# It was the low price that was why I bought it



## taraa

If I'm saying that because the price was low I bought it. Do we have two relative clauses here?
It was the low price *that was  why I bought it*.


----------



## Barque

_It was priced low. That's why..
It ws low-priced. That's why...
It was cheap. That's why...
The price was low. That's why.._

You wouldn't say "It was at the low price" or "It was the low price". You could possibly say "It was at _a_ low price" but that doesn't sound very natural to me.


----------



## taraa

Barque said:


> _It was priced low. That's why..
> It ws low-priced. That's why...
> It was cheap. That's why...
> The price was low. That's why.._
> 
> You wouldn't say "It was at the low price" or "It was the low price". You could possibly say "It was at _a_ low price" but that doesn't sound very natural to me.


Sorry Barque, I just wanted to analyze the sentence gramatically. The ancendant for both 'that' and 'why' is 'the low price', right?


----------



## Barque

taraa said:


> The ancendant for both 'that' and 'why' is 'the low price', right?


Do you mean the _antecedent_? I'd say it was the entire phrase--"It was priced low", but I don't know much about these fine points.


----------



## taraa

Barque said:


> Do you mean the _antecedent_? I'd say it was the entire phrase--"It was priced low", but I don't know much about these fine points.


for both 'that and 'why'. But 'that' can't refer to clauses?


----------



## Barque

You've lost me there, sorry. What do you mean by "'that' can't refer to clauses"?


----------



## velisarius

_It was the low price *that was why I bought it*._

It isn't grammatically correct. You need to rephrase.


----------



## taraa

Barque said:


> You've lost me there, sorry. What do you mean by "'that' can't refer to clauses"?





velisarius said:


> I meant "It was the low price'.
> _It was the low price *that was why I bought it*._
> 
> It isn't grammatically correct. You need to rephrase.


Sorry Velisarius, I don't know what is wrong to rephrase. Can 'that' refer to "It was the low price", please?


----------



## Edinburgher

Fronting a sentence with "*It was* <noun phrase> *that* ..." is typically done to emphasize the subject.
The base sentence, before adding the emphatic fronting, may have been "The low price was why I bought it."

Take the base sentence "The dog stole the sausage."
If you want to emphasize the dog, you might change it to "It was the dog that stole the sausage."

You can't do the same with "The low price was ...", partly because the repetition of "was" is inelegant.  But that by itself is not too terrible, because we could easily say:  "It was the dog that was responsible for the missing sausage."

I think the juxtaposition "was why" is part of the problem.  If you change "why" to "the reason", you get:
_The low price was the reason I bought it. --> It was the low price that was the reason I bought it._
Still not very good, but a lot less unappealing than your original.

It might be even less bad if you changed the first "was" to "is".  But better still to get rid of "was" from the main clause altogether:
_It was the low price that *made me* buy it._
In that case, yes, "that" would be a relative pronoun referring to the low price, and I don't think "which" would work.


----------



## velisarius

An _it_ cleft sentence is based on a non-cleft sentence. 

_- What exactly made you buy the toaster?

- It was cheap._
- _*The low price *made me buy it
-* It was the low price (that)* made me buy it. _


Cleft sentences ( It was in June we got married .) - English Grammar Today - Cambridge Dictionary


----------



## taraa

Many thanks Edinburgher for the excellent explanation.



velisarius said:


> An _it_ cleft sentence is based on a non-cleft sentence.
> 
> _- What exactly made you buy the toaster?
> 
> - It was cheap._
> - _*The low price *made me buy it
> -* It was the low price (that)* made me buy it. _
> 
> 
> Cleft sentences ( It was in June we got married .) - English Grammar Today - Cambridge Dictionary


Do you mean here 'that' refers to "it was the low price", please?
_-* It was the low price (that)* made me buy it. _


----------



## Edinburgher

taraa said:


> Do you mean here 'that' refers to "it was the low price", please?


No, it refers just to the low price, not to the entire first clause.
Question: *What* made me buy it?
Answer: The low price.


----------



## velisarius

It refers to "the low price".

_It was my mother who/that told me about it._


----------



## taraa

Many thanks to you both.


----------



## billj

taraa said:


> If I'm saying that because the price was low I bought it. Do we have two relative clauses here?
> It was the low price *that was  why I bought it*.


It's tricky, but yes, there are two relative clauses.

_It was the low price _[_that was_ [_why I bought it_]]_._

The relative clause in outer brackets has "low price" as antecedent for "that", which functions as subject of the relative clause.  Within that relative clause is the 'fused' noun phrase in inner brackets, which functions as complement of "was". Within that noun phrase is an embedded relative clause in which "why" functions as an adjunct of reason.

The non-fused version would be "It was the low price that was the reason why I bought it".

Note: I've deliberately simplified things because strictly speaking "that" is not a relative pronoun but a subordinator, and thus does not refer to an antecedent. In your example the missing relative word would be indicated by the gap notation '___', as in:

_It was the low price _[_that ___was_ [_why I bought it_]]_._


----------



## taraa

billj said:


> It's tricky, but yes, there are two relative clauses.
> 
> _It was the low price _[_that was_ [_why I bought it_]]_._
> 
> The relative clause in outer brackets has "low price" as antecedent for "that", which functions as subject of the relative clause.  Within that relative clause is the 'fused' noun phrase in inner brackets, which functions as complement of "was". Within that noun phrase is an embedded relative clause in which "why" functions as an adjunct of reason.
> 
> The non-fused version would be "It was the low price that was the reason why I bought it".
> 
> Note: I've deliberately simplified things because strictly speaking "that" is not a relative pronoun but a subordinator, and thus does not refer to an antecedent. In your example the missing relative word would be indicated by the gap notation '___', as in:
> 
> _It was the low price _[_that ___was_ [_why I bought it_]]_._


Many thanks BillJ.
But you first said the antecedent of 'that' is 'low price', why did you say '"that" is not a relative pronoun since has no antecedent" ?


I forgot to ask my main question in this thread. How can 'that is why' be used here? I read in threads that when it's part of the sentence just "which is why" with a comma before it is used. For "that is why" we must start a new sentence?


----------



## billj

taraa said:


> Many thanks BillJ.
> But you first said the antecedent of 'that' is 'low price', why did you say '"that" is not a relative pronoun since has no antecedent" ?
> 
> 
> I forgot to ask my main question in this thread. How can 'that is why' be used here? I read in threads that when it's part of the sentence just "which is why" with a comma before it is used. For "that is why" we must start a new sentence?


The analysis of "that" as a subordinator is controversial. I added a note at the end of my answer to explain that.


----------



## billj

taraa said:


> Many thanks BillJ.
> But you first said the antecedent of 'that' is 'low price', why did you say '"that" is not a relative pronoun since has no antecedent" ?
> 
> 
> I forgot to ask my main question in this thread. How can 'that is why' be used here? I read in threads that when it's part of the sentence just "which is why" with a comma before it is used. For "that is why" we must start a new sentence?



May I ask why you are so interested in the finer points of English syntax?


----------



## taraa

billj said:


> The analysis of "that" as a subordinator is controversial. I added a note at the end of my answer to explain that.


I understand, many thanks. 


billj said:


> May I ask why you are so interested in the finer points of English syntax?


But I don't think there are so fine. If we want to understand these sentences we have to know these points. If these are so fine, why are they in our books? Why do we have these questions in our exams? How can we pass IELTS exames?

But what is the answer, please:

I forgot to ask my main question in this thread. How can 'that is why' be used here? I read in threads that when it's part of the sentence just "which is why" with a comma before it is used. For "that is why" we must start a new sentence?


----------



## billj

What books are you talking about?

Do they contain questions where the student is expected to know about 'fused' relative clauses? I suspect they call them 'nominal clauses'.

If memory serves, IELTS doesn't talk of 'fused' relative constructions, nor does it discuss the claim that "that" is a subordinator, or 'gapping'.


----------



## billj

Interestingly, strictly speaking "why" is not permitted in  fused relative constructions like the one you cited, but only in integrated relatives with "reason" as antecedent. Thus the correct answer to your question is no, there is only one relative clause:

_It was the low price_ [_that was_ [_why I bought it_]].

The element in outer brackets is a relative clause, but the element in inner brackets is a subordinate interrogative clause (embedded question), where the meaning is:

"It was the low price that was the answer to the question 'Why did I buy it?"'


----------



## taraa

billj said:


> What books are you talking about?
> 
> *Do they contain questions where the student is expected to know about 'fused' relative clauses?*
> 
> If memory serves, IELTS doesn't talk of 'fused' relative constructions, nor does it discuss the claim that "that" is a subordinator, or 'gapping'.


No, 


billj said:


> Interestingly, strictly speaking "why" is not permitted in  fused relative constructions like the one you cited, but only in integrated relatives with "reason" as antecedent. Thus the correct answer to your question is no, there is only one relative clause:
> 
> _It was the low price_ [_that was_ [_why I bought it_]].
> 
> The element in outer brackets is a relative clause, but the element in inner brackets is a subordinate interrogative clause (embedded question), where the meaning is:
> 
> "It was the low price that was the answer to the question 'Why did I buy it?"'


Interesting. Many thanks.
Can you please answer this my question?
I forgot to ask my main question in this thread. How can 'that is why' be used here? I read in threads that when it's part of the sentence just "which is why" with a comma before it is used. For "that is why" we must start a new sentence?


----------



## billj

taraa said:


> No,
> 
> Interesting. Many thanks.
> Can you please answer this my question?
> I forgot to ask my main question in this thread. How can 'that is why' be used here? I read in threads that when it's part of the sentence just "which is why" with a comma before it is used. For "that is why" we must start a new sentence?


I think you may be thinking of non-defining relatives where "that" is not permitted.

In your example, "that was why I bought it" is an integrated (defining) relative clause with "low price" as antecedent.

_It was the low price that was why I bought it._

Otherwise you would have to say _It was the low price. That is why I bought it._


----------



## taraa

billj said:


> _It was the low price that was why I bought it._
> 
> It's because "that was why I bought it" is an integrated relative clause with "low price" as antecedent.
> 
> Otherwise you would have to say _It was the low price. Which is why I bought it._


Aha, many thanks, I was looking for an example hat "that is why" in a sentence can be used, this is that example, many thanks. 
But is this correct? :
_It was the low price. Which is why I bought it._
I read that relative pronouns can't start a sentence, always 'which is why' is used as an non-defining relative clause?


----------



## billj

taraa said:


> Aha, many thanks, I was looking for an example hat "that is why" in a sentence can be used, this is that example, many thanks.
> But is this correct? :
> _It was the low price. Which is why I bought it._
> I read that relative pronouns can't start a sentence, always 'which is why' is used as an non-defining relative clause?


_It was the low price. Which is why I bought it._

I don't know why your book said that. You can certainly start a sentence with relative pronoun, so that example is grammatically fine. Here's another decent example:

A: _Our rent is due next week_.
B: _Which is why we shouldn't be going out to dinner tonight._

B's response has the form of a perfectly valid supplementary (non-defining) relative clause starting with the relative pronoun "which".


----------



## taraa

billj said:


> _It was the low price. Which is why I bought it._
> 
> I don't know why your book said that. You can certainly start a sentence with relative pronoun, so that example is grammatically fine. Here's another decent example:
> 
> A: _Our rent is due next week_.
> B: _Which is why we shouldn't be going out to dinner tonight._
> 
> B's response has the form of a perfectly valid supplementary (non-defining) relative clause starting with the relative pronoun "which".


I didn't read that in books, I read it here, in this forum.
Yes, I just saw "which is why" just in these kid of contexts where one confirms another and add a non-defining relative clause. It's like:
B: Yes, _Our rent is due next week,_ _Which is why we shouldn't be going out to dinner tonight._

This is the only case that a sentence can be started  with a non-defining relative 'which'. Can you write another examples, please?


----------



## billj

taraa said:


> Can you write another examples, please?


Why don't you try, using "which" as the relative pronoun.


----------



## taraa

billj said:


> Why don't you try, using "which" as the relative pronoun.


Since "which is why' is wrong. Just in your example it is correct. I want  to be sure it's always wrong.


----------



## velisarius

You can't just start a sentence out of the blue with "Which is why..." "Which" has to refer to something.

_The item was going cheap, which is why I bought it_.
_The item was going cheap. Which is why I bought it_. The grammar's the same, but the *punctuation* indicates that the relative clause is an afterthought, or there was a longish pause.

Sometimes it will be a comment on what someone else just said.

_A- The item was going cheap.
B- Which is why you bought it.
A - Yes, of course. I love a bargain._


----------



## taraa

velisarius said:


> You can't just start a sentence out of the blue with "Which is why..." "Which" has to refer to something.
> 
> _The item was going cheap, which is why I bought it_.
> _The item was going cheap. Which is why I bought it_. The grammar's the same, but the *punctuation* indicates that the relative clause is an afterthought, or there was a longish pause.
> 
> Sometimes it will be a comment on what someone else just said.
> 
> _A- The item was going cheap.
> B- Which is why you bought it.
> A - Yes, of course. I love a bargain._


Many thanks Velisarius.
If we just consider this , always "that is why" can be replaced by "which is why" since "that" always refer to previous thing.
*You can't just start a sentence out of the blue with "Which is why..." "Which" has to refer to something.*

I read in one of your threads the rule below, but I couldn't find it now
..., which is why....
Sentence 1. That is why...
...; that is why
sentence 1, and that is why....


----------



## koper2

taraa said:


> It was the low price. Which is why I bought it.


Note that the whole clause _It was the low price_ is the antecedent of the relative pronoun _Which_ in _It was the low price. Which is why I bought it_.


----------



## london calling

taraa said:


> If I'm saying that because the price was low I bought it. Do we have two relative clauses here?
> It was the low price *that was  why I bought it*.


This isn't English. Where did you find this? I know you have said you found *That* *was  why I bought it* on the forum and that's fine, but where did you find it in combination with 'It was the low price'?


----------



## JJXR

Does "low-price" rather than "low-priced" work in the sentence below:

_It was *low-price*. That's why I bought it._


----------



## london calling

Yes.


----------



## JJXR

Thanks, london calling.


----------



## billj

JJXR said:


> Does "low-price" rather than "low-priced" work in the sentence below:
> 
> _It was *low-price*. That's why I bought it._


"That" is not a relative pronoun, so your example is invalid.


----------



## billj

london calling said:


> This isn't English.


Yes it is.


----------



## billj

taraa said:


> Since "which is why' is wrong. Just in your example it is correct. I want  to be sure it's always wrong.


It's not wrong, providing of course that "which" has an antecedent. I gave you a valid example in #26.


----------



## taraa

london calling said:


> I know you have said you found *That* *was why I bought it* on the forum and that's fine,


I didn't say such a thing, really.


koper2 said:


> Note that the whole clause _It was the low price_ is the antecedent of the relative pronoun _Which_ in _It was the low price. Which is why I bought it_.


But Velisarius and Edinburgher said the antecedent of the relative pronoun _Which_ is 'low price'.


billj said:


> It's not wrong, providing of course that "which" has an antecedent. I gave you a valid example in #26.


So for you the following is right?
It was very cheap. Which is why I bought it.


----------



## billj

taraa said:


> So for you the following is right?
> It was very cheap. Which is why I bought it.


Yes, I have already told you that!

Please don't keep asking the same question.


----------



## taraa

billj said:


> Yes, I have already told you that!
> 
> Please don't keep asking the same question.


Oh sorry, I just really am confused. I read all the following threads, they all say:
before 'which' that refers to previous clause comma is necessary. If you want to write that as two separate sentences, then your choice is just 'which is why'.


Also it is what that is said in Swan's book.


----------



## london calling

billj said:


> "That" is not a relative pronoun, so your example is invalid.


Of course it's valid. 'That's why' is perfectly normal spoken English.


----------



## london calling

You even suggested it yourself in post 23, billj.


----------



## london calling

billj said:


> Yes it is.


'It was the low price that was why I bought it' is not English.


----------



## taraa

billj said:


> "That" is not a relative pronoun, so your example is invalid.


'that' is demonstrative. 'which' is relative.

Demonstratives start new sentences, but relatives cannot.


----------



## london calling

Yes you can, taraa.😊 'That's why' is case in point. These are all valid as standalones, in a given context :

That's why I said what I did.
That's why he decided to go to London.
That's why she's the boss and I'm not.
That isn't the point.
That isn't what I'm saying.

Edit. Sorry, I'm probably confusing you. What I am saying is that you can start a sentence with 'that', but not always.


----------

