20

The Original Poster's Question The film that I chose for the class to watch is called The Life of Igor. The film which I chose for the class to watch is called The Life of Igor. Both that and which can be used with restrictive relative clauses. A third possibility, is dropping the relative word altogether when the verb in the relative clause has ...


13

The technical term for this construction is Pied-Piping.   (I don't make up these names, honest; this one, like many others, is due to Haj Ross) Here's how it works: Relative clauses modify nouns; these nouns are called antecedents (because they "go before"). Every relative clause contains an anaphor of its antecedent, which becomes a relative pronoun,...


11

There are several different kinds of that in English (besides the ordinary demonstrative this, that, these, those). All of them are used in linking clauses, but they link different kinds of clauses, and follow different syntactic rules. These that's are not, however, conjunctions; they are Complementizers. Complementizers are one of the parts of speech ...


11

As most of the other answers here point out, including that in a sentence like "He will understand that I was not joking" is optional. But I'd like to offer some examples where that, despite performing the same basic function that it does in "He will understand that I was not joking," either is crucial for sense or vastly improves the flow of the sentence. ...


11

Strange as it may sound, the subject of "was" is, in the opinion of many renowned grammarians (please read N.B. below), the relative pronoun "as". In that sentence, "as" is not a conjunction but a relative word equivalent to sentential relative "which", but, unlike the latter, which always appears after the sentence to which it refers, "as" can precede the ...


9

The following is my original answer, which I stand by as being logical and on the face of it applicable, though it does not seem to tell the whole story. See below for a revised answer. You are right: it should be who here. This is a simple (and fairly common) case of hyper-correction, where people who are not quite sure how to use who and whom correctly ...


9

It should be most of whom, not most of *them. Otherwise it is a comma-splice error caused by incorrectly attempting to join together two independent clauses with a mere comma and no conjunction. These are all correctly formed: There are more than 300 million English speakers in India. Most of them acquired English as a second language. There are more than ...


9

As __ was traditional for unmarried women, Jane lived at home her entire life. It has no overt subject. The expression in bold is an adjunct of comparison with the preposition "as" as head. The comparative clause functioning as complement to "as" is structurally incomplete as I've marked with __ to represent the missing subject, though it is recoverable ...


8

If you want to know when you can omit that it is essential that you first understand the different functions of the word. In your examples, the that in the following sentences introduces an object clause: I recommend that you take my advice. I know that you are correct. Similar examples are: I hope that you have a happy Christmas. I ...


8

The subject of "was" is apparently missing. This is a complex sentence, so not all parts have to have all the elements of a main clause. The main clause of the sentence is the second part, "Jane lived at home her entire life." I found the following explanation in"A Short Overview of English Syntax based on The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language," by ...


7

Yes. Subordinate clauses that start with "where" are more than acceptable; they're completely proper, both grammatically and semantically. By placing the "where" and its clause between commas, one is creating an non-restrictive clause, which is to say that one is providing parenthetical information that is not necessary to the operation of the sentence, ...


7

What you seem to be talking about here is the so called "biscuit conditional", from J.L. Austin's famous example "There are biscuits on the sideboard if you want them" There is an important difference between a BC and 'normal' conditional. If we look a 'normal' conditional such as the barbecue will be cancelled if it rains, the barbecue being cancelled ...


6

They are both correct. It depends on what you want to say. I am about to go to a place where I will be expected to speak English. So,... I am learning English because I will need it when I go abroad. I go abroad to work often. My English is passable but could be better. So, ... I am learning English because I need it when I go abroad.


6

Any expectation of a comma in the examples of the OP has very little to do with the subordinate clauses' restrictiveness, but rather, as the OP suggested, with an interruption of their natural flow. When leading a sentence with a subordinate clause, the comma does not force a "parenthetical / non-restrictive" interpretation. Simply, compare the meaning of ...


6

You asked quite a few questions. Here is an attempt at providing answers to a portion of them. 1. Is this something new or something old? Has it always worked this way in English even before the Conquest, or did we get it grafted onto us by the Norman French? I am surprised you passed without comment OED's sense 1a(b) [with object clause with may or (...


5

Excessive logging of forests in the past century has resulted in [what becomes known as deforestation]. Excessive logging of forests in the past century has resulted in what known as deforestation. What is the role of WHAT in these sentences? Your #2 version is ungrammatical. Your #1 version is fine. The word "what" is the relative word that ...


5

Please find below a very short answer that agrees with Janus on most points. You owe a duty to persons *whom it is foreseeable are likely to be harmed by your conduct. If the only thing I do is replace the relative pronoun with a personal pronoun and adjust the sentences only just enough to make it work, I get this: You owe a duty to persons. It is ...


5

This is the developer in question chiming in here. Both ways are grammatically correct, but there is a different emphasis placed on the source of the damage. If the arc is dealing damage, then there is one source dealing one amount of damage, but if the knives are dealing the damage, then since there are multiple knives, then there are multiple sources of ...


5

Good question, because it is not obvious. Same usually takes a nominal complement with as, so the same things as .... is expected. What makes it tricky is that here it appears to take a clausal complement. This is because there is an omitted noun phrase: the form given is equivalent to the same things as the ones (that) we do. The same things that we ...


5

Case 1: you have made up your mind that you are about to leave. Better still, even others are aware that you are about to leave. In other words, there is no uncertainty in your intention, and others' understanding that you will be leaving soon. In this case - when works. Case 2: There is a possibility that you might leave. You are still uncertain in your ...


4

In a relative clause introduced by a relative pronoun, the pronoun substitutes for one of the main parts of the clause, either the subject or a complement of the verb. Let's look at these three relative clauses by "undoing" the substitution. We'll use This for the part that which stands for: which is what I am a part of ... Substituting this for which gives ...


4

Notice that you give different types of construction in your examples. In the book that is required etc that is a relative pronoun (= French lequel). In recommend that you take etc that is a subordinator (= French que). Wikipedia comments: Because of the omission of function words, the use of reduced relative clauses, particularly when nested, can ...


4

A statement does not have to be true to be grammatical. "Your dog is yellow" is a fine English sentence, regardless of whether your dog is in fact lilac, whether it's actually my dog, or whether either of us owns any animals to begin with. Likewise, you can add a ", which is really not a surprise" to the end of absolutely any sentence, which is really not ...


4

The relevant clauses are ‘the petitioner must submit his own account of the events’ and ‘he claims (that) the events justify the exemption’. When they are joined, they become ‘the petitioner must submit his own account of the events that he claims justify the exemption’. ‘The events’ is not repeated, so no second ‘that’ is required. If you consider that to ...


4

As many proposed in comments, and given that we live many years after 1960, I would also say "not be". :-) EDIT: My response actually meant that people who use a language know what form to use intuitively. Language evolves and if at some point in time the majority of English speakers tend to say "not be" rather than "be not", that's what the grammar book ...


4

The only time past subjunctive is currently used in English is in "if" clauses and similar constructions: If I were in charge, I would change the rules. And in wishes: I wish I were in love again. Many people use the past indicative form of the verb in these constructions: If I was in charge, I would change the rules. Note that the past ...


4

From English Club (slightly modified) : In reported speech: He said: "I feel sad." becomes He said that he felt sad. John said (that) he was hungry. ... John's original words: "I am hungry." [As is seen, w]e sometimes change the tense of the reported clause by moving it back one tense. For example, present simple goes back one ...


4

The version "my playing chess" has the gerund "playing" and the direct object "chess". This is okay, since a gerund is a verb, and a transitive verb like "play" can take a direct object. The second version, "my playing of chess", may be acceptable (it doesn't sound as good to me), but it's not a gerund. The fact that the logical object "chess" is preceded ...


4

Opinions vary considerably on this one. That and which are the same In this Language Log blog (dated 2004), the author calls the distinction between the two nonsense: ...the old nonsense about which being disallowed in what The Cambridge Grammar calls integrated relative clauses (the old-fashioned term is "restrictive" or "defining" ...


4

Is there a majority-accepted rule (or, at least, majority position) around restrictive / nonrestrictive adverbial clauses, or is this merely a stylistic / subjective preference? All punctuation rules are stylistic, and most manuals of style recognize that rules have exceptions and are flexible enough to accommodate an author's judgment. Thus you may ...


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