Click here to go back to the homepage to learn English...Add a new lesson / test / 1 lesson per week
Log in!

Click here to log in
New account
4 million accounts created!
JOIN our free club and learn English now!



  • Home
  • Print
  • Guestbook
  • Report a bug




  • GREAT!
    Get a free English lesson every week! Thousands of subscribers!
    Click here!






    Ads:







    Partners:
    - Our other sites
       


    Relative clauses/ meaning

    Forum > English only || Bottom

    [POST A NEW REPLY] [Subscribe to this topic]


    Relative clauses/ meaning
    Message from mohammad51 posted on 17-01-2019 at 18:45:39 (D | E | F)
    hello
    Please could someone or a teacher tell what is the difference in meaning between these is?
    1- restrictive ( no commas ) 2- nonrestrictive ( with commas)

    1) Truck drivers who were protesting against excessive petrol prices blocked the entrances to petroleum supply depots across the country.
    2) Truck drivers, who were protesting against excessive petrol prices, blocked the entrances to the petroleum supply depots across the country.
    Thank you in advance

    -------------------
    Edited by lucile83 on 17-01-2019 23:43


    Re: Relative clauses/ meaning from gerondif, posted on 17-01-2019 at 19:08:48 (D | E)
    Hello
    1-(Only) The truck drivers who were protesting against excessive petrol prices blocked the entrance to the petroleum supply depots across the country. restrictive, only those blocked, the others went to work as usual.

    2-Truck drivers, who were protesting against excessive petrol prices, blocked the entrance to the petroleum supply depots across he country. non restrictive. All the truck drivers are concerned. Your relative clause, between commas, is a detail that could be suppressed, it is just a detail.

    The girls who had seen the accident were questioned by the police. restrictive, only those were questioned, not the others.
    The girls(, who were all from Germany,) were questioned by the police. non restrictive.

    A famous example where the comma makes all the difference:
    A priest who wanted to wear civilian clothes said to a reporter:
    I will wear no clothes which will distinguish me from my fellowmen:
    meaning: I refuse to wear clothes that would distinguish me from my fellowmen.
    Unfortunately, a comma crept through the text which became :
    I will wear no clothes, which will distinguish me from my fellowmen.
    Meaning : I will go naked, which will indeed distinguish me from my fellowmen fully dressed.



    Re: Relative clauses/ meaning from mohammad51, posted on 17-01-2019 at 20:00:13 (D | E)
    Hello
    Thank you too much gerondif
    You always save me.
    I edited the sentences only entrance to entrances
    best wishes



    Re: Relative clauses/ meaning from mohammad51, posted on 18-01-2019 at 22:00:12 (D | E)
    Hello
    Please dear teacher gerondif could you answer this one please ?
    The manager yelled at the workers, who had arrived late. In other words, [all/some] .....of them arrived late.
    i.e. Does it imply all workers are late or some of them ?



    Re: Relative clauses/ meaning from gerondif, posted on 18-01-2019 at 23:14:09 (D | E)
    Hello
    It is rather obvious.
    The manager yelled at the workers who had arrived late.Without a comma, it is limitative. The manager didn't yell at the workers who had arrived on time. So , he only yelled at some of them, the latecomers.
    The manager yelled at the workers,(who had arrived late.)Here, he yelled at all the workers .(Who had arrived late) is just a further piece of information, he might as well have written :
    The manager yelled at the workers, who were coming back from their lunch-break and were pretty surprised. He yelled at all his team of workers.

    P.S. Why ask me for an answer in a private message if you don't come and read it for days ?




    Re: Relative clauses/ meaning from mohammad51, posted on 01-02-2019 at 20:46:01 (D | E)
    Hello
    I thank you very much dear teacher gerondif
    Could you help with these please ?
    I admit that I am always indebted to you
    1) The city that was built along the river escaped the fire.
    2) The city, which was built along the river, escaped the fire.

    I know sentence 1 includes restrictive relative clause.
    1- sentence 1 implies more than one city are exposed to the danger of fire, but only one city escaped the fire that was built along the river.
    2- in sentence 2 ( nonrestrictive) I can't get its meaning correctly, but I imagine it maybe no more cities.
    is this interpretation correct ?



    Re: Relative clauses/ meaning from gerondif, posted on 02-02-2019 at 17:37:33 (D | E)
    Hello
    Since the relative clause is an added detail that could be omitted, there is no way you can tell if one or more cities are involved when somebody comes and tells you :
    The city escaped the flames.



    Re: Relative clauses/ meaning from mohammad51, posted on 02-02-2019 at 20:57:07 (D | E)
    Hello
    gerondif said
    P.S. Why ask me for an answer in a private message if you don't come and read it for days ?

    Sorry I read it since that date
    I never forget to thank you, but I was too much busy a time.
    Many thanks to you dear teacher gerondif again and again.




    [POST A NEW REPLY] [Subscribe to this topic]


    Forum > English only


    Share : Facebook / Google+ / Twitter / ...