Defining/non-defining clauses

[Grablevskij]

1) In the morning she received a letter. The letter upset her.
2) In the morning she received a letter. This fact upset her. (It's difficult to imagine, but maybe she was afraid of something. Anyway let it be.)


Let us combine these two sentences into one:
In the morning she received a letter, which upset her.

How can I make more clear which case I mean? I can assume that if I move the relative clause aside and separate it off with the adverbial modifier, it may help me to emphasize the second meaning:

She received a letter in the morning, which upset her.

But what about underlining the second meaning?

Or am I bewildered completely?

Michael

[engee30]

1) In the morning she received a letter. The letter upset her.
2) In the morning she received a letter. This fact upset her. (It's difficult to imagine, but maybe she was afraid of something. Anyway let it be.)


Let us combine these two sentences into one:
In the morning she received a letter, which upset her.

How can I make more clear which case I mean? I can assume that if I move the relative clause aside and separate it off with the adverbial modifier, it may help me to emphasize the second meaning:

She received a letter in the morning, which upset her.

But what about underlining the second meaning?

Or am I bewildered completely?

Michael

Get rid of the commas in both sentences - which will refer to the letter. Leave the commas, and which will apply to the whole clause(s).

Watch out - I am not a teacher.

[Grablevskij]

But I suppose it is additional information, therefore it is a non-defining clause. I suppose that I can not leave the comma.

Michael

[Grablevskij]

Omit the comma, sorry for that.

Michael

[CHOMAT]

I was about to ask you . Do you see the significance of this omission?

[Grablevskij]

I suppose I can see it. If there is a comma, we have some additional information. If there is none, we have classifying meaning in case of indefinite article. But I suppose in our example it is impossible to go without that comma.

Michael

[CHOMAT]

I suppose I can see it. If there is a comma, we have some additional information. If there is none, we have classifying meaning in case of indefinite article. But I suppose in our example it is impossible to go without that comma.

Michael

the 'which' introducing the non-defining clause takes back the whole situation described in the main clause that is the fact to receive a letter.

[Grablevskij]

As far as I known it is not necessarily.

Example:
His article on this subject, which was published in 1948, was a great success.

Michael

[CHOMAT]

You would then notice your instance is slightly different from mine in structure. Both exemplify non-defining clauses:
1)His article on this subject , which was published in 1948, was a great success.
2)She received a letter, which upset her.
In your instance which works as relative /object/
In mine which relative : subject This is the letter or the fact to receive this letter that upset her.
In utterances like mine in which WHICH takes back the whole main clause the relative pronoun works as a subject.

1) His article on this subject, which aroused controversy over the pond, was a great success =which subject.
1' His article on this subject, which was turned down by the French, was a great success in the UK.

2) I never met Hercules, which is a pity.
2)I kicked the bucket, which was a big relief for those who knew me privately.

[Grablevskij]

I can understand the case where which refers to the whole main clause.

But Let's return to our first example.
1) In the morning she received a letter. The letter upset her.

Could you suggest a sentence where which is an object?

Michael