Yoo Sungryong, who was born in 1542

[5jj]

True. I extended a less general rule incorrectly. But the less general rule, though written down in a book, seems incorrect to me too now, so perhaps I'll start a new thread later.

Please do. I'd be interested to see this rule.

 

[5jj]

I'm really sorry if I've made it more confusing.

Don't apologise. You are experimenting with English, and you sometimes get it wrong. You, and others, can learn from this.

 

[birdeen's call]

Please do. I'd be interested to see this rule.

I have to decide whether I have any doubts about the rule or not. If I don't, I'll just post it here.

 

[tzfujimino]

The second sentence is incorrect. "A/an X" never takes a non-restrictive who-clause.

I think I know what you're trying to say.

In that particular example, it doesn't work whether it is defined or not, does it?

"A man, who teaches us good English, is 5jj."
"A man who teaches us good English is 5jj."

However, 5jj's example works in either way in my opinion.

"A man, who looked decidedly drunk, ran across the road in front of me."
"A man who looked decidedly drunk ran across the road in front of me."

Do you (5jj and BC) agree?

 

[5jj]

"A man, who looked decidedly drunk, ran across the road in front of me."
"A man who looked decidedly drunk ran across the road in front of me."

These are both possible, though they have slightly different meanings.

 

[birdeen's call]

I have to decide whether I have any doubts about the rule or not. If I don't, I'll just post it here.

I can't remember what problem I had with this rule. I'm not starting a new thread because I don't have a question. The rule is that a predicative (as opposed to equative) noun phrases cannot take non-restrictive who-clauses. This rule obviously doesn't apply to tzfujimino's sentence, because "a man" is not a predicative noun phrase there.

 

[keannu]

Thanks a lot for the great endeavors. I've learned from many materials about restrictive/non-restrictive clause that choosing either of the two depends on identifying the described noun. If I could know the difference between 1 and 2, I would understand better.

1. I noticed a cat, which was lying at the side of the road(the underlined doesn't affect identifying a cat, thus omitted)
2. I noticed a cat which was lying at the side of the road(??)

 

[birdeen's call]

1. I noticed a cat, which was lying at the side of the road(the underlined doesn't affect identifying a cat, thus omitted)
2. I noticed a cat which was lying at the side of the road(??)

Thanks. This reminds me of the problem I had with the rule above and gives me an immediate solution. The rule above is incorrect because if it were correct, the sentence

I saw a man, who looked exactly like Tom by the way, and I asked him where the nearest subway station was.

wouldn't be. But it is. The problem in the rule is that it should say "post-copular predicative nouns", not just "predicative nouns". Which is indeed the rule books give.

 

[birdeen's call]

Drat. I have doubts about this thing again. It looks like I'm going to have to ask a question in the end. And it looks like it's not going to be comprehensible. :-|

 

[tzfujimino]

The problem in the rule is that it should say "post-copular predicative nouns", not just "predicative nouns". Which is indeed the rule books give.

"post-copular predicative nouns"...
I'm not sure if I understand it correctly, but is it the following in bold:

This is an interesting book.

If so,

"This is an interesting book, which I bought at the bookstore."

might be incorrect according to the rule?

P.S.(Edit)
I'm sorry, keannu. I think I'll shut up now.
Sorry, BC. It is a silly misunderstanding on my part. The problem is "who-clause".

"He is a taxi driver, who teaches German part-time." might be wrong?

 

[birdeen's call]

"He is a taxi driver, who teaches German part-time." might be wrong?

Yes, that's what the rule says is incorrect. I mave mixed feelings about it myself. Here's the thread I said I would start: https://www.usingenglish.com/forum/...e-non-restrictive-who-clauses.html#post906400

 

[keannu]

I read throughout the thread again and again, but still can't get it. "post-copular predicative nouns" is a big word, so according to the corrected rule you suggested, is the following wrong?

"He is a taxi driver, who teaches German part-time."

By "post-copular predicative nouns", do you mean a predicative refering to its subject again like "He is a man(refering to He)" instead of "He saw a man(not refering to He)"?

 

[birdeen's call]

Keannu, I'm sorry, I misunderstood the rule. I would prefer not to try to explain these things any more now, because I've been getting things wrong so far.

 

[5jj]

Keannu, I'm sorry, I misunderstood the rule. I would prefer not to try to explain these things any more now, because I've been getting things wrong so far.

I agree that this is not the place to try to explain this. However, I think that the person who produced the rule may have caused some of the confusion.

 

[keannu]

I noticed a cat, which was lying at the side of the road.

This is also an exteded thread from my "Yoo Sungryong, who was..."
I also found a good material like the bottom one, and according to it, I'd like to interprete the following sentences, and if my interpretations are wrong, plese let me know.

1a. A man, who looked decidedly drunk, ran across the road in front of me.
=> Focusing on the fact that he might have been drunk, the writer assumes he was drunk.
1b. A man who looked decidedly drunk ran across the road in front of me.
=> There might have been other men around, but the writer is emphasizing the drunken man other than any other men around.

2a. I noticed a cat, which was lying at the side of the road.
=> Focusing on the fact the cat was lying at the side of the road, the behavior itself.
2b. I noticed a cat which was lying at the side of the road.
=> There might have been other cats around, but I noticed such a cat lying at the side of the road.


Comma Usage: Restrictive vs. Nonrestrictive Relative Clauses
Judgment Calls
~My daughter recently attended a Shakespearean play that was being performed at the rebuilt Globe Theater in London.
In this case, the relative clause "that was being performed at the rebuilt Globe Theater in London" is restrictive because it is being used to specify which Shakespearean play she attended. There are many Shakespearean plays, and they are being performed all the time in many places. The relative clause narrows the field of candidates down to one.
But this is another sentence where the relative clause could be treated as nonrestrictive, giving a slightly different meaning to the sentence:
~My daughter recently attended a Shakespearean play, which was being performed at the rebuilt Globe Theater in London.
This version of the sentence emphasizes the fact that the play was being performed in the rebuilt Globe Theater, not which play she attended.

I have moved this post to the thread to which it refers. 5jj

 

[keannu]

Re: I noticed a cat, which was lying at the side of the road.

Is this placed at a too deep and distant point, drawing no attention?