfect sense. It therefore should be marked off with commas, as you would naturally pause at those two points in speaking as well.


2

The second one (restrictive) more correctly communicates your meaning. All mattresses have "a thickness." So there is nothing about that sentence that provides value without the addition of the subsequent clause. The sentence "The mattress has thickness" is grammatically correct but semantically awkward. That is why the first example ("The mattress has ...


2

You could interpret the state or province in Springfield, Calif. and Springfield, N.L. as a non-restrictive phrase, as an elliptical or parenthetical way of specifying the Springfield you want*: Springfield, [the Springfield in] New South Wales, is a suburb of Gosford. Springfield, [by which I do not mean the town in Nebraska but the Mennonite camp ...


2

‘Non-Restrictive’ and ‘Restrictive’ are terms used to describe Non-Independent Relative Clauses (Non-Restrictive) and Independent Relative Clauses (Restrictive), which commonly begin with 'who, whom, which, that, where,' etc. Your sentences are actually in the form of Perfect Participle Clauses wherein the Relative Clauses have undergone a grammatical ...


2

Because your subordinate clause following which is here an “optional” non-restrictive clause rather the type of “required” restrictive clause which I have just now used here, the orthographic convention in standard written English is to always use a comma. This is quite different from the standard orthographic conventions of written German. In German, you’...


2

The point of the question is not to set history straight but to test one's understanding of parenthetical commas. Each answer differs in the placement of commas so as to set off the name of the scientist for special consideration. If you imagine the sentence read out loud you can hear how the commas function as pauses in speech to describe secondary ...


2

Non-restrictive relative clauses -- the kind that take comma intonation and use which -- are not grammatical with that. If you omit the comma intonation and use that, it's no longer a non-restrictive relative clause, but rather a restrictive relative clause, which has different syntax, and the different function of defining the noun it modifies, instead of ...


1

There is plenty of evidence in support of the OP's claim that there exists the 'rule' if you join two independent clauses with a coordinating conjunction (like "and"), you need a comma before the coordinating conjunction. For example: Use commas to separate independent clauses when they are joined by any of these seven coordinating conjunctions: and, ...


1

This answer is in addition to Carly's answer. I am addressing this from a style point of view. Style is somewhat subjective though parallelism can be one of its elements. Parallelism: I walked to the store and I bought some cheese. [parallel] I walked to the store and bought some cheese. [reduced for style by removing the repetition of the ...


1

I know that, if you join two independent clauses with a coordinating conjunction (like "and"), you need a comma before the coordinating conjunction. For example: I walked to the store, and I bought some cheese. You do not need a comma when using conjunctions to join clauses. Maybe, you could say, you definitely do for dependent clauses, but you ...


1

The comma in question represents a natural pause when saying the sentence. If you removed the pause it would sound wrong. Likewise, if you omitted the comma it wouldn't read well.


1

Find the most natural paraphrase in which the modifier is in a separate, coordinated clause. If that clause comes first, the modifier is restrictive, because it is part of the presupposed background assumptions. But if the modifier is in the last clause, then it is non-restrictive, because it's content is being asserted rather than presupposed. For your ...


1

The reference of C (the places it could refer to) is a subset of the references of A or B. But the references of A and B are equal. In this sense, the relative clause of C is "restrictive", since it restricts the reference of A. A. the location (with no relative clause) B. the location, which was called Central Park, C. the location which was called ...


1

The non-restricting version gives extra information about the location (it was called Central Park). The restricting version helps you find your memory of the location (the location that was called Central Park). The preferred methods are to use 'that' to restrict, and to use ', which' to give extra (adverbial) info.


1

As a first step, it would be wise to decide the sentences that either should have or could be improved with "that" rather than "which" (and perhaps note how this sentence uses "that"). Here are my suggestions: Shoaling behavior also holds a crucial role in the life of juvenile animals that form shoals throughout the juvenile phase (that, no comma, and it ...


1

Your sentence is grammatical. In your sentence, rusted is parenthetically nonessential information. In other words, the sentence could be rephrased in this way: Your car (which happens to be rusted) looks ugly. Or: Your car looks ugly. It's also rusted. In other words, rusted is non-restrictive. It, along with the pair of commas, can be removed ...


1

Your own two interpretations are actually the opposite of what you're calling them. The first version without the commas are restrictive, while the second version with the commas is nonrestrictive. The original sentence is a nonessential appositive. You can tell because of the parenthetical commas. Without the parenthetical information, it would read: ...


1

Your (1) is correct and makes sense, which proves that the sentence can reasonably be interpreted as having a non-restrictive relative clause. I'm afraid your (2) is not correct. A correct restrictive interpretation would go thus: Only those men in the shop of whom John knows two are helpful (those men of whom John knows a different number are not ...


1

Thae description is not quite correct. The word but is usually a coordinator (sometimes called a coordinating conjunction). When it occurs between two full clauses, as it does here, it is always a coordinator. This means that the two clauses in the sentence are of equal status. We don't regard one of them as the main clause and the other as subordinate. ...


1

Style guides do not determine grammar; they define a style to be used by anyone who chooses to follow that style guide. There are many style guides, frequently at odds with each other on various points of detail. If you don't like the Chicago Manual of Style, then just don't follow it. Choose another guide. If you have found examples that are inconsistent ...


1

A nonrestrictive/non-essential relative clause may be omitted if it doesn't change the structure or the meaning of the sentence. Leaving out [that] you told me about last month yields a grammatical sentence but omits an essential feature: “Would you lend me the video?” My immediate response is going to be “Which video?” The relative clause is ...


1

'which' in this sentence refers to the back muscles (notice this is a plural); and since this is a plural, 'provide' is used in the sentence later. (back muscles provide; back muscle provides) Going by this same logic, 'which' here cannot refer to 'wide grip' (you seem to be confused between 'wide grip' and 'back muscles').


1

I disagree with since I have no money being non-restrictive. It is an essential piece of information. However the alternative construction does take a comma Since I have no money, I can't go shipping. Interestingly, especially in dialogue, you can use a comma with your clause if the intention is to make it an aside He said, "I can't go shopping, since I ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible