[Grammar] Relative clause modifying an object in the main clause

[NAL123]

Suppose A and B are friends and B has only one brother.

During a conversation between A and B:

1) A: you know, yesterday I met your brother at the supermarket, buying some stuff for his children. (with a comma before "buying")

Can I write 1) as:

2) yesterday I met your brother at the supermarket, who was buying some stuff for his children. (a non-defining relative clause)

 

[tedmc]

You do not need the comma in #1.

#2 is not correct. It identifies the brother as the one buying stuff for his children.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Suppose A and B are friends and B has only one brother.

During a conversation between A and B:

1) A: You know, yesterday I met your brother at the supermarket, buying some stuff for his children. (with a comma before "buying")

Can I write 1) as:

2) Yesterday I met your brother at the supermarket, who was buying some stuff for his children. (a non-defining relative clause)

Keep all three commas.

 

[emsr2d2]

#2 is not correct. It identifies the brother as the one buying stuff for his children.

So does sentence 1. The brother is the one buying stuff for his children!

 

[NAL123]

Now I know sentence 2) is possible. But does it sound natural?

 

[GoesStation]

Now I know sentence 2) is possible. But does it sound natural?

No. I don't think it's correct or natural.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Now I know sentence 2) is possible. But does it sound natural?

I can't say whether it's grammatical. But brother and who are too far apart to connect well. These would be clearer and therefore more natural:

- Yesterday I met your brother, who was buying some stuff for his children at the supermarket.

- At the supermarket yesterday I met your brother, who was buying some stuff for his children.

- Yesterday at the supermarket I met your brother, who was buying some stuff for his children.
​

You can also get rid of who altogether:

- Yesterday I met your brother. He was buying some stuff for his children at the supermarket.​

 

[tedmc]

So does sentence 1. The brother is the one buying stuff for his children!

I thought "who" highlights that unnecessarily when it is not the main point.

 

[PaulMatthews]

Suppose A and B are friends and B has only one brother.

During a conversation between A and B: 1) A: you know, yesterday I met your brother at the supermarket, buying some stuff for his children. (with a comma before "buying")

Can I write 1) as: 2) yesterday I met your brother at the supermarket, who was buying some stuff for his children. (a non-defining relative clause)

Preliminary point: Unlike defining relative clauses, non-defining ones don't modify and combine with their antecedent to form larger nominals. They have a semantic 'anchor' that they refer to, which is identical to the antecedent.

[1] Yesterday I met your brother at the supermarket, buying some stuff for his children.

[2] Yesterday I met your brother at the supermarket, who was buying some stuff for his children.


[1] is fine. The underlined clause is a depictive adjunct, giving descriptive information about "your brother". I would leave the comma in.

[2] is acceptable. Postposing of relative clauses is normally only possible with the defining type, but this is a non-defining relative and hence it is only marginally acceptable.

The concern in general with postposed relatives is that there can be confusion as to what was the antecedent. In [2] a reader might momentarily think that the antecedent is "the supermarket", and then realise that it can only be "your brother".

 

[NAL123]

[1] Yesterday I met your brother at the supermarket, buying some stuff for his children.

[1] is fine. The underlined clause is a depictive adjunct, giving descriptive information about "your brother". I would leave the comma in.

Consider this sentence, please:

[3] John is an American dancer and choreographer, specializing in contemporary dance. (I think the underlined clause here is also a depictive adjunct, giving descriptive information about "John")

Now, from a rational point of view, it is clear that the subject of the participle clause in [1] can only be "your brother" and NOT "I". But from a grammatical point of view, how do we know what the subject of the participle clause in [1] is, because, if we observe sentence [3], here, it is "John" (NOT "an American dancer and choreographer") that is functioning as the subject of the participle clause?

 

[GoesStation]

But from a grammatical point of view, how do we know what the subject of the participle clause in [1] is, because, if we observe sentence [3], here, it is "John" (NOT "an American dancer and choreographer") that is functioning as the subject of the participle clause?

Because we're human beings who can consider the possibilities and choose the one that makes sense. Translation software lacks that ability and gets this kind of relationship wrong as often as not.