The man who was wounded

[Rachel Adams]

Does the first sentence mean that there was only one man who was wounded, while the second means that there were other men and like my uncle they were also wounded.

1. "The man who was wounded is my uncle."

2. "The man, who was wounded, is my uncle."

 

[5jj]

Yes.
No.

 

[Rachel Adams]

Yes.
No.

What does the second sentence mean?

 

[5jj]

Replace the commas with brackets. Does that help?

 

[Rachel Adams]

Replace the commas with brackets. Does that help?

I am afraid not. The information which is separated by commas is unnecessary, but does "who was wounded" mean that he was the only man who was wounded or that there were other men who were also wounded?

 

[5jj]

It doesn't tell us anything about any other man/men.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Does the first sentence mean that there was only one man who was wounded, while the second means that there were other men and like my uncle they were also wounded?

> Questions get question marks.

They both mean one man was wounded.

1. "The man who was wounded is my uncle."

That means there were more than one man. One of them was wounded. He is your uncle.

The phrase "the man who was wounded" tells us WHICH man was wounded.

2. "The man, who was wounded, is my uncle."

That means there was just one man: your uncle. He was wounded.

The words inside the commas DESCRIBE him.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

. . . but does "who was wounded" mean that he was the only man who was wounded or that there were other men who were also wounded?

It depends on whether there are commas. That's why commas are important.

See post 7.

 

[Rachel Adams]

It depends on whether there are commas. That's why commas are important.

See post 7.

I don't understand how the meaning changes with commas :-?. If we have no information if there were any other man/men. If the sentence without commas don't tell us about that.

 

[5jj]

1. "The man who was wounded is my uncle."

A man is mentioned. He is defined as the man who was wounded. The suggestion is that there were other men, and that these other men were not wounded. The man so defined is identified as the speaker's uncle.

2. "The man, who was wounded, is my uncle."

A man is mentioned. He is defined as the man, suggesting that the speaker has spoken of him before, and that his audience know who this man is. We are given the additional information that the defined man was wounded. We are told that this man is the speaker's uncle. There is no suggestion that there were any other men.

 

[Rachel Adams]

1. "The man who was wounded is my uncle."

A man is mentioned. He is defined the man who was wounded. The suggestion is that there were other men, and that these other men were not wounded. The man so defined is identified as the speaker's uncle.

2. "The man, who was wounded, is my uncle."

A man is mentioned. He is defined as the man, suggesting that the speaker has spoken of him before, and that his audience know who this man is. We are given the additional information that the defined man was wounded. We are told that this man is the speaker's uncle. There is no suggestion that there were any other men.

If there are no commas it means that the person who is mentioned is the only person and there are no one else. As in "My brother who lives in Spain is a doctor." Means I have more than one brother. But "My brother, who lives in Spain, is a doctor." Means I have only one brother. "Who lives in Spain" describes him but doesn't say if I have another brother. Is that right?

 

[5jj]

"My brother who lives in Spain is a doctor." Means I have more than one brother.

It doesn't mean that, but it implies it.

But "My brother, who lives in Spain, is a doctor." Means I have only one brother.

It doesn't mean that, but it implies it.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

I don't understand how the meaning changes with commas :-?. If we have no information if there were any other MEN. THE sentence without commas DOESN'T tell us about that.

The sentence without commas DOES tell us there were more than one man.

Look at post 7 again. I edited it to explain more there.

We use commas around ADDITIONAL information in an independent clause. Example:

- We went to town on Tuesday to see the movie.

- We went to town on Tuesday, June 3, to see the movie.

Adding "June 3" does not change the meaning of the first version. It just gives more information.

That's what happens when you add commas to "The man who was wounded was my uncle." With no commas, it tells us WHICH man in a group is your uncle. Was it the man wearing a top hat? No. The man with a parrot on his shoulder? No. The man with a pink carnation? No. Your uncle is the man who was wounded.

But commas tell the reader that you're ADDING information to this sentence: "The man was my uncle."

So the words "who was wounded" need commas. They they tell us more about your uncle.

You can Google articles about commas and dependent and independent clauses.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

If there are no commas it means that the person who is mentioned is the only person and there are no one else. As in "My brother who lives in Spain is a doctor." Means I have more than one brother. But "My brother, who lives in Spain, is a doctor." Means I have only one brother. "Who lives in Spain" describes him but doesn't say if I have another brother. Is that right?

"My brother who lives in Spain is a doctor" tells us which brother. You have more than one, but only one lives in Spain.

"My brother, who lives in Spain, is a doctor" tells us you have only one brother. It adds this information: He lives in Spain.

You can tell by removing "who lives in Spain." The root sentence is "My brother is a doctor." This suggests that you have just one brother.

However, that's written English. Commas are not spoken, and spoken English is not careful. We don't think, we just talk.

So someone with ten brothers might say, "My brother is a doctor." There's nothing wrong with that.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

PS -

Context also matters!

If I said, "Who was that wounded man?" you might answer, "The man who was wounded was my uncle."

That does not imply more than one man.

But without any context, we can only give very general advice.

 

[Rachel Adams]

PS -

Context also matters!

If I said, "Who was that wounded man?" you might answer, "The man who was wounded was my uncle."

That does not imply more than one man.

But without any context, we can only give very general advice.

I wanted to rephrase it to make sure I don't misunderstand anything.
Thus, If there are no commas it means that the person who is mentioned is the only person and there are no one else. We distinguish him from the group of people.

1. "The man who was arrested is my brother." There were many men but the one who was arrested is my brother.

2. "The man, who was arrested, is my brother." I am talking about a certain man. I say that he is my brother and add additional information about him "he is arrested."

3. "The man who was carrying a baby was my father." There were many men, but the one with the child was my father.

4. "The man, who was carrying a baby, was my father." I am saying that there was a man with a child . A particular man. I talked about him. He was mentioned. The additional information "he was carrying a baby" was added about him."

 

[5jj]

1. "The man who was arrested is my brother." There were many men but the one who was arrested is my brother.

Don't add things. There may have been only one other man.

Indeed, there may be no other men (though the implication that there are is usually present):

Bill: I hear the police have caught the man who shot the mayor.
Ben: I hope it's all a big mistake. The man who was arrested is my brother.