Questions about the English language

[odeon]

To say two when too is meant is quite common, too.

[SovaNu]

 

and extra esses end up at the ends of words as you can see with my last post.

[The_P]

Colons and Semi-Colons
Commas
Apostrophes
Parentheses & Square Brackets
I.e. & E.g.
Capital Letters
Quotation Marks
Exclamation Marks
Italics
Block Quotes

Hope it's useful to you guys. Have fun learning the marvels of punctuation usage.

(I am being a punctuation nazi, not a grammar one.)

[Soph]

i think it's about time i went back to punctuating my posts

maybe it can be my new years resolution

[The_P]

Relative clauses are used to add information to the noun or pronoun they modify. Sometimes this clause is essential to the entire sentence. If you are without a relative clause, the sentence may not make any sense.

For example: "A person who was a former criminal will not be a potential candidate for a job at the police office."

If you erase the clause, the sentence above will not make any sense: we are not certain as to what kind of person is eligible for a job at the police office. These are called "defining relative clauses".

Now if you have a relative clause which provides interesting information, but isn't essential to the sentence in terms of meaning, you can still use the sentence without the clause as we will understand what the sentence is elaborating about.

E.g.: The knight, who is clad in ebony armour, lunges forth against the ferocious beast.

These are called "non-defining relative clauses"; you'll easily recognise them by punctuation.

Warning: Use who, whom, whose, or that for defining relative clauses; with the exception of that, use the first three relative pronouns for non-defining clauses.

[SovaNu]

*brain shuts down*

[The_P]

*brain shuts down*

That was my being a grammar nazi.

[odeon]

Now if you have a relative clause which provides interesting information, but isn't essential to the sentence in terms of meaning, you can still use the sentence without the clause as we will understand what the sentence is elaborating about.

E.g.: The knight, who is clad in ebony armour, lunges forth against the ferocious beast.

These are called "non-defining relative clauses"; you'll easily recognise them by punctuation.

First of all, note how your first sentence would probably work better without the commas (or at least the first one). Then, consider that sentence without the relative clause:

Now if you have a relative clause which provides interesting information, you can still use the sentence without the clause as we will understand what the sentence is elaborating about.

The point is that the lost clause was not unimportant because while logically, not all "information" is essential, the lost clause is needed to state this clearly. Therefore, the commas should go.

[SovaNu]

lollol

[The_P]

Now if you have a relative clause which provides interesting information, but isn't essential to the sentence in terms of meaning, you can still use the sentence without the clause as we will understand what the sentence is elaborating about.

E.g.: The knight, who is clad in ebony armour, lunges forth against the ferocious beast.

These are called "non-defining relative clauses"; you'll easily recognise them by punctuation.

First of all, note how your first sentence would probably work better without the commas (or at least the first one). Then, consider that sentence without the relative clause:

Now if you have a relative clause which provides interesting information, you can still use the sentence without the clause as we will understand what the sentence is elaborating about.

The point is that the lost clause was not unimportant because while logically, not all "information" is essential, the lost clause is needed to state this clearly. Therefore, the commas should go.

But the sentence is about the knight (subject) attacking the ferocious beast (object). The relative clause I provided was not essential to the sentence in question: it still makes sense without the clause. Therefore, it's subordinated.

Though if you still believe that I'm incorrect, feel free to clarify your argument by providing me a demonstration yourself on how relative clauses should be properly used in English writing.

[odeon]

Oh, the knight example is absolutely correct. I was talking about this one:

Now if you have a relative clause which provides interesting information, but isn't essential to the sentence in terms of meaning, you can still use the sentence without the clause as we will understand what the sentence is elaborating about.

for an interesting post, btw.

[Rabbit From Hell]

can two positives make a negative?

[odeon]

can two positives make a negative?

I'm positive that's an unnecessarily negative view of the truth. So, negative.

[Rabbit From Hell]

can two positives make a negative?

I'm positive that's an unnecessarily negative view of the truth. So, negative.

Yeah, right...

[odeon]

can two positives make a negative?

I'm positive that's an unnecessarily negative view of the truth. So, negative.

Yeah, right...

So if I did that right, two negatives can mean a positive.