The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

the last place..., which is one reason domestic abuse is so confusing(Relative(adjectival) Clauses) Options
A cooperator
Posted: Monday, March 11, 2019 9:37:57 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 3,717
Neurons: 14,193
Location: Seiyun, Hadramawt, Yemen
Hi Everyone!
Could anyone please tell me what the restricted (non-defining) relative clause in bold modifies? I pretty sure that it modifies the whole clause 'the last place we would want or expect to find violence'. But, what made me confused is why there is no comma after the the end of non-defining relative clause.

Over 85 percent of abusers are men, and domestic abuse happens only in intimate, interdependent, long-term relationships, in other words, in families, the last place we would want or expect to find violence, which is one reason domestic abuse is so confusing.

Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
FounDit
Posted: Monday, March 11, 2019 9:44:09 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 12,199
Neurons: 60,592
A cooperator wrote:
Hi Everyone!
Could anyone please tell me what the restricted (non-defining) relative clause in bold modifies?
Over 85 percent of abusers are men, and domestic abuse happens only in intimate, interdependent, long-term relationships, in other words, in families, the last place we would want or expect to find violence, which is one reason domestic abuse is so confusing.


It appears to me to modify long-term relationships. It is said to be confusing because this is not where you would expect to find it. But that seems illogical to me. I think it would be more accurate to say this is the last place it should be found.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
A cooperator
Posted: Monday, March 11, 2019 9:49:15 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 3,717
Neurons: 14,193
Location: Seiyun, Hadramawt, Yemen
FounDit wrote:
A cooperator wrote:
Hi Everyone!
Could anyone please tell me what the restricted (non-defining) relative clause in bold modifies?
Over 85 percent of abusers are men, and domestic abuse happens only in intimate, interdependent, long-term relationships, in other words, in families, the last place we would want or expect to find violence, which is one reason domestic abuse is so confusing.


It appears to me to modify long-term relationships. It is said to be confusing because this is not where you would expect to find it. But that seems illogical to me. I think it would be more accurate to say this is the last place it should be found.

Thanks a lot, FounDit ,
Do you not think of it as if it much pretty modifies the whole clause 'the last place we would want or expect to find violence'? I think of it that way, but, what made me confused is why there is no comma after the the end of non-defining relative clause.

Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
Audiendus
Posted: Monday, March 11, 2019 10:18:53 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/24/2011
Posts: 5,909
Neurons: 1,121,821
Location: London, England, United Kingdom
Here is the meaning:

1. Domestic abuse happens only...in families.
2. Families are the last place we would want or expect to find violence.
3. The fact that domestic abuse happens only in families is one reason [that] domestic abuse is so confusing.

Note that the relative clause "which is one reason..." includes another clause, i.e. "[that] domestic abuse is so confusing".

It would not make sense for the relative clause to modify "the last place we would want or expect to find violence". The sentence says "which is one reason", but a place cannot be a reason. However, a fact (see 3 above) can be a reason.

Also, a non-defining relative clause has a comma at the beginning (as in this case), not at the end.
FounDit
Posted: Monday, March 11, 2019 1:42:43 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 12,199
Neurons: 60,592
I agree with Audiendus. The reason I chose "long-term relationships" over "families" is because the word "families" indicates children. But such abuse also occurs in relationships where there are no children. Either way, is should not happen by either men or women.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
A cooperator
Posted: Monday, March 11, 2019 7:15:27 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 3,717
Neurons: 14,193
Location: Seiyun, Hadramawt, Yemen
Audiendus wrote:
Here is the meaning:

1. Domestic abuse happens only...in families.
2. Families are the last place we would want or expect to find violence.
3. The fact that domestic abuse happens only in families is one reason [that] domestic abuse is so confusing.

Note that the relative clause "which is one reason..." includes another clause, i.e. "[that] domestic abuse is so confusing".


Firstly: but, it's written as below in the transcript of that speech I noticed.
'Over 85 percent of abusers are men, and domestic abuse happens only in intimate, interdependent, long-term relationships, in other words, in families, the last place we would want or expect to find violence, which is one reason domestic abuse is so confusing.'

Secondly: do you not think that it is a much too long sentence to be followed by a reader even with comma? I think 'long-term relationships' should be ended with a full stop, and not a comma.


Audiendus wrote:
Quote:
Also, a non-defining relative clause has a comma at the beginning (as in this case), not at the end.

But, I was expecting a non-defining relative clause to have only a comma at the beginning if not followed by any phrase. However, if it is in the middle(followed and preceded by a phrase), then it must be surrounded by two commas.
So, as you corrected me, I can say: "This is my mother, whose old is 24-years still works.", but the non-defining relative clause will have two finite verbs, 'is' and 'work'.


Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
Audiendus
Posted: Monday, March 11, 2019 9:49:52 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/24/2011
Posts: 5,909
Neurons: 1,121,821
Location: London, England, United Kingdom
A cooperator wrote:
Firstly: but, it's written as below in the transcript of that speech I noticed.
'Over 85 percent of abusers are men, and domestic abuse happens only in intimate, interdependent, long-term relationships, in other words, in families, the last place we would want or expect to find violence, which is one reason domestic abuse is so confusing.'
Yes, but I still say that the relative clause refers to a fact, not a place. A place (or a family) cannot be a "reason", but a fact can. As always, you need to consider the meaning.

Secondly: do you not think that it is a much too long sentence to be followed by a reader even with comma? I think 'long-term relationships' should be ended with a full stop, and not a comma. Yes, I agree. And the second sentence should begin: "In other words, it happens in families...".

Audiendus wrote:
Also, a non-defining relative clause has a comma at the beginning (as in this case), not at the end.

But, I was expecting a non-defining relative clause to have only a comma at the beginning if not followed by any phrase. However, if it is in the middle (followed and preceded by a phrase), then it must be surrounded by two commas. But it is not in the middle here; it continues to the end of the sentence. The whole relative clause (which, as I said, includes another clause) is:

"which is one reason [that] domestic abuse is so confusing".

In your original post, you put only the words "which is one reason domestic abuse" in bold. But that group of words makes no sense on its own; it needs the words "is so confusing" to complete it.

You are right that a relative clause that comes in the middle of a sentence needs commas before and after it.
A cooperator
Posted: Tuesday, March 12, 2019 7:25:37 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 3,717
Neurons: 14,193
Location: Seiyun, Hadramawt, Yemen
Audiendus wrote:

Yes, but I still say that the relative clause refers to a fact, not a place. A place (or a family) cannot be a "reason", but a fact can. As always, you need to consider the meaning.

Yes, I agree. And the second sentence should begin: "In other words, it happens in families...".

But it is not in the middle here; it continues to the end of the sentence. The whole relative clause (which, as I said, includes another eclause) is:

"which is one reason [that] domestic abuse is so confusing".

Thanks to you,

Audiendus
,
Firstly: as always I know the antecedent(a word, phrase or sentence that is represented by another word) if it is just next to(precedes) what it represents. E.g, "man" is referred to with "who came yesterday" in "the man who came yesterday". So, what does that whole relative clause modify/refer to in that original sentence(not your edited one)? I.e, where is the antecident?

Secondly: how does that sound if rephrase to read
'Over 85 percent of abusers are men, and domestic abuse happens only in intimate, interdependent, long-term relationships. In other words, it happens in families, the last place we would want or expect to find violence, which is one reason domestic abuse is so confusing.'? But, "which is one reason domestic abuse is so confusing." will still look as if it modifies, refers to the antecedent, the relative clause "the last place we would want or expect to find violence", and not "it".


Audiendus wrote:

In your original post, you put only the words "which is one reason domestic abuse" in bold. But that group of words makes no sense on its own; it needs the words "is so confusing" to complete it.


Firstly: do you think that the whole relative clause is correct to have another noun clause since the noun clause "domestic abuse is so confusing" has its own subject and finite verb, and can be replaced by a noun? However, a relative clause can never include other clauses other than noun clauses.
How that does sound if said "This is my mother, whose old is 24-years still works."? But the non-defining relative clause will have two finite verbs, 'is' and 'work'.

Secondly: as long as a relative cause can only include another noun clause, then I can consider that a relative clause is bigger than a noun clause since each relative clause can include another noun clause, but the oppiste cannot be found.


Audiendus wrote:
You are right that a relative clause that comes in the middle of a sentence needs commas before and after it.


Do you mean this 'My mother, who's over 80, still drives a car.' is a kind of an identifying relative clause which must be begun and ended with a comma?
But, the key is that each clause must have one finite verb or otherwise it will be incorrect. E.g, neither of the sentences below is correct:
This is my mother, who's over 80, still drives a car.
This is my mother, who's over 80 still drives a car.



Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
Audiendus
Posted: Tuesday, March 12, 2019 10:49:51 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/24/2011
Posts: 5,909
Neurons: 1,121,821
Location: London, England, United Kingdom
A cooperator wrote:
Firstly: as always I know the antecedent(a word, phrase or sentence that is represented by another word) if it is just next to(precedes) what it represents. E.g, "man" is referred to with "who came yesterday" in "the man who came yesterday". So, what does that whole relative clause modify/refer to in that original sentence(not your edited one)? I.e, where is the antecedent? The antecedent is the whole of the following:

"Domestic abuse happens only in intimate, interdependent, long-term relationships, in other words, in families, the last place we would want or expect to find violence".

If you ask me how you can tell that that is the antecedent, I can only say: look at the meaning. Why is domestic violence confusing? Because of some fact that (perhaps) we would not expect. Do you understand that?


Secondly: how does that sound if rephrase to read
'Over 85 percent of abusers are men, and domestic abuse happens only in intimate, interdependent, long-term relationships. In other words, it happens in families, the last place we would want or expect to find violence, which is one reason domestic abuse is so confusing.'? But, "which is one reason domestic abuse is so confusing." will still look as if it modifies, refers to the antecedent, the relative clause "the last place we would want or expect to find violence", and not "it". It will not look like that if you understand the meaning. In this case, the antecedent is:

"it happens in families, the last place we would want or expect to find violence".


Audiendus wrote:
In your original post, you put only the words "which is one reason domestic abuse" in bold. But that group of words makes no sense on its own; it needs the words "is so confusing" to complete it.

Firstly: do you think that the whole relative clause is correct to have another noun clause since the noun clause "domestic abuse is so confusing" has its own subject and finite verb, and can be replaced by a noun? No, it cannot. However, a relative clause can never include other clauses other than noun clauses. That is not correct – see my comment under "Secondly" below.
"[That] domestic abuse is so confusing" (note the implied conjunction "that") is an adjectival clause, not a noun clause. It modifies "reason".

How that does sound if said "This is my mother, whose old age is 24-years still works."? But the non-defining relative clause will have two finite verbs, 'is' and 'work'. That sentence is ungrammatical. Even without the relative clause, there would be two finite verbs (the first "is", and "works"). See also my comment at the end.

Secondly: as long as a relative cause can only include another noun clause, then I can consider that a relative clause is bigger than a noun clause since each relative clause can include another noun clause, but the oppiste cannot be found.
Any clause can include any other type of clause. For example:

I know who wrote the letter that I received. [Noun clause: "who wrote the letter that I received". Relative clause: "that I received".]
She is the only person who knows what happened. [Relative clause: "who knows what happened". Noun clause: "what happened".]
He saw a spider, which was a creature that terrified him. [Relative clause: "which was a creature that terrified him". Relative clause: "that terrified him".]


Audiendus wrote:
You are right that a relative clause that comes in the middle of a sentence needs commas before and after it.

Do you mean this 'My mother, who's over 80, still drives a car.' is a kind of a non-identifying relative clause which must be begun and ended with a comma? Yes.
But, the key is that each clause must have one finite verb or otherwise it will be incorrect. E.g, neither of the sentences below is correct:
This is my mother, who's over 80, still drives a car.
This is my mother, who's over 80 still drives a car.
Yes, these are both incorrect.
A cooperator
Posted: Sunday, March 17, 2019 7:44:09 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 3,717
Neurons: 14,193
Location: Seiyun, Hadramawt, Yemen
Audiendus wrote:
A cooperator wrote:
Secondly: how does that sound if rephrased to read
'Over 85 percent of abusers are men, and domestic abuse happens only in intimate, interdependent, long-term relationships. In other words, it happens in families, the last place we would want or expect to find violence, which is one reason domestic abuse is so confusing.'? But, "which is one reason domestic abuse is so confusing." will still look as if it modifies, refers to the antecedent, the relative clause "the last place we would want or expect to find violence", and not "it". It will not look like that if you understand the meaning. In this case, the antecedent is:

"it happens in families, the last place we would want or expect to find violence".


Audiendus,
I've never come across a relative clause which is represented/referred to by an antecedent having a meaning of a fact expressed with a too long phrase such as "Domestic abuse happens only in intimate, interdependent, long-term relationships, in other words, in families, the last place we would want or expect to find violence".

But, I've thought of it that way since you said "Yes, I agree. And the second sentence should begin: "In other words, it happens in families..."." when I I'd asked you "do you not think that it is a much too long sentence to be followed by a reader even with comma? I think 'long-term relationships' should be ended with a full stop, and not a comma."
So, I thought that 'it' also refers to 'domestic abuse happens only in intimate, interdependent, long-term relationships'?

Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
Audiendus
Posted: Sunday, March 17, 2019 9:32:14 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/24/2011
Posts: 5,909
Neurons: 1,121,821
Location: London, England, United Kingdom
A cooperator wrote:
But, I've thought of it that way since you said "Yes, I agree. And the second sentence should begin: "In other words, it happens in families..."." when I I'd asked you "do you not think that it is a much too long sentence to be followed by a reader even with comma? I think 'long-term relationships' should be ended with a full stop, and not a comma."
So, I thought that 'it' also refers to 'domestic abuse happens only in intimate, interdependent, long-term relationships'?

No, because the following sentence would have two finite verbs in the same clause, and would therefore be ungrammatical:

Domestic abuse happens only in intimate, interdependent, long-term relationships happens in families...

Here there is no "which" to introduce a second clause.
A cooperator
Posted: Monday, March 18, 2019 5:36:17 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 3,717
Neurons: 14,193
Location: Seiyun, Hadramawt, Yemen
Audiendus wrote:
A cooperator wrote:
But, I've thought of it that way since you said "Yes, I agree. And the second sentence should begin: "In other words, it happens in families..."." when I I'd asked you "do you not think that it is a much too long sentence to be followed by a reader even with comma? I think 'long-term relationships' should be ended with a full stop, and not a comma."
So, I thought that 'it' also refers to 'domestic abuse happens only in intimate, interdependent, long-term relationships'?

No, because the following sentence would have two finite verbs in the same clause, and would therefore be ungrammatical:

Domestic abuse happens only in intimate, interdependent, long-term relationships happens in families...

Here there is no "which" to introduce a second clause.

Audiendus,
This "Domestic abuse happens only in intimate, interdependent, long-term relationships happens in families..." has two finite verbs of 'happens'. Why did you write it? I've not written any sentence such that?

Since you agreed with me by saying 'Yes, I agree. And the second sentence should begin: "In other words, it happens in families...", I am trying to rephrase the original sentence to be a short sentence.
The original sentence:
'Over 85 percent of abusers are men, and domestic abuse happens only in intimate, interdependent, long-term relationships, in other words, in families, the last place we would want or expect to find violence, which is one reason domestic abuse is so confusing.'

The rephrased sentence:
'Over 85 percent of abusers are men, and domestic abuse happens only in intimate, interdependent, long-term relationships. In other words, it happens in families, the last place we would want or expect to find violence, which is one reason domestic abuse is so confusing.'

I, myself, am wondering why there is no 'and' before 'long-term relationships' in the original sentence.




Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
Audiendus
Posted: Monday, March 18, 2019 10:29:55 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/24/2011
Posts: 5,909
Neurons: 1,121,821
Location: London, England, United Kingdom
A cooperator wrote:
Audiendus wrote:
A cooperator wrote:
But, I've thought of it that way since you said "Yes, I agree. And the second sentence should begin: "In other words, it happens in families..."." when I I'd asked you "do you not think that it is a much too long sentence to be followed by a reader even with comma? I think 'long-term relationships' should be ended with a full stop, and not a comma."
So, I thought that 'it' also refers to 'domestic abuse happens only in intimate, interdependent, long-term relationships'?

No, because the following sentence would have two finite verbs in the same clause, and would therefore be ungrammatical:

Domestic abuse happens only in intimate, interdependent, long-term relationships happens in families...

Here there is no "which" to introduce a second clause.

Audiendus,
This "Domestic abuse happens only in intimate, interdependent, long-term relationships happens in families..." has two finite verbs of 'happens'. Why did you write it? I've not written any sentence such that?

You confused me because you wrote:

"So, I thought that 'it' also refers to 'domestic abuse happens only in intimate, interdependent, long-term relationships'".

'It' refers only to the words 'domestic abuse'. But I understand what you mean now.

A cooperator wrote:
The rephrased sentence:
'Over 85 percent of abusers are men, and domestic abuse happens only in intimate, interdependent, long-term relationships. In other words, it happens in families, the last place we would want or expect to find violence, which is one reason domestic abuse is so confusing.'

I, myself, am wondering why there is no 'and' before 'long-term relationships' in the original sentence.

The rephrased version is good. It sounds right without 'and'. It is difficult to give a clear reason for this. Perhaps others can suggest one.
A cooperator
Posted: Saturday, March 30, 2019 5:13:22 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 3,717
Neurons: 14,193
Location: Seiyun, Hadramawt, Yemen
Repeated!

Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
A cooperator
Posted: Saturday, March 30, 2019 5:13:25 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 3,717
Neurons: 14,193
Location: Seiyun, Hadramawt, Yemen
Audiendus wrote:
A cooperator wrote:
'Over 85 percent of abusers are men, and domestic abuse happens only in intimate, interdependent, long-term relationships, in other words, in families, the last place we would want or expect to find violence, which is one reason domestic abuse is so confusing.'? But, "which is one reason domestic abuse is so confusing." will still look as if it modifies, refers to the antecedent, the relative clause "the last place we would want or expect to find violence "domestic abuse is so confusing"



The whole relative clause (which, as I said, includes another eclause) is:

"which is one reason [that] domestic abuse is so confusing".

"[That] domestic abuse is so confusing" (note the implied conjunction "that") is an adjectival clause, not a noun clause. It modifies "reason".


Audiendus,
Firstly, how is "that domestic abuse is so confusing" an adjectival(relative) clause as long as "that" is an implied conjunction? I think "that" must be a relative pronoun as long as a relative pronoun introduces a relative clause.

Secondly, why is "that" neither acting as the subject, nor the object of the dependent clause "that domestic abuse is so confusing" so long as you both stated:
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
True relative pronouns are "that," "who" and "which." They differ from subordinating conjunctions because they act as the subject of a dependent clause. Subordinating conjunctions do not. Subordinating conjunctions are followed by the subject of their clause. To clear all that up, here's a couple of examples:

- Relative pronoun: John is the guy who came over for dinner last week.

Here, we have two clauses. "John is the guy" is the independent clause (that could stand alone), and "who came over for dinner last week" is the dependent clause (providing us with more information). The word "who" is a relative pronoun (acting as the subject of the dependent clause).

- Subordinating conjunction: We talked about music and movies while we ate.

Here, "We talked about music and movies" is the independent clause (that could stand alone) and "while we ate" is the dependent clause (providing us with more information). In this example, both clauses have the subject "we." The word "while" does not act as the subject of the dependent clause.



Audiendus wrote:
They can also act as the object of a dependent clause. If so, the distinction between relative pronoun and subordinating conjunction* may be deducible only from the meaning:

Here is the proof that I have obtained. [relative pronoun]
Here is the proof that I have paid. [subordinating conjunction*]

* or 'subordinator'


Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
A cooperator
Posted: Saturday, March 30, 2019 6:26:35 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 3,717
Neurons: 14,193
Location: Seiyun, Hadramawt, Yemen
Audiendus,
I noticed the Arabic translation of "which is one reason domestic abuse is so confusing", in the Arabic transcript version of that speech corresponding to the English transcript version, was translated as though "which is one reason domestic abuse is so confusing" was written as "For this reason domestic violence is so confusing"
Do you think that is just because the one who translated the English transcript version of that speech into Arabic is not proficient in translation?

Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
BobShilling
Posted: Saturday, March 30, 2019 6:41:56 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 1,420
Neurons: 7,616
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
No.
BobShilling
Posted: Saturday, March 30, 2019 6:43:18 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 1,420
Neurons: 7,616
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
I don't think that getting into a discussion of an English translation of an An Arabic translation of an original English test is of any value here.
A cooperator
Posted: Saturday, March 30, 2019 7:03:55 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 3,717
Neurons: 14,193
Location: Seiyun, Hadramawt, Yemen
BobShilling wrote:
I don't think that getting into a discussion of an English translation of an An Arabic translation of an original English test is of any value here.


It is not an English translation of an Arabic translation? It is a TED talk which is available with transcript of speech in different languages, English, Czech, Arabic, and so forth.

Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
Audiendus
Posted: Saturday, March 30, 2019 10:24:10 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/24/2011
Posts: 5,909
Neurons: 1,121,821
Location: London, England, United Kingdom
A cooperator wrote:
Firstly, how is "that domestic abuse is so confusing" an adjectival(relative) clause as long as "that" is an implied conjunction? I think "that" must be a relative pronoun as long as a relative pronoun introduces a relative clause.

"That domestic abuse is so confusing" is adjectival (it modifies "reason"), but it is not a relative clause – see my comment below.

A cooperator wrote:
Secondly, why is "that" neither acting as the subject, nor the object of the dependent clause "that domestic abuse is so confusing" so long as you both stated:
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
True relative pronouns are "that," "who" and "which." They differ from subordinating conjunctions because they act as the subject of a dependent clause. Subordinating conjunctions do not. Subordinating conjunctions are followed by the subject of their clause.

"That" cannot be the subject of the clause "domestic abuse is so confusing", because that clause already has a subject, i.e. "domestic abuse". The construction is not "domestic abuse that is so confusing" (in which "that" is a relative pronoun acting as the subject of "is"); it is "that domestic abuse is so confusing" (in which "domestic abuse" is the subject of "is").
A cooperator
Posted: Saturday, March 30, 2019 11:08:51 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 3,717
Neurons: 14,193
Location: Seiyun, Hadramawt, Yemen
Audiendus wrote:
A cooperator wrote:
Firstly, how is "that domestic abuse is so confusing" an adjectival(relative) clause as long as "that" is an implied conjunction? I think "that" must be a relative pronoun as long as a relative pronoun introduces a relative clause.

"That domestic abuse is so confusing" is adjectival (it modifies "reason"), but it is not a relative clause – see my comment below.


Audiendus,
Firstly, but you told me that a relative clause can be called an adjectival clause. So, how is now there a relative clause which differs from an adjectival clause?

You, in the thread entitled "I expected this man the judge. ('demonstrative adjective,modifier' AND 'Noun Phrases and Clauses'), stated:

Audiendus wrote:
A cooperator wrote:
2- I think a relative clause can be called an adjectival clause. So, I said "who was the judge", in "I thought/expected this man who was the judge" is an adjectival clause. Yes, you can call it that also.



Secondly, about "It is your insistence that it is [generally acceptable in modern British and American English] which/that has prolonged this thread.", you, along with Dragonspeaker, in the thread entitled 'Noun clauses and a noun clause beginning with 'that'', stated:
Audiendus wrote:
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
"that it is generally acceptable in modern British and American English" begins with the preposition 'that'. It appears to me to act like a noun in apposition to "insistence".

Yes, I agree. It could be called a complement to "insistence". It is not a relative clause.

Audiendus wrote:
BobShilling,

Like Drag0nspeaker, I (tentatively) called it a conjunction (see below).

Audiendus wrote:
A cooperator wrote:
Thirdly, in each of the following, the first 'that' is NOT a pronoun introducing a relative, but it is a preposition) I would call it a (subordinating) conjunction.
Your insistence that it is (generally acceptable etc)...
It is your insistence that it is (generally acceptable etc) that has prolonged this thread.
I understood his wish that we should be there.
my statement that I was present


"That" would clearly be a conjunction in "You insist that it is...".



So, can I compare "that it is..", which is a complement(adjectival clause) modifying the phrase "your assistance" with "that domestic abuse is so confusing", which is also an adjectival clause modifying the the phrase "one reason"?

Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
Audiendus
Posted: Saturday, March 30, 2019 11:59:35 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/24/2011
Posts: 5,909
Neurons: 1,121,821
Location: London, England, United Kingdom
A cooperator wrote:
Firstly, but you told me that a relative clause can be called an adjectival clause. So, how is now there a relative clause which differs from an adjectival clause?

No, I said "that domestic abuse is so confusing" is not a relative clause. I explained why.

A cooperator wrote:
So, can I compare "that it is..", which is a complement(adjectival clause) modifying the phrase "your insistance" with "that domestic abuse is so confusing", which is also an adjectival clause modifying the the phrase "one reason"?

Yes.
A cooperator
Posted: Sunday, March 31, 2019 12:15:00 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 3,717
Neurons: 14,193
Location: Seiyun, Hadramawt, Yemen
Audiendus wrote:
A cooperator wrote:
Firstly, but you told me that a relative clause can be called an adjectival clause. So, how is now there a relative clause which differs from an adjectival clause?

No, I said "that domestic abuse is so confusing" is not a relative clause. I explained why.


Yes, but you said it is an adjectival clause.
However, you had told me before that a relative clause can also be called an adjectival clause.
You, in the thread entitled "I expected this man the judge. ('demonstrative adjective,modifier' AND 'Noun Phrases and Clauses'), stated:

Audiendus wrote:
A cooperator wrote:
2- I think a relative clause can be called an adjectival clause. So, I said "who was the judge", in "I thought/expected this man who was the judge" is an adjectival clause. Yes, you can call it that also.


As a result, I am now asking why "who was the judge" can be called either a relative or adjectival clause. But, "that domestic abuse is so confusing" cannot be called a relative clause, but it is an adjectival clause.



Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
palapaguy
Posted: Sunday, March 31, 2019 12:35:48 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/28/2013
Posts: 1,746
Neurons: 13,740
Location: Calabasas, California, United States
A cooperator wrote:
Audiendus wrote:
A cooperator wrote:
Firstly, but you told me that a relative clause can be called an adjectival clause. So, how is now there a relative clause which differs from an adjectival clause?

No, I said "that domestic abuse is so confusing" is not a relative clause. I explained why.


Yes, but you said it is an adjectival clause.
However, you had told me before that a relative clause can also be called an adjectival clause.
You, in the thread entitled "I expected this man the judge. ('demonstrative adjective,modifier' AND 'Noun Phrases and Clauses'), stated:

Audiendus wrote:
A cooperator wrote:
2- I think a relative clause can be called an adjectival clause. So, I said "who was the judge", in "I thought/expected this man who was the judge" is an adjectival clause. Yes, you can call it that also.


As a result, I am now asking why "who was the judge" can be called either a relative or adjectival clause. But, "that domestic abuse is so confusing" cannot be called a relative clause, but it is an adjectival clause.


Coop, your focus on learning the names of clauses is totally wrong if your objective is to learn conversational English. Native speakers don't know or care about grammar theory. They simply want to be able to communicate - to be understood.

What you need, seriously, is to be able to post questions here intelligibly, and to understand the answers you receive.
Audiendus
Posted: Sunday, March 31, 2019 12:55:03 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/24/2011
Posts: 5,909
Neurons: 1,121,821
Location: London, England, United Kingdom
A cooperator wrote:
However, you had told me before that a relative clause can also be called an adjectival clause.

Yes, a relative clause is an adjectival clause, but an adjectival clause is not necessarily a relative clause. All relative clauses are adjectival clauses, but not all adjectival clauses are relative clauses.

A cooperator wrote:
As a result, I am now asking why "who was the judge" can be called either a relative or adjectival clause. But, "that domestic abuse is so confusing" cannot be called a relative clause, but it is an adjectival clause.

In "who was the judge", "who" is the subject of the verb; but in "that domestic abuse is so confusing", "that" is not the subject of the verb. That is the difference.
A cooperator
Posted: Monday, April 1, 2019 8:39:49 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 3,717
Neurons: 14,193
Location: Seiyun, Hadramawt, Yemen
Audiendus wrote:
A cooperator wrote:
As a result, I am now asking why "who was the judge" can be called either a relative or adjectival clause. But, "that domestic abuse is so confusing" cannot be called a relative clause, but it is an adjectival clause.

In "who was the judge", "who" is the subject of the verb; but in "that domestic abuse is so confusing", "that" is not the subject of the verb. That is the difference.


Thanks a lot, Audiendus,

Firstly, then 'that' is a subordinating conjunction in "that domestic abuse is so confusing".

Secondly, if only the difference lies in the fact that the relative pronoun is acting as the subject of the verb 'was' inside the adjectival clause in bold in "I thought/expected this man who was the judge" makes 'who was the judge' a relative clause as well. But in "that domestic abuse is so confusing", "that" is not the subject of the verb. So, it cannot be called a relative clause.

Then, in 'More than 70 percent were men, who researchers said took more risks to get a dramatic shot", I'll be saying that the relative pronoun 'who' referring to 'men' is acting as the object(NOT the subject) of 'say' inside the adjectival clause in bold. Which contradicts the reason of the difference is just because 'who' is being a subject'. Which means that we cannot call 'who researchers said....' a relative clause since 'who' is acting as the object of 'say'.

Also, in "Here is the proof that I have obtained.", the relative pronoun 'that' is the object(not the subject) of 'obtain'.


Finally, the fact that 'who' referring/representing the antecedent 'men' is acting as the object of 'say' in the dependent(subordinate)(relative) clause, and is also acting as subject of 'took' makes me confused. How can the relative pronoun 'who' be an object and subject in two places at once?
Could I rephrase it and produce the following sentence "Researchers said [that] more than 70 percent were men took more risks to get a dramatic shot."




Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
Audiendus
Posted: Monday, April 1, 2019 10:11:53 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/24/2011
Posts: 5,909
Neurons: 1,121,821
Location: London, England, United Kingdom
A cooperator wrote:
Audiendus wrote:
A cooperator wrote:
As a result, I am now asking why "who was the judge" can be called either a relative or adjectival clause. But, "that domestic abuse is so confusing" cannot be called a relative clause, but it is an adjectival clause.

In "who was the judge", "who" is the subject of the verb; but in "that domestic abuse is so confusing", "that" is not the subject of the verb. That is the difference.

Thanks a lot, Audiendus,

Firstly, then 'that' is a subordinating conjunction in "that domestic abuse is so confusing". Yes.

Secondly, if only the difference lies in the fact that the relative pronoun is acting as the subject of the verb 'was' inside the adjectival clause in bold in "I thought/expected this man who was the judge" makes 'who was the judge' a relative clause as well. Yes. But in "that domestic abuse is so confusing", "that" is not the subject of the verb, nor is it an object of the verb. So, it cannot be called a relative clause. Correct.

Then, in 'More than 70 percent were men, who researchers said took more risks to get a dramatic shot", I'll be saying that the relative pronoun 'who' referring to 'men' is acting as the object(NOT the subject) of 'say' inside the adjectival clause in bold. Which contradicts the reason of the difference is just because 'who' is being a subject'. Which means that we cannot call 'who researchers said....' a relative clause since 'who' is acting as the object of 'say'. No, I never said a relative pronoun can only be a subject. A relative pronoun can be the object of a verb. However, in this particular case the construction is more complex – see below.

Also, in "Here is the proof that I have obtained.", the relative pronoun 'that' is the object(not the subject) of 'obtain'. Yes.

Finally, the fact that 'who' referring/representing the antecedent 'men' is acting as the object of 'say' in the dependent(subordinate)(relative) clause, and is also acting as subject of 'took' makes me confused. How can the relative pronoun 'who' be an object and subject in two places at once? "Who" is the subject of "took". The object of "said" is "who took more risks to get a dramatic shot". This may be confusing, beacause the object is split by the words "researchers said", but you can think of it as grammatically equivalent to "researchers said (that) they took more risks...". Compare the following:

That is the person who I think did it. ["who" is the subject of "did"; "who did it" is the object of "I think".]
I want to introduce you to my friend, who I think is very clever. ["who" is the subject of "is"; "who is very clever" is the object of "I think".]


Could I rephrase it and produce the following sentence "Researchers said [that] more than 70 percent were men took more risks to get a dramatic shot." No, because "...more than 70 percent were men took more risks..." is a grammatically impossible construction.
A cooperator
Posted: Sunday, April 7, 2019 6:12:19 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 3,717
Neurons: 14,193
Location: Seiyun, Hadramawt, Yemen
Audiendus wrote:
A cooperator wrote:
Firstly, but you told me that a relative clause can be called an adjectival clause. So, how is now there a relative clause which differs from an adjectival clause?

No, I said "that domestic abuse is so confusing" is not a relative clause. I explained why.

A cooperator wrote:
So, can I compare "that it is..", which is a complement(adjectival clause) modifying the phrase "your insistance" with "that domestic abuse is so confusing", which is also an adjectival clause modifying the the phrase "one reason"?

Yes.


Audiendus,
So, in "You are happy with the way things are running now" can I consider '[that] things are running now' is an adjectival clause, not a noun clause, nor a relative clause. It modifies "the way"? So, it can be compared to the following:

.....which is one reason [that] domestic abuse is so confusing".
[That] domestic abuse is so confusing" (note the implied conjunction "that") is an adjectival clause, not a noun clause, nor a relative clause. It modifies "reason".

It is your insistence that it is (generally acceptable etc) that has prolonged this thread.




Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
Audiendus
Posted: Sunday, April 7, 2019 8:24:43 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/24/2011
Posts: 5,909
Neurons: 1,121,821
Location: London, England, United Kingdom
A cooperator wrote:
Audiendus,
So, in "You are happy with the way things are running now" can I consider '[that] things are running now' is an adjectival clause, not a noun clause, nor a relative clause. It modifies "the way"? So, it can be compared to the following:

.....which is one reason [that] domestic abuse is so confusing".
[That] domestic abuse is so confusing" (note the implied conjunction "that") is an adjectival clause, not a noun clause, nor a relative clause. It modifies "reason".

It is your insistence that it is (generally acceptable etc) that has prolonged this thread.


Yes, that is all correct.
A cooperator
Posted: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 7:23:20 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 3,717
Neurons: 14,193
Location: Seiyun, Hadramawt, Yemen
Audiendus wrote:
A cooperator wrote:
Audiendus,
So, in "You are happy with the way things are running now" can I consider '[that] things are running now' is an adjectival clause, not a noun clause, nor a relative clause. It modifies "the way"? So, it can be compared to the following:

.....which is one reason [that] domestic abuse is so confusing".
[That] domestic abuse is so confusing" (note the implied conjunction "that") is an adjectival clause, not a noun clause, nor a relative clause. It modifies "reason".

It is your insistence that it is (generally acceptable etc) that has prolonged this thread.


Yes, that is all correct.


Audiendus,
Can I consider the clause underlined as an adjectival clause modifying 'such busy lives', and 'that' is a subordinating conjunction?

"Nowadays we all lead such busy lives that it is very difficult to find enough time or anything, let alone revision!"

I only know this structure 'it is so sweltering here that I cannot afford it any further.' But, the above sentence has 'such busy lives that.....'

Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
Audiendus
Posted: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 9:26:31 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/24/2011
Posts: 5,909
Neurons: 1,121,821
Location: London, England, United Kingdom
A cooperator wrote:
Audiendus,
Can I consider the clause underlined as an adjectival clause modifying 'such busy lives'
That is a difficult question. After considering it carefully, I think "such...that it is very difficult to find enough time for anything, let alone revision" is a (split) adverbial clause modifying the adjective "busy".

and 'that' is a subordinating conjunction?
Yes.

"Nowadays we all lead such busy lives that it is very difficult to find enough time for anything, let alone revision!"

I only know this structure 'it is so sweltering here that I cannot afford it any further.' But, the above sentence has 'such busy lives that.....'
Here, I think "so... that I cannot afford it any further" is a (split) adverbial clause modifying the adjective "sweltering".
A cooperator
Posted: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 12:04:28 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 3,717
Neurons: 14,193
Location: Seiyun, Hadramawt, Yemen
Audiendus wrote:
A cooperator wrote:
Audiendus,
So, in "You are happy with the way things are running now" can I consider '[that] things are running now' is an adjectival clause, not a noun clause, nor a relative clause. It modifies "the way"? So, it can be compared to the following:

.....which is one reason [that] domestic abuse is so confusing".
[That] domestic abuse is so confusing" (note the implied conjunction "that") is an adjectival clause, not a noun clause, nor a relative clause. It modifies "reason".

It is your insistence that it is (generally acceptable etc) that has prolonged this thread.


Yes, that is all correct.

Audiendus,
You think "[That] I was late" can be compared to the preceding adjectival clauses?
The reason [that] I was late was the traffic.

But, I think "the reason" can be replaced with "why"
"Why I was late was the traffic."
Which raises another question which is as follows: As long as "why" is conjunction introducing a noun clause, how could "the reason" replace the conjunction "why" which enables the clause "why I was late" to function as a noun?

Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
Audiendus
Posted: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 12:40:45 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/24/2011
Posts: 5,909
Neurons: 1,121,821
Location: London, England, United Kingdom
A cooperator wrote:
You think "[That] I was late" can be compared to the preceding adjectival clauses?
The reason [that] I was late was the traffic. Yes.

But, I think "the reason" can be replaced with "why"
"Why I was late was the traffic." Yes.

Which raises another question which is as follows: As long as "why" is conjunction introducing a noun clause, how could "the reason" replace the conjunction "why" which enables the clause "why I was late" to function as a noun? I do not see a problem here. "The reason" can introduce a noun clause because it is a noun. It is connected to the rest of the noun clause by the implied conjunction "that".
A cooperator
Posted: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 1:06:29 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2011
Posts: 3,717
Neurons: 14,193
Location: Seiyun, Hadramawt, Yemen
I see the adjectival clause [that] is widely used is now so obvious that I could phrase this statement of mine by using it.
So, "I think "[that] you are sorry" is an adjectival clause.
There is a difference between the reason for something, and the thing [that] you are sorry has happened.


Whoever doesn't own what he promises to those who do not deserve must not promise it.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2019 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.