The restaurant is closed now which is at the corner.

Status
Not open for further replies.

amiable25

Junior Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2013
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Korean
Home Country
South Korea
Current Location
South Korea
Hello, I have a question.

The question is

The restaurant is closed now + It is at the corner. =>

The anwer to the question is "The restaurant which is at the corner is closed."

But is it also possible to say " The restaurant is closed which is at the corner."?

I wonder about it because I heard that there can be a distance between an antecedent and a relative pronoun.

Does the second sentence sound awkward?

Thank you in advance!!
 

Raymott

VIP Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Australia
Current Location
Australia
No, it's not possible to say that. It sounds very awkward.
 

Matthew Wai

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2013
Member Type
Native Language
Chinese
Home Country
China
Current Location
China
But I sometimes see such awkward sentences, for example, "If more relics are found that show trade flourished in the territory seven or eight hundred years ago, we will..."── quoted from the English section of a Chinese newspaper.

Does it sound awkward to native speakers but acceptable to non-native ones?
 

MikeNewYork

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
Your sentence is not awkward. It has no connection to the OP's example.
 

Matthew Wai

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2013
Member Type
Native Language
Chinese
Home Country
China
Current Location
China
In the OP's example, the relative pronoun "which" is put after "is closed".
In my sentence, the relative pronoun "that" is put after "are found".
Are they in the same construction?
 

MikeNewYork

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
OK. I get your point, now. In the OP's sentence "which is at the corner" has nothing to do with "closed". In your sentence, the entire relative clause helps set the condition (if relics are found) for what follows "we will...".
 

Matthew Wai

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2013
Member Type
Native Language
Chinese
Home Country
China
Current Location
China
In the OP's sentence, "which" refers to "restaurant".
In my sentence, "that" refers to "relics" instead of "relics are found", correct?
 

SoothingDave

VIP Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
"The restaurant on the corner is now closed."
 

MikeNewYork

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
Try the sentence without "are found". It would make little sense. "Are found" is an integral part of the condition.
 

Matthew Wai

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2013
Member Type
Native Language
Chinese
Home Country
China
Current Location
China
If "that" refers to "relics are found", should it say "that shows" instead of "that show"?
 

MikeNewYork

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
You have misunderstood me.
That refers to "relics". My point was the "are found" is a integral part of the condition. I don't know how else to explain this. Can't you see the difference between your sentence and the OP's original sentence? I am running out of ways to explain it to you.
 

tzfujimino

Key Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
Japanese
Home Country
Japan
Current Location
Japan
Hello, Mike.:-D
May I ask a question?

If the original sentence were "If the restaurant is closed which/that is at the corner, we will be sad.", would it be acceptable?
"is closed" is an integral part of the condition, as you say. It seems to be the same construction as the one provided by Matthew.
 

MikeNewYork

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
I would not say that. If the restaurant "on the corner" or "that is on the corner is closed", we will be sad. Notice the difference between the two sentences without the relative clause. Your sentence would be "If the restaurant is closed, we will be sad." That makes sense on its own.
 

tzfujimino

Key Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
Japanese
Home Country
Japan
Current Location
Japan
Thank you, Mike.:-D
Please allow me to ask you one more question.

If the sentence given by Matthew were "If more relics that show trade flourished in the territory seven or eight hundred years ago are found, we will...", would it be awkward? (I believe it's grammatical, but not elegant enough.)
 

MikeNewYork

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
Not awkward at all. It might actually be better.
 

Matthew Wai

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2013
Member Type
Native Language
Chinese
Home Country
China
Current Location
China
"If the restaurant is closed which is at the corner, we will be sad."
"If more relics are found that show trade flourished in the territory seven or eight hundred years ago, we will be excited."

If both make sense without the relative clause, why is the first one unacceptable but the second OK?
 

Raymott

VIP Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Australia
Current Location
Australia
You still don't have analogous sentences.
"If more restaurants are closed that sit on major roads and corners, people will have to go looking for places to eat."
I still don't like that, but it's more acceptable than the original to me.
What's the difference?: The relative clause is longer and hence putting "are closed" before it leads to less potential confusion. (same as the 'found' example); there's also a semantic connectedness, as mentioned above, that doesn't occur in the original. This is apparent, even though it's difficult (or impossible) to explain.

Maybe accepting the above sentence and the 'found' one is only a small sin against strict grammar when compared to the ease of using that structure. In the original sentence, it's too obvious to ignore and accept. You need to take a descriptivist attitude to this question.
 

Matthew Wai

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2013
Member Type
Native Language
Chinese
Home Country
China
Current Location
China
the 'found' one is only a small sin against strict grammar
Is the strict grammar "no verb/verb to be should be between the antecedent and the relative pronoun"?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top