Navigating landscapes that are varied ...

[Hansman]

Think about something that you bought that you never ended up using.

I know that the relative clause "that you bought" combines with its antecedent "something" to give "something that you bought" and this is then antecedent for the second relative clause, "that you never ended up using" and it is stacking.

Navigating landscapes that are varied, that offer trials and occasional conflicts, is more helpful.

I know that "that are varied" and "that offer trials ..." are a coordination of relative clauses modifying "landscapes". Since the two relative clauses are separate constituents within the coordination, a comma is used to separate them.

Can I also say "landscapes that are varied" is the antecedent for the second relative clause antecedent, "that offer trials and occasional conflicts" without the commas like stacking or it does not make sense in meaning? What do you think?

 

[Piscean]

I know that "that are varied" and "that offer trials ..." are a coordination of relative clauses modifying "landscapes".

Right

Can I also say "landscapes that are varied" is the antecedent for the second relative clause antecedent, "that offer trials and occasional conflicts" without the commas like stacking

No.

or it does not make sense in meaning?

It does not. They cannot be coordinating and stacking.

 

[Hansman]

Right

No.

It does not. They cannot be coordinating and stacking.

Thank you so much. Could you elaborate on your reply?

Why does that you never ended up using modify something that you bought in the first sentence "Think about something that you bought that you never ended up using"?

Why does not that offer trials and occasional conflicts modify landscapes that are varied in the second sentence "Navigating landscapes that are varied, that offer trials and occasional conflicts, is more helpful"?

Without the commas, by any chance is it possible for that offer trials and occasional conflicts to modify landscapes that are varied?
It is not possible just because it does not make sense at all in meaning?

What do you think?

 

[Tarheel]

I suggest that you forget about "doesn't make sense in meaning". I also suggest that you write shorter, simpler sentences.

 

[emsr2d2]

Thank you so much. Could you elaborate? on your reply?

As long as you quote the reply you're referring to, you can stop at "elaborate".

Why does not that offer trials and occasional conflicts not modify landscapes that are varied in the second sentence "Navigating landscapes that are varied, that offer trials and occasional conflicts, is more helpful"?

If you want to use "does not", you need to split the two words up in the interrogative. If you want to keep your word order, you need the contraction "doesn't".
Either say just "the second sentence" and don't quote it, or forget "second" and quote the whole sentence. Don't do both.

Without the commas, by any chance is it possible for that offer trials and occasional conflicts to modify landscapes that are varied?

Just ask if something's possible. You don't need to know if, by chance, it's possible.

It is Is it not possible just because it does not make sense? at all in meaning?

Remember the correct subject/verb word order at the start of a question.
There was no need for the last four words. Referring to something making sense (or not) already carries the idea of "meaning".

What do you think?

Unnecessary. Your whole post already asks us what we think by asking us questions.

Tarheel's right - make your posts short, simple and to the point. More people are likely to read them, meaning you'll get more responses, and you're less likely to make any errors.