# Which was very frequently



## Kimaunz

Hi,

I think the phrase "which was very frequently" below is wrong from the point of view of traditional grammar and "which was very frequent" or "which was done very frequently' would be right instead. I do not know how I should understand this:

_And whenever he said this, *which was very frequently*, her grandmother would blush prettily and smile at Owen with adoration. 'It's true, Laura. The day I set eyes on your grandfather I was kissed by the angels. It was the luckiest day of my life, meeting him.'


Source:  A Change of Heart _by Barbara Taylor Bradford


----------



## grassy

It's fine. "Frequently" modifies "said".


----------



## Kimaunz

Thank you, grassy. I understand. Then would "which was very frequent" be fine, too?


----------



## Glasguensis

No, for me that’s not as good, although *often* would work.


----------



## Kimaunz

Glasguensis said:


> No, for me that’s not as good, although *often* would work.


Would you suggest the phrase you're thinking of?



grassy said:


> It's fine. "Frequently" modifies "said".


On second thought, I don't quite seem to understand what you're saying.


----------



## Glasguensis

You could say « when he said this, which was very often… »

He frequently said this. Frequently is an adverb which acts on the main verb “said”.


----------



## Kimaunz

I guess "which" is a relative pronoun and its antecedent is "And whenever he said this" In this case, the antecedent is the whole preceding sentence, not a noun or a phrase. Please have a look at the following sentence:

_He didn't want to tell me the truth, which was quite upsetting to me._

In the above sentence, which refers to the whole preceding sentence. So, I guess "which was very frequently" would be wrong.


----------



## grassy

Kimaunz said:


> In the above sentence, which refers to the whole preceding sentence. So, I guess "which was very frequently" would be wrong.


Right. But this example would work:

_When he didn't want to tell me the truth, which was quite frequently, I would kick him out of the house._


----------



## Glasguensis

Yes I understand your logic. That’s the danger of trying to figure things out using grammatical analysis. If it helps you can think of this antecedent as being an adverbial phrase, in which case it needs to be modified by an adverb.


----------



## Kimaunz

grassy said:


> It's fine. "Frequently" modifies "said".


Do you think "a subject + a verb + an adverb" is a right sentence construction?



Glasguensis said:


> Yes I understand your logic. That’s the danger of trying to figure things out using grammatical analysis. If it helps you can think of this antecedent as being an adverbial phrase, in which case it needs to be modified by an adverb.


An adverbial phrase cannot be an antecedent. From the point of view of functional grammar, it might be fine, but from the point of view of traditional grammar, it would be wrong.


----------



## Glasguensis

All I can tell you is what we actually use in English: given that grammar merely describes what is actually used, and does not define it, what we actually say cannot be grammatically incorrect- it can only be a failure of the grammar to encompass this usage.


----------



## Kimaunz

grassy said:


> Right. But this example would work:
> 
> _When he didn't want to tell me the truth, which was quite frequently, I would kick him out of the house._


You seem to be right, grassy. A noun or a noun phrase or a noun clause is not an antecedent of the relative pronoun "which" in this case.


----------



## Kimaunz

Thank you.


----------



## Kimaunz

grassy said:
Right. But this example would work:

_When he didn't want to tell me the truth, which was quite frequently, I would kick him out of the house._


grassy, do you know what you call the clause "_When he didn't want to tell me the truth" _grammatically? Maybe an adverbial clause?


----------



## grassy

Kimaunz said:


> grassy, do you know what you call the clause "_When he didn't want to tell me the truth" _grammatically? Maybe an adverbial clause?


Sounds fine to me.


----------



## RM1(SS)

Kimaunz said:


> Do you think "a subject + a verb + an adverb" is a right sentence construction?


He spoke quietly.
He walked quickly.
He stumbled drunkenly.


----------



## Kimaunz

RM1(SS) said:


> He spoke quietly.
> He walked quickly.
> He stumbled drunkenly.


Okay. That's a good indication. In point of fact, what I meant was a "S + Verb Be + an adverb."


----------



## Glasguensis

Kimaunz said:


> Okay. That's a good indication. In point of fact, what I meant was a "S + Verb Be + an adverb."


Sorry but I don’t understand what structure you have in mind - can you provide an example ?


----------



## Kimaunz

Glasguensis said:


> Sorry but I don’t understand what structure you have in mind - can you provide an example ?


He was quietly. 
He was quiet. 

I am happily. 
I am happy.


----------



## Kimaunz

In spoken English, I doubt saying like "Whenever he said this, which was very frequently." is possible.


----------



## Glasguensis

Kimaunz said:


> He was quietly.
> He was quiet.
> 
> I am happily.
> I am happy.


I agree, the adjectival form is required here, but nowhere up until now have you had *to be* as a main verb. Why are you introducing this now?



Kimaunz said:


> In spoken English, I doubt saying like "Whenever he said this, which was very frequently." is possible.


I’m not sure how often we have to repeat this : it is entirely possible. This is perfectly grammatically correct, even if it’s something you haven’t come across before.


----------



## Kimaunz

Glasguensis said:


> I agree, the adjectival form is required here, but nowhere up until now have you had *to be* as a main verb. Why are you introducing this now?


I introduced that because I was confused.



Glasguensis said:


> I’m not sure how often we have to repeat this : it is entirely possible. This is perfectly grammatically correct, even if it’s something you haven’t come across before.


I might have been mistaken. Then even if it is possible in spoken English and the relative pronoun is frequently used in spoken English, I doubt the sentence structure is common in spoken English.


----------



## Glasguensis

No, it wouldn’t be common in spoken English because it’s relatively sophisticated - we’re much more likely to see structures such as this in writing, where people have more time to be creative.


----------



## Kimaunz

I have never seen the sentence structure like "Whenever he said this, which was very frequently." I'm used to seeing the sentence structure like "He said this, which was very frequent."


----------



## Kimaunz

Glasguensis said:


> I’m not sure how often we have to repeat this : it is entirely possible. This is perfectly grammatically correct, even if it’s something you haven’t come across before.


Thanks for your comment. Today I learned a new fact. Much appreciated.


----------



## dojibear

> whenever he said this, *which was very frequently*, her grandmother would blush


The bold is parenthetical, so this is an identical sentence:


> whenever he said this (*which was very frequently*) her grandmother would blush


If you re-word the parenthetical without "which" (but with the same meaning) it is:


> whenever he said this (*and he said this very frequently*) her grandmother would blush



Parentheticals are side comments. They can be removed without changing the sentence. So the sentence is:


> whenever he said this, her grandmother would blush


----------



## elroy

Whenever he said this, which was frequently,… 

This is telling us that 

whenever he said this = frequently

A, which was B,…

(1) Whenever he said this, she would blush.
(2) Frequently, she would blush.

(3) Whenever he said this, which was frequently, she would blush.

(3) combines the ideas expressed in (1) and (2) and tells us that the link between them is that he said this frequently.

Possible rewrite: 

Whenever he said this, and he said this frequently,… 

Here’s another example that you can’t substitute an adjective for so it might be clearer:

Every time I went to the gym, which was every day,…


----------



## Kimaunz

Thank you, dojibear for your detailed explanation.


----------



## Kimaunz

elroy said:


> Whenever he said this, which was frequently,…
> 
> This is telling us that
> 
> whenever he said this = frequently
> 
> A, which was B,…
> 
> (1) Whenever he said this, she would blush.
> (2) Frequently, she would blush.
> 
> (3) Whenever he said this, which was frequently, she would blush.
> 
> (3) combines the ideas expressed in (1) and (2) and tells us that the link between them is that he said this frequently.
> 
> Possible rewrite:
> 
> Whenever he said this, and he said this frequently,…
> 
> Here’s another example that you can’t substitute an adjective for so it might be clearer:
> 
> Every time I went to the gym, which was every day,…


Thank you, eloy for taking the trouble. I cannot thank you enough.


----------



## fabio407

Hi, could we consider that a second "said" is implicit and ommited to avoid repetition? It think that It would make easier to noitice the regular structure "subject + verb + adverb (+ agent in passive voice, in this case)".

"Whenever he said this, which was frequently (said) (by him), ..."


----------



## grassy

I am afraid not.

He said it very frequently. 
It was said by him very frequently.


----------



## fabio407

Hi, grassy.

In your example there's no reason to use the passive voice. It's an isolated sentence, not a parenthetical clause used in a sentence.  My guess is that the important information in the parenthetical clause is the fact that something is said very frequently. The agent is not  an important information, a situation in which the passive voice is used to convey the ideia that they are not important or that they are not known. Regarding the verb, the comma before the clause would  made possible the elipsis.


Maybe you're right and we could not consider my guess possible, but I think your counterexample not followed by an explanation is not useful to understand why not.

Nevertheless, thank you.


----------



## Glasguensis

The which here refers to the whole of « whenever he said this ». We can’t add verbs (said or anything else), because there is already a main verb (was) applying to « which ». As grassy said, the only real way of adding another said would be to make it passive voice so that the was and said fit together, but this gives a poor sentence which we wouldn’t use. I am conscious that learners frequently ask « why not » but there doesn’t really need to be a reason: either it’s something we say or it isn’t.


----------



## fabio407

Glasguensis said:


> The which here refers to the whole of « whenever he said this ». We can’t add verbs (said or anything else), because there is already a main verb (was) applying to « which ». As grassy said, the only real way of adding another said would be to make it passive voice so that the was and said fit together, but this gives a poor sentence which we wouldn’t use. I am conscious that learners frequently ask « why not » but there doesn’t really need to be a reason: either it’s something we say or it isn’t.



Hi, Gasguensis.

Sometimes there is no reason to use a structure, as you said. I'm conscious of that and I've read your others answers in this thread saying it.   Sometimes there is a reason for some and there is no reason for others.  People make different analysis and that's why sometimes native speakers don't agree. Sometimes nobody who read the thread knows a reason but it exists. Sometimes even grammarians diverge.  There are many possibilities.

I don't think I'm adding a verb. The verb "said" would be used in the passive voice : "was said". It's just one compound verb, isn't it?

My guess is that the clause in the passive voice would be poor if:

i) there were not an elipsis of "said" -- it would be unnecessarily repeated. Which action was frequently taken? The action of saying something. The previous clause make it clear.;

ii) the agent was not ommited -- it's not necessary. It's clear that the agent is the "he" in the previous clause. Who frequently said something? It's clear by the context given by the first clause;

That's why I put them between brackets in my first post. Maybe it was not I good idea because round brackets are used to say that the words between them are optional.  I've used them only to show the passive voice structure I'm guessing is implicit.  In that view, with the elipsis and the agent ommited it would not be a poor passive voice clause because it would not be wordy, but economic and, considering the previous clause, covenient.

Thank you!


----------



## Boccherini

Kimaunz said:


> Hi,
> 
> I think the phrase "which was very frequently" below is wrong from the point of view of traditional grammar and "which was very frequent" or "which was done very frequently' would be right instead. I do not know how I should understand this:
> 
> _And whenever he said this, *which was very frequently*, her grandmother would blush prettily and smile at Owen with adoration. 'It's true, Laura. The day I set eyes on your grandfather I was kissed by the angels. It was the luckiest day of my life, meeting him.'
> 
> 
> Source:  A Change of Heart _by Barbara Taylor Bradford


I agree with you, frequently functions as subject complement modifying the verb to be. Adverbs cannot function as subject complement; we need an adjective. -which was very frequent-

Here the explanation
Can adverbs modify linking verbs?


----------



## Glasguensis

Boccherini said:


> I agree with you, frequently functions as subject complement modifying the verb to be. Adverbs cannot function as subject complement; we need an adjective. -which was very frequent-
> 
> Here the explanation
> Can adverbs modify linking verbs?


I’m afraid not. An adjective is incorrect here.


----------



## elroy

grassy said:


> He said it very frequently.
> It was said by him very frequently.


The second sentence may not be likely, but there’s nothing about it that rules it out as a possible explanation of the structure.

However, this


fabio407 said:


> "Whenever he said this, which was frequently (said) (by him), ..."


is not the right analysis.  Please see my earlier post.


----------



## grassy

elroy said:


> but there’s nothing about it that rules it out as a possible explanation of the structure.


My point was it's not a possible explanation of the structure. I take it you agree with me?


----------



## elroy

I agree that it’s not the explanation in this case.  I don’t agree that it’s not a possible explanation _a priori_.


----------



## lingobingo

Wow. What a lot of argument about a very common and idiomatic expression.

_And whenever *he said this* – *which* was frequently – her grandmother would blush…_​_= And every time *he said this* – *which* [was something] he did frequently – her grandmother would blush…_​​Some published examples from the main corpora:
​· When I felt restless or agitated, which was often, I'd log on and join my teammates online. (_The New Yorker_, 4/8/2019)​· When I won (which was seldom), I would … pinch her upper thigh, where the flesh was tender, so that she would shriek in pain. (_Literary Review_, Winter 2000)​· Paying off the mortgage created difficulties when the income from the farm declined during the bad times, which was more often than not, when prices fell for our sheep, cattle and produce. (_Daughter of the Dales_, Hannah Hauxwell and Barry Cockcroft. London: Century Hutchinson, 1991)​


----------



## Boccherini

Glasguensis said:


> I’m afraid not. An adjective is incorrect here.


Here a few examples: 

The kite is to be raised, when a thunder-gust appears to be coming on, (which is very frequent in this country)
The New Yorker

No deformation bands or plastic instabilities could be observed in tension, which are very frequent in compression of metallic foams.
Acta Materialia

When the verb to be doesn't function as a linking verbs (copula), but as a stative verb, it can be modified by an adverb.

My father's 95th birthday party was upstairs.
The New Yorker

In the clause, -which was very frequent(ly)- the verb to be is a linking verb or a stative verb? I consider it a linking verb, and the explanation given by the website I linked clarify the two aspects of the verb to be.


----------



## bearded

Kimaunz said:


> And whenever he said this, *which was very frequently*,


I would interpret ''was'' as ''happened'' or ''was the case'':
_...which happened very frequently._. /_which was very frequently the case_...


----------



## lingobingo

Just to point out that the adjective examples in #41 are ordinary relative clauses. I don’t see them as relevant to the idiomatic “to be+adverb” construction that this thread is about.


----------



## Glasguensis

Boccherini said:


> The kite is to be raised, when a thunder-gust appears to be coming on, (which is very frequent in this country)
> The New Yorker


This is poor English because which appears to refer to “when a thunder-gust appears to be coming on” but is being used as if it refers to “thunder-gust”, and therefore takes an adjective. In any event I wouldn’t use this as a reference of good usage.



Boccherini said:


> No deformation bands or plastic instabilities could be observed in tension, which are very frequent in compression of metallic foams.
> Acta Materialia


Which here refers to “deformation bands or plastic instabilities”. This is a noun phrase and takes an adjective


----------



## Boccherini

Glasguensis said:


> This is poor English because which appears to refer to “when a thunder-gust appears to be coming on” but is being used as if it refers to “thunder-gust”, and therefore takes an adjective. In any event I wouldn’t use this as a reference of good usage.
> 
> 
> Which here refers to “deformation bands or plastic instabilities”. This is a noun phrase and takes an adjective


JUst to try to understand.
If I understand correctly what you are saying, given a realtive clause such as -which was very frequent(ly)-, if the relative pronoun which refers to a noun phrase -very frequent- refers to (modifies) the verb to be. If which doen't refers to a noun phrase -very frequently- doesn't refer to (modify) the verb to be.


----------



## lingobingo

Whatever it is you’re trying to say there, the point about the quote that Glasguensis is commenting on is that you’ve only given the beginning of a much longer sentence, written in archaic language (and with odd punctuation) – and you failed to reveal the very significant fact that it was written by Benjamin Franklin in 1752!

The kite is to be raised, when a thunder-gust appears to be coming on, (which is very frequent in this country) and the person, who holds the string, must stand within a door, or window, or under some cover, so that the silk riband may not be wet. . . . As soon as any of the thunder-clouds come over the kite, the pointed wire will draw the electric fire from them; and the kite, with all the twine, will be electrified; and the loose filaments of the twine will stand out every way, and be attracted by the approaching finger.​(Did Franklin Fly That Kite?)​


----------



## Tappahannock

It's highly and sophisticatedly idiomatic as written. If you want to sound like a native, that's the most important takeaway from the discussion.

To understand it better, consider the following comparison:

"The day he said this, which was a Thursday, her grandmother blushed...."   

Here, 'which was' equates 'the day' and 'a Thursday' — a noun to a noun.

"Whenever he said this, which was quite frequently, her grandmother would blush...." 

Here, 'which was' equates 'whenever' to 'quite frequently' — an adverb to an adverb, essentially. They aren't _exactly_ congruent, and for that reason it tickles a little something in a keen ear, but in a positive way. That's why the paradigm has survived.

One can construct arbitrary lines of reasoning by which it might be incorrect (or correct), but they're all trumped by the fact that it is indeed idiomatic English on both sides of the Atlantic. The comparison above merely serves to illustrate why it is as it is.

Stodgier, less self-assured, less idiomatic ways of saying it would be "Whenever he said this, which he did quite frequently, her grandmother would blush..." or "On the occasions when he said this, which were quite frequent, her grandmother would blush...."

It's good to see that the original poster is reading and thinking about the language used by an author like Barbara Taylor Bradford. Such an exercise is a good source of guidance.


----------



## lentulax

Tappahannock said:


> One can construct arbitrary lines of reasoning by which it might be incorrect (or correct), but they're all trumped by the fact that it is indeed idiomatic English on both sides of the Atlantic. The comparison above merely serves to illustrate why it is as it is.


Absolutely so. The common-sense way to see it is simply that the 'which' clause modifies (usually redefines with greater precision) the adverb it refers back to. As lingobingo, too, said long ago, it's a very common usage.


----------



## bearded

It seems to me that in most - if not in all - examples provided by members who claim that the adverb ''frequently'' is correct in the OP sentence, the verb ''to be'' could be replaced by the verb ''happen'' - in accordance with my above interpretation #42.
 If ''was'' means ''happened'', then the adverb ''frequently'' represents no real problem.


----------



## lingobingo

Yes (see also #40), the construction itself being a kind of emphatic ‘aside’, used as a more formal. or pedestrian, way of saying the following:

_And whenever he said this, which was very frequently, her grandmother would blush prettily…_​_=_​_And whenever he said this – and believe me, he said it a lot! – her grandmother would blush prettily…_​


----------



## marziale

And whenever he said this, (Temporal clause)
which was very frequently, (Non-restrictive clause)
her grandmother would blush prettily (Main clause)
I think that this has been a long discussion about a very straightforward construction. There are three clauses.The temporal clause (1.) informs us of when the action in the main clause 3. takes place. The non-restrictive clause 2. adds bonus, non-essential information, regarding its forerunning clause - and applies to the whole of the clause (1).

The temporal clause < --- > is a structure that comes straight from Latin.

< ---- > 

< References to other languages removed. >


----------



## Tappahannock

lentulax said:


> Absolutely so. The common-sense way to see it is simply that the 'which' clause modifies (usually redefines with greater precision) the adverb it refers back to. As lingobingo, too, said long ago, it's a very common usage.


Indeed. It illustrates that if we don't immediately recognize the paradigm, we don't know quite what is the referent of 'which' without examining the meaning of the words that follow it—which is a fairly common situation. In the original example, 'which' refers specifically to 'whenever' in order to give it, as you state, greater precision.  Some of the other analyses take 'which' to refer to 'he said this'—also a valid interpretation (without the words that follow), but not the one that Bradford used in her sentence.

I believe the objectors need to understand that point in order to recognize or reuse the '_Whenever_ X..., _which is/was_ Y' paradigm she followed. If one doesn't understand that 'which' refers to 'whenever', it's hard to make analytical sense of the sentence. But while analysis is sometimes enlightening, the organic process of using language is about paradigms, imitation, adaptation, and application of accepted transformational rules.

Did Barbara Taylor Bradford think about all or even any of these things? Almost certainly not. They're reflexive for someone who knows the language as well as she does.



bearded said:


> It seems to me that in most - if not in all - examples provided by members who claim that the adverb ''frequently'' is correct in the OP sentence, the verb ''to be'' could be replaced by the verb ''happen'' - in accordance with my above interpretation #42.
> If ''was'' means ''happened'', then the adverb ''frequently'' represents no real problem.



Yes, one could use 'happened', and I almost included it after the other two examples. However, it's semantically less apt than 'he did' and stylistically less elevated than the version beginning 'On the occasions...', so I chose not to diffuse my point with it. While Bradford is not a literary writer or high stylist, I've always perceived her to be exceptionally careful and precise with grammar and usage for a writer of popular fiction—in fact, one of the best I've seen in that respect. It's safe to follow her example, as long as one understands what she's doing in any given sentence or excerpt.


----------

