I am wondering if I have correctly punctuated the following sentence. Is "which spread panic in the city" a non-restrictive clause?
1.People ran for shelter from hundreds of bombs, which spread panic in the city.
Printable View
I am wondering if I have correctly punctuated the following sentence. Is "which spread panic in the city" a non-restrictive clause?
1.People ran for shelter from hundreds of bombs, which spread panic in the city.
I'd say so- it's not defining which bombs, but telling us something more about them.
NOT A TEACHERQuote:
Originally Posted by Bassim
Off topic. Is this statement ambiguous? I mean, is panic in the city caused by people running for shelter or by hundreds of bombs?
Yes, it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by JarekSteliga
It is, but what would really make you panic- hundreds of bombs or people running for shelter? ;-)
Me personally? Neither the bombs nor people running for shelter. What does it for me is my own ... courage! My own courage never fails to freak me out ;-). (I am borrowing this joke from one of the episodes of the TV series, Yes Prime Minister, in which the Prime Minister gets paralyzed by fear when he is told that Press extolls him as a courageous person.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Tdol
I think if you didn't know what was going on and you just saw loads of people running, especially if they were clearly scared of something, it might well cause you to panic.
Of course, I used my common sense but I did find the sentence ambiguous.
It might well, but if hundreds of bombs had fallen, you might know the reason. ;-)