# Others less gifted, but “who” have [restrictive or non-restrictive?]



## Tomtony

Others less gifted, but “who” have a strong will to succeed, rise to great heights because they have made the most of their endowments.

Is the sentence above grammatically correct?
Is the “who clause” above following the comma restrictive or non-restrictive?

Generally relative clauses following a comma are non-restrictive clauses, aren’t they?
In this case, it seems restrictive to me.

What do you think?

Thank you, in advance!!


----------



## lingobingo

Yes, the sentence is fine. The clause between the commas is non-restrictive in that there's still a complete sentence if you omit it.

Others less gifted …… rise to great heights [because they have made the most of their endowments].


----------



## natkretep

I agree that the double comma suggests that the relative clause is non-restrictive.

In terms of the meaning of the sentence, a restrictive use seems to have been intended (because less gifted and less motivated people will not make the most of their endowments). (In other words, I think the sentence may have been wrongly punctuated.)

_Cross-posted_


----------



## PaulQ

Tomtony said:


> Is the sentence above grammatically correct?


Yes.


> Is the “who clause” above following the comma restrictive or non-restrictive?


I think that are restrictive.

The second clause also qualifies *Others*. _Both _qualifications have to be met, and _both _are therefore restrictive. This is clearer in natkretp's paraphrase.

There are two restrictive clauses

Others who are less gifted, but who have a strong will to succeed, rise to great heights

and can be reversed
Others “who” have a strong will to succeed, but who are less gifted,


----------



## wandle

Tomtony said:


> Is the sentence above grammatically correct?
> Is the “who clause” above following the comma restrictive or non-restrictive?


I agree with *lingobingo* as to the nature of the clause. It is not a defining (restrictive) one.

However, the punctuation is not the best and the relation of ideas is not quite clearly expressed.
Better punctuation would be: (a) 'Others, less gifted but who have a strong will to succeed, rise to great heights ...'

The sentence is equivalent to: (b) 'Others, who are less gifted but have a strong will to succeed, rise to great heights ...' and this is a clearer way to express it.
To convert the relative clause to a defining (restrictive) one is not merely a matter of punctuation. It would need to be:
(c) 'Those who are less gifted but have a strong will to succeed rise to great heights ...'

In sentences (b) and (c) it would be perfectly acceptable to put the 'but' clause between commas. That would not change its nature (restrictive or non-restrictive), because it is part of the 'who' clause and that automatically means that it shares the nature of the 'who' clause.

In sentence (a) the entire descriptive part of the sentence is not restricting or defining the word 'others'.
As *lingobingo* points out, it can all be omitted without making the sentence ungrammatical:
'Others rise to great heights because they have made the most of their endowments.'

However, in sentence (c), with 'those', the omission creates a faulty form of expression:
'Those rise to great heights because they have made the most of their endowments.'

This use of 'those' can only work on one of two conditions: either it must refer to a group mentioned at the end of the preceding sentence (not possible here, because clearly the sentence before refers to a different group) or else it must be followed by a defining phrase or clause.


----------



## Tomtony

lingobingo said:


> Yes, the sentence is fine. The clause between the commas is non-restrictive in that there's still a complete sentence if you omit it.
> 
> Others less gifted …… rise to great heights [because they have made the most of their endowments].



Thank you very much!!
>Others less gifted …… rise to great heights [because they have made the most of their endowments].
In fact, I somewhat think this relative clause is restrictive,
because Others less gifted wouldn't rise to great heights, if they didn't have a strong will to succeed.
What do you think?

Thank you in advance!!


----------



## wandle

Tomtony said:


> In fact, I somewhat think this relative clause is restrictive,
> because Others less gifted wouldn't rise to great heights, if they didn't have a strong will to succeed.


That is not the test (leaving a clause out will always change the meaning). The question is whether the sentence works grammatically if the clause is omitted.
With 'others', the sentence still works grammatically after leaving out the clause. With 'those', it does not work grammatically after leaving out the clause.


----------



## Loob

I find the structure of "less gifted, but who have a strong will to succeed" awkward. But I think it has to be considered as a whole: either the whole of "less gifted ... succeed" is restrictive, or it's non-restrictive. I'd say it's non-restrictive.


(I don't think the clause beginning "who" is omissible; it's the clause beginning "but" that's omissible.)

(_Re-posting because I'd edited the previous one too many times....)_​


----------



## PaulQ

The point to consider is that for





Tomtony said:


> Others less gifted, but “who” have a strong will to succeed, rise to great heights.


to be true, *both *circumstances must be true. And thus *both *clauses must be essential, otherwise "others" is not correctly defined.

Others who are less gifted will rise to great heights. -incomplete
Others who have a strong will to succeed will rise to great heights. -incomplete

Perhaps more clearly: 
{Numbers that are [above 2 but have the quality of being prime]} are all odd. 
in which the words in square brackets are essential, and thus defining.

The addition of commas does not *create *a non-defining clause; the non-defining clause is first identified and only then is it, by convention, offset by commas. 

It seems that "who have a strong will to succeed" was supposed to be a second *essential *condition that the speaker added as he thought of it in order to complete the first clause, and the commas reflect a speech pattern - this now depends on whether you believe in "pause commas".

Others less gifted, but “who” have a strong will to succeed, rise to great heights. = Others less gifted but “who” have a strong will to succeed rise to great heights.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Tomtony said:


> Others less gifted, but “who” have a strong will to succeed, rise to great heights because they have made the most of their endowments.
> 
> Is the sentence above grammatically correct?
> Is the “who clause” above following the comma restrictive or non-restrictive?...


You need to remove the inverted commas around *who*, Tomtony.

I see the but-who-clause as restrictive.  It's defining the less-gifted ones who rise to great heights.  The less-gifted ones lacking the strong will to succeed don't usually rise to great heights.

  I think you need the comma because of the concessive nature of the clause.


----------



## wandle

PaulQ said:


> to be true, *both *circumstances must be true. And thus *both *clauses must be essential, otherwise "others" is not correctly defined.


I am afraid this is referring to the semantic message (the factual content being conveyed) and that misses the point.

Of course, the original speaker means that both elements (being less gifted, having a will to succeed) are necessary for the intended message.
Of course, if you remove those elements, the message of the sentence is altered. But none of that is relevant to the grammatical question.

The test is not, Will the semantic message of the sentence change if you remove the clause? (Obviously, that will change every time the test is applied.)
The test is, Will the grammatical structure of the basic sentence remain valid if the relative clause is removed?


PaulQ said:


> Others who are less gifted will rise to great heights. -incomplete
> Others who have a strong will to succeed will rise to great heights. -incomplete


Neither of those sentences is incomplete grammatically. They are perfectly good sentences which stand as correct English in their own right.

Of course, neither sentence conveys the complete semantic message of the original, but that does not affect the issue. The relevant point is that they are not at fault grammatically and do not lack any syntactical element necessary for the sentence to function as correct English.

The fact that they are not deficient grammatically means that the removed relative clause is not restrictive (it is not a defining clause).


----------



## PaulQ

The grammar did not really come into it. It is merely a case of categorisation.

The subject is basically "others" - if we want to identify which others, then the two clauses must be applied. 

At its shortest:

The subject becomes *Others *rise to great heights.

the original subject is bolded

*Others less gifted but who have a strong will to succeed* rise to great heights. The commas are not needed.

Expanded, the subject becomes

*Others who are less gifted but who have a strong will to succeed *rise to great heights.

We now move into the that/which/who\defining/non-defining area, and, although this is, in BE at least, optional if we take the clearer AE model, it would be available as

Others* that are less gifted but that have a strong will to succeed *as a defining clause: we know who is being spoken of.

Given the default context of what provoked the statement, I would say that this is correct.



> We use defining relative clauses to give essential information about someone or something – information that we need in order to understand what or who is being referred to. A defining relative clause usually comes immediately after the noun it describes.


Relative clauses: defining and non-defining - English Grammar Today - Cambridge Dictionary
*
*


----------



## wandle

PaulQ said:


> The grammar did not really come into it. It is merely a case of categorisation.


I beg to differ. The distinction of defining or non-defining is solely about grammar.
If it were about semantic content, every relative clause would be a defining one, because it would always distinguish one thing from another.

I see a parallelism in the implied context, as follows:

'Some, who are very gifted but lack ambition, do not achieve much. Others, who are less gifted but have a strong will to succeed, rise to great heights.'

The division into two groups is made by the words 'some' and 'others'. Then the relative clauses simply add information about the respective groups.

The following is a possible, though improbable, sentence, which is different in meaning:
'Others that are less gifted but that have a strong will to succeed rise to great heights.'

In this case, the relative clause is certainly defining, but it is defining one group of others from a different unspecified group of others.
It creates a division within 'others'.


----------



## Loob

wandle said:


> Others, who are less gifted but have a strong will to succeed, rise to great heights.'


I much prefer this sentence of wandle's to the original version quoted in post 1. I also prefer "Others who are less gifted but have a strong will to succeed rise to great heights."


----------



## wandle

> Others, who are less gifted but have a strong will to succeed, rise to great heights.


That is my understanding of the meaning of the original.


----------



## Loob

Yes  - that probably_ is _what was intended.

(It's a pity we have no source for the original sentence.)


----------



## Tomtony

Thank you for many of the answers, everyone!!
Does the "comma" before "but" stand for the defining of the "who clause" grammatically?
Is it thought that this "comma" in fact the concessive nature of the clause etc…？(Thomas Tompion)

Thank you in advance!!


----------



## SevenDays

Tomtony said:


> Others less gifted, but “who” have a strong will to succeed, rise to great heights because they have made the most of their endowments.
> 
> Is the sentence above grammatically correct?
> Is the “who clause” above following the comma restrictive or non-restrictive?
> 
> Generally relative clauses following a comma are non-restrictive clauses, aren’t they?
> In this case, it seems restrictive to me.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Thank you, in advance!!



The sentence is fine as written (though_ stylistically_ you can always rewrite it, as you've seen in this thread). _Restrictiveness_ is a property of relative clauses, but you don't have a relative clause, at least not anymore, and not where you are focusing on.

As written, the commas reflect a slight change in intonation (including pauses) which can be perceived when you read the sentence aloud. That's all you need to consider to include the commas; there's no need to focus on restrictive vs. non-restrictive.

Now, as written, you've isolated the element "but who have a strong will to survive." Syntactically, this is simply a prepositional phrase, headed by the preposition "but." Traditional grammar calls "but" a conjunction because the word introduces something contrasting what has already been mentioned. In terms of syntax, "who have a strong will to succeed" is a headless/free relative clause, or a relative clause that has no antecedent. More precisely, the relative pronoun "who" is its own antecedent. Headless/free relative clauses _automatically become noun clauses_, and as a noun clause, "who have a strong will to survive" functions as the complement of the preposition "but." In this analysis, we don't worry about whether the "who-clause" is restrictive or non-restrictive, because that's irrelevant as far as syntax is concerned. Syntactically, the 'who-clause" is in a relationship with "but," not with "Others less gifted." Of course, semantically, we _understand_ that the "who-clause" relates to "Others less gifted," but that's a semantic analysis, not a syntactic analysis.

A non-restrictive relative clause usually immediately follows its antecedent (for example, _The less gifted, who have a strong will to succeed, rise to great heights_). In your example, the presence of the word "but" affects the syntactic analysis of the sentence. Semantically speaking, the prepositional phrase "but who have a strong will to succeed" has two things in common with a non-restrictive relative clause: (1) they both add information about a noun; (2) the information is optional; you can always leave it out, because doing so leaves behind a grammatical sentence. Semantically, however, you don't want to leave out the "who-clause" because you do lose _a lot_ of information; in that sense, the "who-clause" is not _really_ optional. Just don't call it a "non-restrictive relative clause" because the "who-clause" no longer_ functions_ as a relative clause.

On the other hand, you do have a restrictive relative clause in "Others less gifted." More precisely, it's a reduced relative clause: _Others less gifted_ is the reduced version of _Others who are less gifted_.


----------



## wandle

SevenDays said:


> you do have a restrictive relative clause in "Others less gifted."


If that is restrictive, then it can only be restricting the meaning of 'others'. In other words, it  creates a subgroup among 'others': indicating 'others less gifted' as against 'others more gifted'.

I do not believe that is the intended meaning. I believe the division being made is between the implied 'some' (assumed as referred to by the preceding sentence) and the explicit 'others' of this sentence.


----------



## PaulQ

SevenDays said:


> The sentence is fine as written (though_ stylistically_ you can always rewrite it, as you've seen in this thread). _Restrictiveness_ is a property of relative clauses, but you don't have a relative clause, at least not anymore, and not where you are focusing on.
> 
> As written, the commas reflect a slight change in intonation (including pauses) which can be perceived when you read the sentence aloud. That's all you need to consider to include the commas; there's no need to focus on restrictive vs. non-restrictive.


I think that post has crystallised some thoughts

Compare

1 Others emboldened but fearful succeed.
2 Others who are emboldened but fearful succeed.
3 Others who are emboldened but who are fearful succeed.
4 The emboldened but fearful others succeed.
5 Others, the emboldened but fearful, succeed.
6. Others with emboldenment but fear succeed.

Whether “emboldened but fearful” is part of a phrase, a clause, a reduced clause, used as absolutes, or in apposition, its function is adjectival – it adds to the noun or creates a noun of those attributes.

The question is “Whatever these phrases are called, what is their actual function? i.e. Are they essential (defining), or are they merely an aside (non-defining)?”

The noun phrases that are constructed of a nominal plus an adjectival exist as there is no single, specific noun for them, and so we resort to a definitive description.

In the example, “Others” requires refinement. It simply cannot exist on its own and express the idea intended. “Others” needs to be restricted to a particular class of others – the class is defined by the adjectival.

You say “Restrictiveness is a property of relative clauses,” but that seems to be an a priori assumption. “Restrictive” means “that which restricts to the specific by the means of the action of defining.” (As opposed, say, to pointing at it.) It is true that we do not usually speak of adjectives as “restrictive” and “non-restrictive” but they have that function

If I have a set of spanners and the largest is red, then the sentences “Pass me the red spanner” and “Pass me the biggest spanner” have *biggest *and *red *as restrictive adjectives but
“Pass me the biggest, red spanner” has either biggest *or* red as non-restrictive – one is redundant, an aside, and that one is non-restrictive. (If the listener is colour-blind, it will be “red” as it would not help in the definition.)
Compare:
 “Pass me the biggest spanner, which I paid a lot of money for.”


----------



## wandle

SevenDays said:


> Syntactically, this is simply a prepositional phrase, headed by the preposition "but."





SevenDays said:


> In terms of syntax, "who have a strong will to succeed" is a headless/free relative clause, or a relative clause that has no antecedent. More precisely, the relative pronoun "who" is its own antecedent.


If I may say so, this analysis does not seem to work. 'But' as a preposition means 'except'. A headless relative clause with 'who' typically takes the form of 'Who dares, wins': meaning 'Anyone who dares will win'. If we treat 'who have a strong will to succeed' as a headless relative clause, then (as long as we accept the plural verb) it means 'any people who have a strong will to succeed'. Combined with 'but' as a preposition, that gives the meaning: 'except any people who have a strong will to succeed'.

When we take that meaning and apply it in the topic sentence, the result is:
'Others less gifted, except any people who have a strong will to succeed, rise to great heights ...' But that is not what the original means.

It seems to me that 'who' has an obvious antecedent in 'others'. The plural verb 'have' in itself shows that it refers to a plural subject. As to *Tomtony's *question (restrictive or not?): if the meaning were restrictive, it could only be restricting the word 'others' (narrowing it down to a subgroup of others). However, the sense here is not that one group of others is being distinguished from a different group of others, but that 'others' are being distinguished from 'some'.

That is in fact borne out by the wider context (assuming that the following passage is the source of the sentence):


> The value of will training in preparing the boy for life cannot be emphasized too much. A well-balanced personality is not a gift; it is not something we are born with; it is an achievement. Some persons are richly endowed at birth; but for all their advantages they fail to attain great success. Others less gifted, but who have a strong will to succeed, rise to great heights because they have made the most of their endowments.


The whole phrase 'less gifted, but who have a strong will to succeed' is equivalent to the ordinary relative clause: 'who are less gifted but have a strong will to succeed'. It is a descriptive expression qualifying the subject 'others', but not narrowing the subject down (the narrowing down has already been done by the distinction between 'some' and 'others'): in other words, it is not restrictive.


----------



## Tomtony

Thank you very much, everyone!!

>wandle
>That is in fact borne out by the wider context (assuming that the following passage is the source of the sentence):
Oh!, this sentence is a part of a very famous Japanese book to study English in!

By the way, regarding the discussion about semantic or grammatical,
I somehow think the comma before "but who clause" is that set before the conjunction, not stands for the restriction of the "who clause".
I think if it is thought so, the discussion doesn't contradict each other…

What do you think?
Thank you in advance!!


----------



## wandle

Tomtony said:


> Oh!, this sentence is a part of a very famous Japanese book to study English in!


Please remember that the forum rules ask you to give the context (surrounding text) of the sentence you are asking about:


> Context
> Some context is essential.
> It is difficult to say how much context is required because it depends on the question. But no one has ever posted a question with too much
> The text coming immediately before and immediately after the word or phrase under discussion - the sentence containing the word or phrase - may be enough.
> Ideally, please quote two sentences before, and one sentence after (the maximum quoted text allowed by Rule #4).





Tomtony said:


> I somehow think the comma before "but who clause" is that set before the conjunction, not stands for the restriction of the "who clause".


In post 5, I said this about the punctuation:


wandle said:


> Better punctuation would be: (a) 'Others, less gifted but who have a strong will to succeed, rise to great heights ...'


I regard the text as equivalent to the following: 'Others, who are less gifted but have a strong will to succeed, rise to great heights ...'
In this formulation, the relative clause is placed between commas in the manner recommended for a non-restrictive clause. In general, that is the way to do it in writing your own sentences.

However, in interpreting a given English text (i.e. somebody else's writing), my advice is: do not rely on the punctuation to distinguish restrictive from non-restrictive. That is because there could easily be an error in the punctuation and also because (as we see in this case) there could be an unusual or anomalous word order which itself could affect the punctuation. The only true guide on the issue of restrictive or non-restrictive is the writer's intention: and for that we have to look at the overall meaning of the sentence, judged in its context.


----------



## Tomtony

Thank you very much!!

I’m sorry. It’s been a while since I visited this site, if not for the first time.
Therefore I don't forget to care about the forum rules. I’m sorry.


Regarding the issue, I think still somewhat that it is restrictive in this case….

I will think about that more for myself.
Thank you very much, everyone!!


----------



## wandle

Tomtony said:


> I think still somewhat that it is restrictive in this case….


There are two groups: 'some people' and 'others'. The relative clause is about the 'others'.
Does it restrict that group (make it smaller) or does it just describe the group without reducing it?


----------



## Tomtony

Thank you very much!!
If "the others" was in place of "others",  "the others" in itself would be defined.
But I somehow think that "others" can be defined moreover by relative clauses.

Thank you, very much!!


----------



## wandle

Tomtony said:


> But I somehow think that "others" can be defined moreover by relative clauses.


All relative clauses are descriptive: they tell us something about the subject (or object).
But not all relative clauses are restrictive (they are not all defining the meaning by narrowing it down).

In this case, the descriptive phrase is: 'less gifted, but who have a strong will to succeed'. It mentions two qualities (less gifted, strongly ambitious).

Is the writer using those qualities to define different subgroups of the 'others'?
Or does he mean that everyone in the group of 'others' has both those qualities at the same time?


----------



## Tomtony

Thank you very much!!

I think that having a strong will to succeed is essential to rising to great heights.
Then I think others less gifted is completely different from others less gifted, but who have a strong will.

Thank you very much!!


----------



## PaulQ

"(Of everyone,...........).......others..........[that are]...................less gifted, but “who” have a strong will, rise to great heights"




"(Of those in the crowd,)...the man....who/that is wearing.......................................the hat .................. will rise to great heights


Both clauses separate the particular from the general.


----------



## DiasporaCobh

wandle said:


> It is a descriptive expression qualifying the subject 'others', but not narrowing the subject down (the narrowing down has already been done by the distinction between 'some' and 'others'): in other words, it is not restrictive.




I'm not so sure that there is not a distinction between types of "others" here.  The original question asks about the clause following 'who' :"but who have a strong will to succeed rise to great heights," and I would say, as presented in the text, this clause defines the group of "others who are less gifted, but [and] who have a strong will to succeed rise to great heights, because ..." from "others who are less gifted, but do not have a strong will to rise to great heights.

While the clauses may be grammatically reversible, the choice seems strange to me:  "others who have a strong will to succeed, but who are less gifted, rise to great heights because


----------



## wandle

Tomtony said:


> having a strong will to succeed is essential to rising to great heights.


That may well be true: but it is a factual matter. That point is a question of human psychology, not of grammar.
You could test it by suitable research, but that would still tell us nothing about the grammar of the topic sentence.


Tomtony said:


> I think others less gifted is completely different from others less gifted, but who have a strong will.


Those are two different groups, but they are not being distinguished from each other in the topic sentence.


> Others less gifted, but who have a strong will to succeed, rise to great heights


The two groups being distinguished are 'some' and 'others'.
All those in the group 'some' have two qualities: high talent and a weak will to succeed.
All those in the group 'others' have two qualities: less talent and a strong will to succeed.

Therefore the qualities of less talent and of a strong will to succeed are not restricting (narrowing down) the group 'others'.
Both these qualities apply equally across the whole group of others.


----------



## wandle

Take the case of dogs which can succeed in hunting the wolf. First, they need to be big and fast, if they are to catch and kill the wolf. Secondly, they need to have strong fighting spirit, or else the wolf will kill them, or at least deter them.
Now we can make a parallel with the topic sentence.

Some dogs are born very big and fast, but for all their advantages they fail to cope with the wolf.
Others less gifted, but which have a strong will to fight, are successful hunters.

In this case, all dogs in the group 'some' have two qualities: (a) very big and fast; (b) low fighting spirit.
Likewise, all dogs in the group 'others' have two qualities (a) less big and fast; (b) high fightlng spirit.


----------



## DiasporaCobh

But are you not assuming that there is only "some" and "others", whereas there is nothing to suggest that there are not various other "others"?


----------



## wandle

DiasporaCobh said:


> But are you not assuming that there is only "some" and "others", whereas there is nothing to suggest that there are not various other "others"?


In the text, only two groups are being compared: '*some persons*' and '*others*'; the rest is description, naming in turn *the qualities* of each group as a whole:


> *Some persons* are *richly endowed at birth*; but for all their advantages they fail to attain great success. *Others* *less gifted, but who have a strong will to succeed*, rise to great heights


Of course, there is no suggestion that the groups 'some' and 'others' cover the whole human race (any more than the whole canine race in the parallel example).


----------



## DiasporaCobh

I don't see that.  I see the proposition as (bear with me)  *Some* persons ... fail to attain greatness.  Which "some persons" is the writer talking about? Those who are richly endowed at birth. But presumably not all "some persons" who are richly endowed at birth fail to rise to greatness.  Hence, I'm assuming, the choice not to use a relative clause but an identifying clause:
Some person are richly endowed at birth; but (contrastive clause)

Others less gifted, but who have a strong will to succeed, rise to great heights.  
Which "others"? Those who are less gifted, but *in addition* have a strong will to succeed.  These are two relative clauses back to back.  
The sentence can't read "Others are less gifted, but who have a strong ....".  

Rather it makes more sense to me to see it as "Others [*who* are] less gifted, but who have ...)

The entire sense of the sentence is to name membership rights.  Therefore defining.  All of the "some persons" and "others" belong to a larger group (presumably of boys if your source text is correct, which I'm assuming it is). The other "others" are simply not discussed, because they don't support the point of the writer.  But they must surely exist.  Presumably the world of Japanese boys is not made up solely of the boys mentioned in these two sentences.


----------



## wandle

DiasporaCobh said:


> The entire sense of the sentence is to name membership rights. Therefore defining.


In a factual sense, yes, but not as a matter of grammar. That factual defining function is performed by the semantic message of the sentence as a whole, not by the syntax of the relative clause.

To clarify this point, we need to do two things: (a) interpret the original (to establish the meaning) and then (b) simplify it (to isolate the grammatical point).

(a) To interpret it, I understand the sentence as:


wandle said:


> Others, who are less gifted but have a strong will to succeed, rise to great heights.'


That is what I believe the original means. This formula reproduces the exact meaning of the original, but in a different wording, with different punctuation.

(b) To simplify it, let us take one quality only: 'Others, who have a strong will to succeed, rise to great heights'.

Now we can set up a simplified parallel between 'some' and 'others':
'Some, who have little will to succeed, fail to achieve much. Others, who have a strong will to succeed, rise to great heights'.

Each sentence contains a non-defining relative clause describing the group it refers to. The two antecedents, the words 'some' and 'others', distinguish the two groups. The relative clause then simply gives additional information. Each relative clause applies to the whole group it refers to.

We can of course express the same information by using a restrictive or defining relative clause:
'Those who have little will to succeed fail to achieve much. Those who have a strong will to succeed rise to great heights'.
In this case, each relative clause is a defining or restrictive one.

This depends on the parallel of 'those' and 'those' and that is a crucial difference compared with the original, which starts with the distinction between 'some' and 'others'.
In the 'some ... others ...' case, the grammatical defining is done by the antecedent; in the 'those ... those ...' case, the grammatical defining is done by the relative clause.

Now we can add back in the omitted quality:
'Those who are less gifted, but have a strong will to succeed, rise to great heights'.
Here again, the relative clause is a defining or restrictive one.


----------



## DiasporaCobh

I think I'm beginning to see what you mean.  However, I still have one or two questions:

Some persons are richly endowed at birth; but for all their advantages they fail to attain great success.  
a) Others less gifted, but who have a strong will to succeed, rise to great heights.
b) Others less gifted and who have a strong will to succeed rise to great heights.
c) Others[,] less gifted, but who have a strong will to succeed, rise to great heights.
d) Others[,] less gifted but who have a strong will to succeed, rise to great heights.  

Question 1: a) b) c) d) were presumably available to the writer as choices but a) was chosen. Why?    I presume to define 'others'.

Nevertheless, I do see your point and I like your 'those' 'those' point.  But

Question 2: Are you saying that because a distinction is made between two things by the use of distinctive antecedents that defining relative sentences can't be used?

I'm new to the forum so i hope this isn't wrecking people's heads, but i find this so interesting to think about.


----------



## PaulQ

DiasporaCobh said:


> I hope this isn't wrecking people's heads, but I find this so interesting to think about.


 Let's remind ourselves of the sentence:


Tomtony said:


> Others less gifted, but “who” have a strong will to succeed, rise to great heights because they have made the most of their endowments.


Non-defining clauses are in parenthesis (by commas, dashes, brackets, etc.) and may be removed without subtracting from the information.
Defining clauses form noun clauses that are essentially descriptive of the main noun.

*Non-defining clause*
"The man, who can kill a dragon and return alive, will marry the princess. - This is a non-defining clause. The speaker is speaking of a man *whom he has pointed out already (or whom the listener otherwise knows*. The speaker is merely remarking that the man can a dragon and return alive - he may as well have say "who is rather good at playing the flute" or "who once went to London."

*Defining clause:*
"{The man that can kill the dragon but return alive} will marry the princess." - {The man that can kill the dragon but returns alive} is the subject- all of it.* You cannot omit or substitute* "that can kill the dragon but returns alive." It is a noun clause. *Nobody knows who the man is - nobody has pointed him out *- but a month later, when he staggers into the castle, he will be able to marry the princess because he has done all these things.  The princess's new husband is defined by his accomplishments and these are given in the noun clause.

Back to the original - should the commas be there?
Others less gifted, but “who” have a strong will to succeed, rise to great heights. What can we omit?

Others can rise to great heights, but only if they meet two conditions. So they are the only ones in whom we have any interest. To define that interest, we need the commas removing:

{Others less gifted but who have a strong will to succeed} rise to great heights.

We could reduce this further:
{Motivated others who are less gifted} rise to great heights.


----------



## wandle

DiasporaCobh said:


> Question 1: a) b) c) d) were presumably available to the writer as choices but a) was chosen. Why? I presume to define 'others'.


I do not believe so. I believe that if the writer had thought of (d) 'Others, less gifted but who have a strong will to succeed, rise to great heights', or if this had been suggested by an editor, he might have preferred it. We cannot rely on punctuation to interpret the sentence. Even with writers aware of modern rules about punctuating relative clauses (and I suspect the writer had never heard of them), there may be an error or an overriding factor, such as an additional clause, which we see here. The determining issue is the sense, which can only be judged from the sentence as a whole in its context.


DiasporaCobh said:


> Question 2: Are you saying that because a distinction is made between two things by the use of distinctive antecedents that defining relative sentences can't be used?


I believe it is true to say that the job of defining (restricting) the antecedent in a given respect can only be done once. 
If the antecedent itself does that job, all that is left for the relative clause to perform is the descriptive function.


----------



## wandle

PaulQ said:


> Non-defining clauses are in parenthesis (by commas, dashes, brackets, etc.) and may be removed without subtracting from the information.


If any part of a sentence that contains information is removed, then that is inevitably subtracting from the information.


> Defining clauses form noun clauses that are essentially descriptive of the main noun.


This, if I may say so, is not the meaning of the distinction between a defining (restrictive) relative clause and a non-defining one.

Every relative clause is descriptive, but not every relative clause is restrictive.
A defining relative clause is one that restricts the reference of the antecedent (limits what it is referring to).
A non-defining relative clause does not restrict the reference of the antecedent.

In the topic sentence, the reference of the antecedent is already restricted by being separated into 'some' and 'others'.
The relative clause gives us more information about the 'others', but does not restrict the scope of the term any further.

When 'others' is replaced by 'those', the situation is reversed. 'Those' on its own does not limit the reference. That job is then done by the relative clause.


----------



## PaulQ

PaulQ said:


> Defining clauses form noun clauses that are essentially descriptive of the main noun.





wandle said:


> Every relative clause is descriptive, but not every relative clause is restrictive.


The word you have omitted, and I do not know why, is "essentially" - related to the *essence *of the matter.


wandle said:


> A defining relative clause is one that restricts the reference of the antecedent (limits what it is referring to).
> A non-defining relative clause does not restrict the reference of the antecedent.


I seem to have said that, and that describes the situation in the OP.

I even did a graphic at #29.

*Non-defining clause*
"The man, who can kill a dragon and return alive, will marry the princess. 

*Defining clause:*
"{The man that can kill the dragon but return alive} will marry the princess." -


----------



## DiasporaCobh

wandle said:


> I believe it is true to say that the job of defining (restricting) the antecedent in a given respect can only be done once. If the antecedent itself does that job, all that is left for the relative clause to perform is the descriptive function.



My problem with this idea is that I don't think that's the full picture here, as it assumes there are only two types of boy in the writer's mind.  There are "some persons" and there are "others".  But the (what I believe to be a truncated defining relative clause - "[who are] less gifted is not used to make "others" distinct from "some persons" - it is used to make "others less gifted" distinct from some unnamed others. "Still others" could be a logical continuation here.

Clearly, at this stage, I'm repeating what I've already said, so I think I should bow out of the discussion.


----------



## wandle

PaulQ said:


> The word you have omitted, and I do not know why, is "essentially" - related to the *essence *of the matter.


Nothing was omitted. My sentence related to all relative clauses, yours to defining ones only.
Even then, I do not recommend the term 'essential'. If it is used, though, it needs to beunderstood as 'limiting the referential scope of the antecedent'.

The graphic in post 29 is impressive, but it seems, if I have understood it, to be presenting a factual picture which is mistaken.


----------



## wandle

DiasporaCobh said:


> t assumes there are only two types of boy in the writer's mind.


There are only two categories of people referred to at this point: 'some persons' and 'others'. ('Persons' is wider than 'boys'; it embraces the whole human race).


DiasporaCobh said:


> "Still others" could be a logical continuation here.


It could be a continuation, but it would be adding a third category alongside the first two, not subdividing the second.
There is nothing to prevent a third category being brought in (except that it would be a departure from the neat parallelism already established).


----------



## PaulQ

wandle said:


> Nothing was omitted.


I would differ with you there. Essential - Of or pertaining to essence, specific being, or intrinsic nature.


----------



## DiasporaCobh

wandle said:


> There are only two categories of people referred to: 'some persons' and 'others'. ('Persons' is wider than 'boys'; it embraces the whole human race).



So much for bowing out.  The writer is discussing - according to the excerpt you quoted - the value of training the will of "the boy". I'm making the assumption that it is meant generally, for boys maybe even for students.  But not for the human race.  That is not anywhere in the text that I can see.


----------



## wandle

DiasporaCobh said:


> The writer is discussing - according to the excerpt you quoted - the value of training the will of "the boy"


Certainly. 'Persons' however is a wider term, limited only by the human race as a whole. Boys after all (despite occasional apparent manifestations to the contrary) are members of the human race. Consequently a general proposition about persons has relevance for boys.


----------



## wandle

wandle said:


> Nothing was omitted.





PaulQ said:


> I would differ with you there. Essential ...


After all, that sentence is mine, and it is about all relative clauses, not merely restrictive ones. Here it is:


wandle said:


> Every relative clause is descriptive, but not every relative clause is restrictive.


Inserting 'essential' would not only change the meaning but make it an outright error.


----------



## Tomtony

Thank you very much!!
I have not read all comments yet.
Tentatively, Thank you very much!!


----------

