Results 1 to 3 of 3
  1. Newbie
    Student or Learner
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • Russian
      • Home Country:
      • Russian Federation
      • Current Location:
      • Russian Federation

    • Join Date: Feb 2017
    • Posts: 29
    #1

    relative pronoun goes after construction "nounOfnoun" - reffers to?

    Hi everyone!

    I have 2 sentences - and I am confused about "reffering to" of relative pronouns.

    1) The story gets worse: I used stock for the purchase,
    giving the sellers 25,203 shares of Berkshire that at yearend 2016 were worth more than $6 billion.


    2) While he regularly gave his housekeeper stocks in his company, which ended up being worth millions of dollars, some of his animators made only $12 a week.


    Teaching this topic,teachers usually say "A relative clouse have to go after the noun it describes". So, using the rule, should I understand like this? -

    1a) The Berkshire were worth more ....
    2a) His company ended up....

    I guess that it is wrong meaning (1a, 2a).

    My logic tells me -
    1b) 25,203 shares were worth more....
    2b) stocks ended up......

    Would you please help me to figure out this "sitiation"?
    Last edited by emsr2d2; 09-Mar-2017 at 08:27. Reason: Enlarged font to make post readable

  2. Charlie Bernstein's Avatar
    Key Member
    Other
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • United States
      • Current Location:
      • United States

    • Join Date: Jan 2009
    • Posts: 4,832
    #2

    Re: relative pronoun goes after construction "nounOfnoun" - reffers to?

    Quote Originally Posted by andrew495 View Post
    Hi everyone!

    I have two sentences - and I am confused about "referring
    to" of relative pronouns. I'm not sure what you mean.

    1) The story gets worse: I used stock for the purchase,
    giving the sellers 25,203 shares of Berkshire that at yearend 2016 were worth more than $6 billion. That's fine.


    2) While he regularly gave his housekeeper stocks in his company, which ended up being worth millions of dollars, some of his animators made only $12 a week. That's fine, too.


    Teaching this topic,teachers usually say "A relative cl
    a
    use has to go after the noun it describes". So, using the rule, should I understand like this? -

    1a) The
    shares
    were worth more ....
    2a)
    The stocks
    ended up....

    I guess that it is wrong meaning (1a, 2a).

    My logic tells me -
    1b) 25,203 shares were worth more....
    Yes.

    2b) stocks ended up......
    Yes.


    Would you please help me to figure out this "sit
    u
    ation"?
    It looks like you figured it out just fine. Your understanding (1b and 2b) is exactly right.

    The phrases "of Berkshire" and "in his company" are dependent clauses. You could remove them and the sentences would mean the same thing, just with less detail. If you diagram the sentences, that will become clear. The "that" and "which" refer to the nouns before the dependent clauses: "shares" and "stocks."
    I'm not a teacher. I speak American English. I've tutored writing at the University of Southern Maine and have done a good deal of copy editing and writing, occasionally for publication.

  3. Phaedrus's Avatar
    Senior Member
    English Teacher
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • United States
      • Current Location:
      • United States

    • Join Date: Jul 2012
    • Posts: 830
    #3

    Re: relative pronoun goes after construction "nounOfnoun" - reffers to?

    shares of Berkshire that at yearend 2016 were worth more than $6 billion
    The plural verb, "were," makes it very clear that "Berkshire" is not the subject of the relative clause.

    stocks in his company, which ended up being worth millions of dollars
    "Which" may refer either to "company" or to "stocks in his company." Both are noun phrases (one includes the other), and both can be modified by a relative clause.

    teachers usually say "A relative clouse have to go after the noun it describes".
    That's a superstition (assuming you mean "immediately after"). I used to believe in it myself. Then I studied syntax.

Posting Permissions

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