1. VIP Member
Join Date
Sep 2007
Posts
5,000

## wake

Dear teachers,

Would you tell me whether I am right with my interpretation of the expression in bold in the following sentence?

His glides ended not with the usual feet-down splash into the sea, but with a long flat wake as he touched the surface with his feet tightly streamlined against his body. (Jonathan Livingston Seagull)

wake = the wave that spreads behind a boat as it moves forward (at the present case behind Jonathan’s smoothly sliding body with his tightly bended feet )

Regards,

V.
Last edited by vil; 04-Nov-2010 at 16:20.

2. Senior Member
Join Date
Oct 2010
Posts
984

## Re: wake

I'm not a teacher, but I worked several years in shipbuilding, and I know, that a wake is the track that appears in the water behind a moving boat/ship/vessel, in your example, a seagull

3. ## Re: wake

Originally Posted by Verona_82
I'm not a teacher, but I worked several years in shipbuilding, and I know, that a wake is the track that appears in the water behind a moving boat/ship/vessel, in your example, a seagull
Okay, you are right. However, you should also know that a comma can never be followed by "THAT". In that case the correct word would be "WHICH". It is not in order to bother you, I am just telling this for you to know...

4. Senior Member
Join Date
Oct 2010
Posts
984

## Re: wake

...or WHO. Thanks Leandro-z for pointing that out, but we'd better not discuss defining and non-defining clauses in Vil's thread.

5. Junior Member
Join Date
Sep 2010
Posts
37

## Re: wake

in the wake of

= In the noticeable disturbance of water behind (a maritime vessel).

6. VIP Member
Join Date
Sep 2007
Posts
5,000

## Re: wake

a long flat wake = a long scarcely perceptible track

7. Moderator
Join Date
Jun 2010
Posts
11,611

## Re: wake

Originally Posted by Leandro-Z

However, you should also know that a comma can never be followed by "THAT". In that case the correct word would be "WHICH". It is not in order to bother you, I am just telling this for you to know...
Off-topic or not, that statement needs to be challenged.

Who told you, Leandro, that a comma can never be followed by that? I've just done it twice - perfectly grammatically.

Furthermore, changing that after the (incorrect) comma to which is nonsense.

Rover

8. ## Re: wake

Okay, sorry if it turned into a misunderstanding. It was just for you to know (or to remind you)
Last edited by Leandro-Z; 10-Nov-2010 at 01:16.

9. ## Re: wake

And another thing: WHO can follow a comma in a non-defining clause. For example:

Robert, who really likes ice-cream, back out my proposal.

...but you can`t say:

The theory, that was firstly explained by Galileo Galilei, was related to the genetic relation between monkeys and human beings.

The theory, which was firstly explained by Galileo Galilei, was related to the gentic relation between monkeys and human beings.

10. ## Re: wake

In that case, Rover, it is the same as in Spanish. The verb can never be followed by a comma. However, there are exceptions. For example, when you beging the sentence with a linker. In the cases you showed us, there is a linker or you are adding something. What I tried to explain is that, in the case of Verona, "that" can`t follow the comma beacause, otherwise, the sense is lost. It is wrong to separate the VERB from the THAT CLAUSE.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•

Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1