Restrictive clases [clauses]

[Rachel Adams]

Hello.

Is it wrong to say that some non-restrictive clauses can be changed into restrictive clauses?
'The book my sister gave me is on the shelf.' Restrictive.
'The book, my sister gave me, is on the shelf.' Non-restrictive.
Would you use 'which' and 'that' in both in BrE?

 

[GoesStation]

Re: Restrictive clases

Sentence two is incorrect. Adding "which" or "that" will not fix it.

 

[Rachel Adams]

Re: Restrictive clases

That book, which my sister gave me, is on the shelf works

I don't understand how it is possible for the sentences in post #1 to be both restrictive and non-restrictive at the same time.
'The children who eat vegetables are likely to be healthy.'
This sentence cannot be changed into a non-restrictive clause.

Source https://www.grammarly.com/blog/usin...bout-restrictive-and-non-restrictive-clauses/

If I think that the information is unnecesary I use commas. If I think it's necessary I don't use them. So it depends on the speaker. Right?

 

[GoesStation]

Re: Restrictive clases

'[STRIKE]The[/STRIKE] Children who eat vegetables are likely to be healthy.'

See above. The incorrect article was not present on the linked page.

 

[GoesStation]

Re: Restrictive clases

I don't understand how it is possible for the sentences in post #1 to be both restrictive and non-restrictive at the same time.

I don't understand what you mean. Only the first sentence in #1 is correct. Piscean's version of sentence two is different:

That book, which my sister gave me, is on the shelf.

The clause between the commas is non-restrictive. You still have a meaningful sentence if you remove it: That book is on the shelf. This sentence tells you a little less about the book — we no longer know exactly where it is — but still tells us which one we're talking about: that one (over there).

 

[Rachel Adams]

Re: Restrictive clases

I don't understand what you mean. Only the first sentence in #1 is correct. Piscean's version of sentence two is different: The clause between the commas is non-restrictive. You still have a meaningful sentence if you remove it: That book is on the shelf. This sentence tells you a little less about the book — we no longer know exactly where it is — but still tells us which one we're talking about: that one (over there).

If I remove 'my sister gave me' in the first sentence I will have a meaningful sentence, won't I? I mean the first restrictive clause.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Re: Restrictive clases

Hello.
Is it wrong to say that some non-restrictive clauses can be changed into restrictive clauses?
'The book my sister gave me is on the shelf.' Restrictive.

In American English, you can also say "The book that my sister gave me is on the shelf."

In British English, which works there. Again, Americans are more likely to say that.

And again, it's fine not to use either. All three ways mean the same thing.

'The book, which my sister gave me, is on the shelf.' Non-restrictive.

There, which is needed, both in British and American English.

Would you use 'which' and 'that' in both in BrE?

No.

You've gotten a lot of answers. Are you sorting it out?

 

[Rachel Adams]

Re: Restrictive clases

You've gotten a lot of answers. Are you sorting it out?

Exactly! They mean the same. My first two sentences 'the book my sister gave me is on the shelf.' And 'the book, which my sister gave me, is on the shelf.' when the part in commas cannot be removed it is clearly a restrictive clause, my sentences work without parts in commas. So it is a speaker's choice to use it as either 'restrictive' or 'non-restrictive'. Right?

 

[GoesStation]

Re: Restrictive clases

'The book my sister gave me is on the shelf.' Restrictive.

If I remove 'my sister gave me' in the first sentence I will have a meaningful sentence, won't I? I mean the first restrictive clause.

I edited #6 after you quoted it. Sorry. The question isn't whether you're left with a "meaningful" sentence (as I originally wrote). It's whether the clause conveys essential meaning. If you remove "my sister gave me", your sentence no longer contains a way to identify which book you're talking about. It's just any old book. With the restrictive clause, we know it's a certain, identifiable book: the one you got from your sister.

Now you're probably wondering about Piscean's sentence from post #3:

That book, which my sister gave me, is on the shelf.

This sentence contains two ways to identify the book: the determiner "that", which tells us it's the book you're pointing at (literally or figuratively), and the non-restrictive clause. We can still tell which book you mean if you remove "which is on the shelf"; it's that one. We just don't know quite as much about it.

I hope I've got all my grammatical terms correct here. Grammar isn't my strong suit, but I'm feeling fairly confident about what I've said.

 

[Rachel Adams]

Re: Restrictive clases

I edited #6 after you quoted it. Sorry. The question isn't whether you're left with a "meaningful" sentence (as I originally wrote). It's whether the clause conveys essential meaning. If you remove "my sister gave me", your sentence no longer contains a way to identify which book you're talking about. It's just any old book. With the restrictive clause, we know it's a certain, identifiable book: the one you got from your sister.

Now you're probably wondering about Piscean's sentence from post #3:
This sentence contains two ways to identify the book: the determiner "that", which tells us it's the book you're pointing at (literally or figuratively), and the non-restrictive clause. We can still tell which book you mean if you remove "which is on the shelf"; it's that one. We just don't know quite as much about it.

I hope I've got all my grammatical terms correct here. Grammar isn't my strong suit, but I'm feeling fairly confident about what I've said.

Perfect explanation!!! Thank you. The determiner 'that' makes the information in commas unnecessary. Got it.

Even if I add 'that' or 'which' I won't be able to change it into a non-restrictive clause. Because the part in commas are defining are necessary. Am I right? I am talking about the second sentence now.

 

[GoesStation]

Re: Restrictive clases

What is most important to remember is that restrictive/defining and non-restrictive/non-defining clause are never interchangeable because they always have different meanings.

This is true even when the words (but not the punctuation) are exactly the same:

A. The man who was arrested was carrying a gun.
B. The man, who was arrested, was carrying a gun.

Piscean has addressed something I've been uncomfortable about since post #2. Somewhere along the line I realized my answer was wrong; the original sentence 2, with "which" inserted, is possible. The punctuation determines whether the words that follow are restrictive or non-restrictive.

 

[Rachel Adams]

Re: Restrictive clases

Piscean has addressed something I've been uncomfortable about since post #2. Somewhere along the line I realized my answer was wrong; the original sentence 2, with "which" inserted, is possible. The punctuation determines whether the words that follow are restrictive or non-restrictive.

So the words are same but the meaning is different. The punctuation is different thus the meaning is different too. You said that the punctuation determines whether the words are restrictive or non-restrictive. Can we say that it also depends on context? It occured to me after reading your sentences, Piscean. B. The man, who was arrested, was carrying a gun. In B. the word 'The' defines the man the man who was carrying a gun as somebody we know about. Suddenly these two similar examples have different meanings. In B I am focused on the fact that he is carrying a gun. In A I am focused on the fact that that he was arrested. Or this is how the mentioned man is defined.

 

[GoesStation]

Re: Restrictive clases

A. The man who was arrested was carrying a gun.
B. The man, who was arrested, was carrying a gun.

So the words are same but the meaning is different. The punctuation is different thus the meaning is different too. You said that the punctuation determines whether the words are restrictive or non-restrictive. Can we say that it also depends on context? It occured to me after reading your sentences, Piscean. B. The man, who was arrested, was carrying a gun. In B. the word 'The' defines the man the man who was carrying a gun as somebody we know about. Suddenly these two similar examples have different meanings. In B I am focused on the fact that he is carrying a gun. In A I am focused on the fact that that he was arrested. Or this is how the mentioned man is defined.

Yes.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Re: Restrictive clases

Piscean has addressed something I've been uncomfortable about since post #2. Somewhere along the line I realized my answer was wrong; the original sentence 2, with "which" inserted, is possible. . . .

Yup. That's why I inserted it.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Re: Restrictive clases

What is most important to remember is that restrictive/defining and non-restrictive/non-defining clause are never interchangeable because theyalways have different meanings.

This is true even when the words (but not the punctuation) are exactly the same:

A. The man who was arrested was carrying a gun.
B. The man, who was arrested, was carrying a gun.

In A, the words 'who was arrested' define the man who was carrying a gun.

Yes. There were seven men. The one arrested was carrying a gun.

In B. the word 'The' defines the man the man who was carrying a gun as somebody we know about. The words 'The man' have no meaning unless we know who he is.

Yes. Good observation. In a different situation, we might use A instead of The:

- A man was carrying a gun.
- A man who was arrested was carrying a gun.
- A man, who was arrested, was carrying a gun.

Interestingly, those can all be referring to the same event. Sometimes you can go either way. The sentence means the same thing whether the clause is restricted or unrestricted.

When the sentence will mean the same thing either way, it will read more easily without the commas: A man who was arrested was carrying a gun.

So be careful!

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Re: Restrictive clases

They do not mean exactly the same thing.

Dang, I knew someone would say that.

You're right. I should have said they pretty much amount to the same thing. They both mean: There was a man. He was arrested. He was carrying a gun. Because there's an A instead of a The, there's no issue of how many men we're discussing. With The, we might wonder which man. With A, we wouldn't.

But technically, you're absolutely right. Rachel, take Piscean's advice!

 

[jutfrank]

Re: Restrictive clases

You're right. I should have said they pretty much amount to the same thing.

Piscean's point that they do not mean the same thing is a crucial one. Especially since in my opinion, Rachel's belief that they do mean the same thing is at the heart of her misunderstanding.

Rachel—Based on all that you've said in this thread, I believe you've misunderstood what defining and non-defining relative clauses are.

The book that my sister gave me is on the shelf.
The book, which my sister gave me, is on the shelf.

These sentences are grammatically different.
They mean different things.
The difference in meaning does not depend on context.
You cannot 'change' one into the other.

 

[Rachel Adams]

Re: Restrictive clases

Piscean's point that they do not mean the same thing is a crucial one. Especially since in my opinion, Rachel's belief that they do mean the same thing is at the heart of her misunderstanding.

Rachel—Based on all that you've said in this thread, I believe you've misunderstood what defining and non-defining relative clauses are.

The book that my sister gave me is on the shelf.
The book, which my sister gave me, is on the shelf.

These sentences are grammatically different.
They mean different things.
The difference in meaning does not depend on context.
You cannot 'change' one into the other.

I meant a restrictive clause could be changed into a non-restrictive in the given examples. Their meanings are different. 1. The book that my sister gave me is on the shelf. 2. The book, which my sister gave me, is on the shelf. With added commas it's non-restrictive.

And perhaps I misunderstand but sometimes a resrictive clause cannot be changed into a non-restrictive as this example. 'Children who eat vegetables are likely to be healthy.' So I thought it depends on a sentence.

 

[Rachel Adams]

Re: Restrictive clases

Rachel, it is not a matter of changing one into another, as you have been told. The message you wish to convey is what decides the words you use, the pauses in speech, and the punctuation in writing.

If you believe that children in general eat vegetables and, as a result are likely to be healthy, then Children, who eat vegetables, are likely to be healthy is possible.

One more question. In restrictive clause BrE uses 'which' never 'that' but in non-restrictive is 'that' possible or only 'which' is used?

 

[jutfrank]

Re: Restrictive clases

In restrictive clause BrE uses 'which' never 'that' but in non-restrictive is 'that' possible or only 'which' is used?

In BrE:

In full restrictive relative clauses, we must use a relative pronoun, but we do not use 'that'.

In defining (or restrictive) relative clauses, we can use that in all varieties of English.

The normal rule is that you shouldn't use that in non-defining relative clauses.