# comma with 'of which' [relative pronoun]: a book, the cover of which



## jokker

A) I have bought a book, the cover of which bears a picture of The Hague.
B) I have bought a book the cover of which bears a picture of The Hague.

Which one is correct? The one has the comma or the one hasn't?

I query this because "a book" is not an assigned one, then why the comma is used??

Could you please tell me which the correct one is? Thank you in advance.


----------



## french4beth

jokker said:
			
		

> A) I have bought a book, the cover of which bears a picture of The Hague.
> quote]
> This one is correct (with the comma).  The sentence is "I have bought a book" so this is the primary information.  I believe the second part of the sentence is a subordinate clause, meaning that it can't stand on its own (needs a main clause for it to make sense).  Also, the main part of the sentence can stand along "I-bought-a-book".
> 
> Also, you would naturally pause in English after the word 'book'.


----------



## Toepicker

Hi, jokker,

The first version with the comma is the best version as there is a natural pause after the word 'book'. 

May I also suggest that the sentence may be less formal if written thus:

'I have bought a book, which bears a picture of The Hague on the cover'


----------



## timpeac

Hi

Personally I prefer no comma - and also I don't think I would pause during the sentence.

I find  that 





> 'I have bought a book, which bears a picture of The Hague on the cover'


containing the comma looks very strange to me. I think that when the last object is being directly described (as here) I would not use a comma. However, if it is the whole preceding clause being described I would - for example

"He bought a book, which surprised me greatly since I know he can't read" but

"He bought a book which he gave to his mother as a present."


----------



## rsweet

timpeac said:
			
		

> "He bought a book, which surprised me greatly since I know he can't read" but
> 
> "He bought a book which he gave to his mother as a present."



Grammatically speaking, this sentence requires a comma for the nonrestrictive/nonessential clause. The information it gives is not essential to the *meaning* of the sentence. It is still *true* if you remove the clause.


----------



## jokker

timpeac said:
			
		

> Hi
> 
> Personally I prefer no comma - and also I don't think I would pause during the sentence.
> 
> I find that containing the comma looks very strange to me. I think that when the last object is being directly described (as here) I would not use a comma.


 
Hi, timpeac.

I have just found another sentence in another book, and the sentence which I write below has no comma.

*The book the cover of which is green is mine.*

One book use the comma, the other doesn't. But I like your explanation.


> However, if it is the whole preceding clause being described I would - for example
> 
> "He bought a book, which surprised me greatly since I know he can't read" but
> 
> "He bought a book which he gave to his mother as a present."


I agree with you on this.


----------



## timpeac

rsweet said:
			
		

> Grammatically speaking, this sentence requires a comma for the nonrestrictive/nonessential clause. The information it gives is not essential to the *meaning* of the sentence. It is still *true* if you remove the clause.


Hmmm, yes I remember (I think) reading your comments the other day about the same difference influencing the use of "that" or "which".

Personally, I use commas to reflect pauses in speech - and that's why I use one in the first sentence above and not the second. The fact he bought a book might be true in itself, but it is not what I want to say at all - I am speaking of the book he gave his mother and say it as one unit (I am maybe not interested in commenting on the fact of him buying a book but on the fact perhaps that he hasn't given his mother a present before now, for example).

In my experience, I haven't seen that usage reflects your rule there - what evidence is it based on?


----------



## jokker

Or...
"I have bought a book, the cover of which bears a picture of The Hague." and 
"The book the cover of which is green is mine." 
are different sentence pattern?


----------



## BSmith

jokker said:
			
		

> *The book the cover of which is green is mine.*


 
It SHOULD read:

"The book, the cover of which is green, is mine."

It's an awkward sentence, though.

Ideally, you'd say:

"The book with the green cover is mine."


----------



## jokker

BSmith said:
			
		

> It SHOULD read:
> 
> "The book, the cover of which is green, is mine."


But...The sentence I quoted is from a grammar book, and it doesn't has comma... 

However, the first sentence, which I quoted from another grammar book, does have comma. And that's what puzzled me.


----------



## rsweet

BSmith said:
			
		

> It SHOULD read:
> 
> "The book, the cover of which is green, is mine."
> 
> It's an awkward sentence, though.
> 
> Ideally, you'd say:
> 
> "The book with the green cover is mine."



BSmith makes a very good point. Nine times out of ten, when you get into constructions using "of which," there's a much simpler way to phrase your meaning.


----------



## timpeac

jokker said:
			
		

> Or...
> "I have bought a book, the cover of which bears a picture of The Hague." and
> "The book the cover of which is green is mine."
> are different sentence pattern?


 
Personally I would write

The book, the cover of which is green, is mine (well, I wouldn't use this structure at all since it is too "heavy" but if I did this is where I would put the apostrophes)

and

I have bought a book the cover of which bears a picture of the Hague.

The reason being that this would reflect my spoken pauses because I view "the cover of which is green" as secondary to the main part of the sentence "the book is mine" whereas "I have bought a book the cover of which bears a picture of the Hague" seems to me to be a complete thought, identical in form to saying "I bought a green book" (and you certainly wouldn't write "I bought a, green, book" simply because you could remove the word "green" and leave a full and true sentence).


----------



## BSmith

jokker said:
			
		

> But...The sentence I quoted is from a grammar book, and it doesn't has comma...
> 
> However, the first sentence, which I quoted from another grammar book, does have comma. And that's what puzzled me.


 
You're reading a poorly translated grammar book.  The sentence isn't correct in any way.

That particular sentence is awkward, and lacks commas to boot.


----------



## rsweet

timpeac said:
			
		

> The reason being that this would reflect my spoken pauses because I view "the cover of which is green" as secondary to the main part of the sentence "the book is mine" whereas "I have bought a book the cover of which bears a picture of the Hague" seems to me to be a complete thought, identical in form to saying "I bought a green book" (and you certainly wouldn't write "I bought a, green, book" simply because you could remove the word "green" and leave a full and true sentence).



The rule applies to clauses, not simple adjectives.


----------



## timpeac

jokker said:
			
		

> But...The sentence I quoted is from a grammar book, and it doesn't has comma...
> 
> However, the first sentence, which I quoted from another grammar book, does have comma. And that's what puzzled me.


 
Well, it certainly doesn't look right to me without the commas

Compare "the book, the cover of which is green, is mine" and "the book whose cover is green is mine" - in the first "the cover of which is green" is just extra information. In the second it is vital - perhaps there is another book with a yellow cover which is _not_ mine!

In fact, perhaps this is the answer. "The book the cover of which is green is mine" is possible but only if you are not making a simple statement but rather comparing this green book being mine to another which is not mine. Eg "the book the cover of which is green is mine but the book the cover of which is yellow is Paul's". (horrible horrible phrasing though!)

I think I didn't see that before because the grammar of that sentence is just so convoluted that we would never say that in the first place.


----------



## timpeac

rsweet said:
			
		

> The rule applies to clauses, not simple adjectives.


Well, as I say, it doesn't reflect the usage that I see around me. Perhaps it is time for a new "rule"


----------



## jokker

timpeac said:
			
		

> "He bought a book which he gave to his mother as a present."


You didn't use a comma in your sentence.

Now see this one below which is quoted from the grammar book which has "The book the cover of which is green is mine."

*The book which lies on the table is mine.*

No comma!!

Then why would you use a comma in "The book the cover of which is green is mine."?

I feel like crying...><"""  so complicated...


----------



## jokker

timpeac said:
			
		

> Compare
> "the book, *the cover of which is green*, is mine"
> and
> "the book *whose cover is green* is mine" -
> in the first "the cover of which is green" is just extra information. In the second it is vital - perhaps there is another book with a yellow cover which is _not_ mine!


I mean, aren't both "the cover of which is green" and "whose cover is green" extra information?? What do you think?


----------



## timpeac

jokker said:
			
		

> You didn't use a comma in your sentence.
> 
> Now see this one below which is quoted from the grammar book which has "The book the cover of which is green is mine."
> 
> *The book which lies on the table is mine.*
> 
> No comma!!
> 
> Then why would you use a comma in "The book the cover of which is green is mine."?
> 
> I feel like crying...><""" so complicated...


 
Courage Jokker! Firstly, I put in commas where I briefly pause in speaking.

I say 





> He bought a book which he gave to his mother as a present


in one go because I view it as one idea that would be incomplete with part removed. You could say "he bought a book, which he then gave to his mother as a present". Here you are presenting one idea and then another.



> The book which lies on the table is mine


would normally expect to have commas. If it doesn't then you are drawing a comparison

The book, which lies on the table, is mine. Simple factual sentence.
The book which lies on the table is mine. There is an implication that there is another book which is not on the table which is not mine!

The book, the cover of which is green, is mine. Normal sentence.
The book the cover of which is green is mine. Suggests there is another non-green book which is not mine!

I hope it helps...


----------



## jokker

french4beth said:
			
		

> jokker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A) I have bought a book, the cover of which bears a picture of The Hague.
> 
> 
> 
> This one is correct (with the comma). The sentence is "I have bought a book" so this is the primary information. I believe the second part of the sentence is a subordinate clause, meaning that it can't stand on its own (needs a main clause for it to make sense). Also, the main part of the sentence can stand along "I-bought-a-book".
> 
> Also, you would naturally pause in English after the word 'book'.
Click to expand...

french4beth, if the sentence "I have bought a book, *the cover of which* bears a picture of The Hague." is changed into "I have bought a book, *whose cover* bears a picture of The Hague." Would you still use the comma?


----------



## french4beth

jokker said:
			
		

> Then why would you use a comma in "The book the cover of which is green is mine."?


Not sure about the exact rule, but if I were to say the sentence out loud, I would pause after 'book' and 'green'.  Ordinarily, if you diagram the sentence, you would see that the subject is 'the book', the verb = is, 'mine' - possessive pronoun (I think that's what it's called). The rest of the sentence is not essential, so it is set apart by commas.

Don't worry, if you don't understand, jokker, we'll keep explaining!  That's what we're here for, any way!  Besides, even though I'm a native English speaker, I learn a lot about my own language when I explain it!


----------



## french4beth

jokker said:
			
		

> french4beth, if the sentence "I have bought a book, *the cover of which* bears a picture of The Hague." is changed into "I have bought a book, *whose cover* bears a picture of The Hague." Would you still use the comma?


jokker, my first instinct would be to use the comma; I'll try & find a rule about that...
Many, many native English speakers have the same problem with commas (including myself, on occasion - like right now!).  When I'm in doubt, I say the phrase (either in my head, or aloud, if no one's nearby), and any place that I would normally pause could be a good spot for a comma.


----------



## BSmith

Your grammar book is wrong. 

You're learning bad information from it, and it's confusing you.


----------



## jokker

timpeac said:
			
		

> Courage Jokker!


Call me crying face jokker...I would like to wearing a sun glasses to cover my crying face. --> 


> Firstly, I put in commas where I briefly pause in speaking.


O.K. But that is when someone is *speaking*.



> You could say "he bought a book, which he then gave to his mother as a present". Here you are *presenting one idea and then another*.


Oh, God...



> The book, which lies on the table, is mine. Simple factual sentence.
> The book which lies on the table is mine. There is an implication that there is another book which is not on the table which is not mine!


Oh...(crying face again.  )



> The book, the cover of which is green, is mine. Normal sentence.
> The book the cover of which is green is mine. Suggests there is another non-green book which is not mine!


..... ....(crying face is just joking. )



> I hope it helps...


Well, I have to say that it really is complicated. But I will spend some time to clear it up.

Thank you all for your help.


----------



## timpeac

BSmith said:
			
		

> Your grammar book is wrong.
> 
> You're learning bad information from it, and it's confusing you.


 
But it could be correct for comparisons.

Take this sentence

Paul owns a green car but I own a car which is blue.

You couldn't put the comma after "one" there - could you?

But you could write "I own a car, which is lucky". It really does seem to me that the comma (or at least the pause in my speech) depends on whether I am describing a noun or a clause.


----------



## jokker

french4beth said:
			
		

> Not sure about the exact rule, but if I were to say the sentence out loud, I would pause after 'book' and 'green'. Ordinarily, if you diagram the sentence, you would see that the subject is 'the book', the verb = is, 'mine' - possessive pronoun (I think that's what it's called). The rest of the sentence is not essential, so it is set apart by commas.
> 
> Don't worry, if you don't understand, jokker, we'll keep explaining! That's what we're here for, any way! Besides, even though I'm a native English speaker, I learn a lot about my own language when I explain it!


french4beth, thank you very much for your help.


----------



## rsweet

So sorry to confuse you, jokker. As you can see, even native speakers don't always agree about this, so I don't think you have to lose much sleep over commas!   Just remember that the complication comes into the sentence when you use constructions like "which, of which, etc." This construction signals that you are stuffing in extra information as a sort of afterthought. It's almost always better to phrase your sentences in a more straightforward manner. Instead of saying, "The book, which is on the table, is mine." write "The book on the table is mine." "My book is on the table."


----------



## jokker

BSmith said:
			
		

> and it's confusing you.


I am really confused right now. But I really appreciate the help from all of you. 

And yes, the book is really confusing me.


----------



## rsweet

timpeac said:
			
		

> Paul owns a green car but I own a car which is blue.


 
Why would anyone write a sentence like the one above? "Paul owns a green car, and I own a blue one." "Paul's car is green, but mine is blue."


----------



## jokker

rsweet said:
			
		

> So sorry to confuse you, jokker. As you can see, even native speakers don't always agree about this, so I don't think you have to lose much sleep over commas!  Just remember that the complication comes into the sentence when you use constructions like "which, of which, etc." This construction signals that you are stuffing in extra information as a sort of afterthought. It's almost always better to phrase your sentences in a more straightforward manner. Instead of saying, "The book, which is on the table, is mine." write "The book on the table is mine." "My book is on the table."


No, I thank you for your help. I will spend some time to clear them up. And thank you.


----------



## french4beth

Here is an example from grammarbook.com:


> _Rule 8. Use commas to set off expressions that interrupt the flow of the sentence.
> Example: I am, as you have probably noticed, very nervous about this.
> _


 
_Check here for more info on 'bracketing commas' (commas that 'mark off a weak interruption"). You will note that in this article, the author writes 






			"These are the most frequently used type of comma, and they cause more problems than the other types put together."
		
Click to expand...

_


----------



## BSmith

timpeac said:
			
		

> But it could be correct for comparisons.
> 
> Take this sentence
> 
> Paul owns a green car but I own a car which is blue.
> 
> You couldn't put the comma after "one" there - could you?
> 
> But you could write "I own a car, which is lucky". It really does seem to me that the comma (or at least the pause in my speech) depends on whether I am describing a noun or a clause.


 
Well, you do have a point there, with the second sentence. I agree with that.

The first sentence is extremely awkward to me. I wouldn't use the sentence at all.

I'd say "Paul owns a green car, but I own a blue car."

If I WERE going to use your original sentence, I'd put a comma after green car.

In any case, jokker must be really confused by now!


----------



## jokker

french4beth said:
			
		

> Here is an example from grammarbook.com:
> 
> 
> _Check here for more info on 'bracketing commas' (commas that 'mark off a weak interruption"). You will note that in this article, the author writes _


Thank you very much, Beth.


----------



## timpeac

A few thoughts because all of that is getting so complicated. Note, this is just my opinion and others might disagree!!

Situation 1 - There is a sentence with two parts separated by a which. In general if a noun is being described I would not add a comma and if it is a clause I would. So

He bought a book which was funny = He bought a funny book.
He bought a book, which was funny = He bought a book and for some reason I consider the fact he bought a fact to be funny (maybe he can't read).

Situation 2 - A sentence is split into 3 with the which introducing the middle part of the sentence. In general, such a sentence will use commas around the middle part, eg:

The book, which is on the table, is mine.

If you do not mean to make a single factual comment but in fact mean to make a comparison then I would not use commas, eg:

The book which is on the table is mine but the book which is on the shelf is Paul's.

I think that covers it? Did I miss any sentences which don't fit into one of those 4 situations?


----------



## rsweet

timpeac said:
			
		

> The book, which is on the table, is mine.
> 
> If you do not mean to make a single factual comment but in fact mean to make a comparison then I would not use commas, eg:
> 
> The book which is on the table is mine but the book which is on the shelf is Paul's.
> 
> I think that covers it? Did I miss any sentences which don't fit into one of those 4 situations?



If you're writing an essential clause, you should use "that."

"The book [that is] on the table is mine, but the book [that is] on the shelf is Paul's." (Note: You can omit "that is" in this sentence."

"Did I miss any sentences that don't fit into one of these four situations?"


----------



## jokker

Hi, timpeac, first, I would like to thank you for your help. 

Now, let's study. 


			
				timpeac said:
			
		

> Situation 1 - There is a sentence with two parts separated by a which. In general if a noun is being described I would not add a comma and if it is a clause I would. So
> 
> He bought a book which was funny = He bought a funny book.
> He bought a book, which was funny = He bought a book and for some reason I consider the fact he bought a book to be funny (maybe he can't read).


Agreed. 



> Situation 2 - A sentence is split into 3 with the which introducing the middle part of the sentence. In general, such a sentence will use commas around the middle part, eg:
> 
> The book, which is on the table, is mine.


How about this one?
--The man who was here just now is my uncle.
No comma. 

I guess the problem is coming form "the cover of which"...


----------



## timpeac

jokker said:
			
		

> How about this one?
> --The man who was here just now is my uncle.
> No comma. ...


Right. No comma because it is "the man who was here just now" + "is my uncle". It is effectively creating a comparison with any other man.

This seems to me to be just the same as "which" usage-

The man, who doesn't like fish, asked for the telephone. Simple sentence so commas.
The man who doesn't like fish plays the piano but the man who doesn't like eggs plays the flute. Comparison sentence, no commas.


----------



## jokker

timpeac said:
			
		

> Hi
> 
> Personally I prefer no comma - and also I don't think I would pause during the sentence.


I think that you meant that you prefered the sentence "I have bought a book the cover of which bears a picture of The Hague.", which has no comma.

If so, I agree with you so far. The reason is exactly as you gave as follows:



> I find that containing the comma looks very strange to me. I think that when the last object is being directly described (as here) I would not use a comma. However, if it is the whole preceding clause being described I would - for example
> 
> "He bought a book, which surprised me greatly since I know he can't read" but
> 
> "He bought a book which he gave to his mother as a present."


So, I think the sentence "The book the cover of which is green is mine" is correct.

"The book the cover of which is green is mine.", is also "The book of which the cover is green is mine."

That's how I think until now.


----------



## timpeac

jokker said:
			
		

> I think that you meant that you prefered the sentence "I have bought a book the cover of which bears a picture of The Hague.", which has no comma.
> 
> If so, I agree with you so far. The reason is exactly as you gave as follows:


Yes.



			
				jokker said:
			
		

> So, I think the sentence "The book the cover of which is green is mine" is correct.


No!! It _can_ be correct. The usual sentence is with commas.

The book, the cover of which is green, is mine.
Without commas we have a comparison -
The book the cover of which is green is mine...but the book the cover of which is blue is Paul's.

See my comments above where the sentence is split into 3 (as it is here).


----------



## jokker

timpeac said:
			
		

> No!! It _can_ be correct. The usual sentence is with commas.
> 
> The book, the cover of which is green, is mine.
> Without commas we have a comparison -
> The book the cover of which is green is mine...but the book the cover of which is blue is Paul's.
> 
> See my comments above where the sentence is split into 3 (as it is here).


Don't worry. I say "until; by far; so far", which means I need some time to digest these, and until then I may change my opinion. Thank you very much, Tim.


----------



## boonognog

timpeac said:
			
		

> No!! It _can_ be correct. The usual sentence is with commas.
> 
> The book, the cover of which is green, is mine.
> Without commas we have a comparison -
> The book the cover of which is green is mine...but the book the cover of which is blue is Paul's.



I have to disagree. The above sentence is grammatically incorrect without the commas.  Commas serve two purposes in written text.  One, which seems to be timpeac's emphasis, is to indicate a pause to the speaker.  Another equally valuable purpose is to indicate "joints" to the framework of written text.

For more reading about both subordinate clauses and comma usage (in English), see the following:

The Subordinate Clause

Using Commas

Guidelines for Using Commas

Clauses: The Essential Building-Blocks

Commas

Those all look like good sites that should help you understand this confusing aspect of English grammar! 

-Tim


----------



## timpeac

boonognog said:
			
		

> I have to disagree. The above sentence is grammatically incorrect without the commas. Commas serve two purposes in written text. One, which seems to be timpeac's emphasis, is to indicate a pause to the speaker. Another equally valuable purpose is to indicate "joints" to the framework of written text.
> 
> For more reading about both subordinate clauses and comma usage (in English), see the following:
> 
> The Subordinate Clause
> 
> Using Commas
> 
> Guidelines for Using Commas
> 
> Clauses: The Essential Building-Blocks
> 
> Commas
> 
> Those all look like good sites that should help you understand this confusing aspect of English grammar!
> 
> -Tim


And I have to disagree with you I think the reason you think the commas are necessary is that this is such a long and convoluted phrase that, in reality, none of us would say.

However, when we are talking of a comparison putting in the commas would completely destroy the sence of the phrase.

"The book, the cover of which is green, is mine but the book, the cover of which is blue, is yours" would effectively be saying "the book is mine but the book is yours". The two "cover of which is..." parts of the sentence are vital to the primary sense of the phrase and could not be omitted. There are no "joints" to indicate any more than there are "joints" in "the green book is mine but the blue book is yours" (I would admit one is possible before the "but" but I don't think that's your point).

It is parallel with "the book which is green is mine but the book which is blue is yours" (or "the book that is green is mine but the book that is blue is yours" as rsweet prefers) - perhaps you can see without such convoluted phrasing as the first sentence that it would make no sense to say "the book, which is green, is mine but the book, which is blue, is yours" (or "the book, that is green, is mine but the book, that is blue, is yours).


----------



## majlo

Just let me present my small input. According to what I was taught, you use a comma after relative pronoun "which", when it means "and that/then/this etc". Thus, _He bought flowers, which later gave to his mother. _This sentence needs a comma because it can be reprhrased as _He bought flowers and then/later gave them to his mother. _Another example, _Mary failed the exam, which drove her mother crazy. _What is also worth mentioning at this point is that in above sentences the relative pronoun _which _cannot be replaced with _that, _in contrary to the following sentence: _I saw the car which/*that *had been stolen.

_Also, what, I believe, you should take into account when considering usage of commas is that spoken and written English are different pair of shoes. You normally don't put commas wherever you pause in speech, do you? Hence, I think the fact of pausing during speech cannot be a point of reference in this discussion.


----------



## timpeac

majlo said:
			
		

> Just let me present my small input. According to what I was taught, you use a comma after relative pronoun "which", when it means "and that/then/this etc". Thus, _He bought flowers, which later gave to his mother. _This sentence needs a comma because it can be reprhrased as _He bought flowers and then/later gave them to his mother. _Another example, _Mary failed the exam, which drove her mother crazy. _What is also worth mentioning at this point is that in above sentences the relative pronoun _which _cannot be replaced with _that, _in contrary to the following sentence: _I saw the car which/*that *had been stolen._


Hmmm, I don't agree with the first one - it could be replaced by "that" "he bought flowers that he later gave to his mother" and so I think the comma can be happily left out. I agree with the comma of the second one since it is the clause "mary failed the exam" which drove the mother crazy rather than the noun "the exam" itself.


----------



## boonognog

Yes, majlo, The Subordinate Clause covers those points.

I'm not a comma horder... I just think there are times when a comma really does help the reader, in addition to being required under certain circumstances.

-Tim


----------



## panjandrum

This thread makes me weep.

If only, if only, people would remember the difference between that and which - and the different punctuation that each requires - this would be so simple.

_A) I have bought a book, the cover of which bears a picture of The Hague._
You need that comma.

_I have bought a book that bears a picture of The Hague._
No commas.

_He bought a book, which surprised me greatly since I know he can't read._
Good.

_He bought a book which he gave to his mother as a present._
Bad - ditch which and insert that.
Well, actually, change that sentence completely - no one says that.
He bought a book and gave it to his mother as a present.

_The book, the cover of which is green, is mine._
That book is mine - incidentally, it has a green cover.

_The book that has a green cover is mine._
One of the books is mine - mine is the one that has a green cover, not the blue one or the red one.

_The book, which lies on the table, is mine._
The only book we can see (it is lying on the table, look) is mine.

_The book that lies on the table is mine._
There are lots of books in the room. One of them is mine. The one that is mine is lying on the table.

_The book, which has a green cover, is mine._
The only book we can see (it has a green cover by the way) is mine.

_The book that has a green cover is mine._
There are lots of books. One of them is mine - it is the one with the green cover.

I have become tired now.
There are plenty of examples above.
Which clauses describe the book, and need commas.
That clauses define which of the many books I am talking about and do not need commas.
Confuse these at your peril - hence the many, many posts in this thread.


----------



## Robbo

Compare:

*The soldiers shot all the villagers, who were poor.   (with comma)
*(This means they killed 100% of the villagers.  All the villagers were poor.)

And:

*The soldiers shot all the villagers who were poor.   (no comma)
* (This means that only the villagers that were poor got shot by the soldiers.  Rich villagers were not shot.)

The difference in meaning is great but the difference of one comma is small.

It is often better to rewrite the sentence to make the meaning absolutely clear even to someone who might not take account of the presence/absence of the comma.

Robbo


----------



## Txiri

The thread made me weep, as well, and gnash my teeth, and pull out my hair.

There are a lot of English-speaking people who go through whatever their levels of schooling, and do not master grammar.  All is not lost, however!  There's always the option of going back to a grammar book to review.

In the example, "_The book, the cover of which is green, is mine.
_That book is mine - incidentally, it has a green cover."

... the commas are used to set off an apposition, an appositive phrase.

Rsweet and perhaps someone else, attempted to draw attention to the use of commas in restrictive versus nonrestritive clauses.  Before you start arguing with her/him, please go back and review what restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses are.

Finally, let's hear some applause for panjandrum:  the use of "which" itself is restricted.  Panjandrum offered some examples where simpler phrases may communicate the same as the use of which.  Never use "which" when "that" will do.  If the same information can be conveyed with a prepositional phrase, use it:  simpler is always better.  The American humorist James Thurber once wrote something like, "one which often calls for two, and two whiches multiply like rabbits."

Simplify, simplify, simplify.  And when in doubt, dust off a grammar book.


----------



## timpeac

Txiri said:
			
		

> The thread made me weep, as well, and gnash my teeth, and pull out my hair.
> 
> There are a lot of English-speaking people who go through whatever their levels of schooling, and do not master grammar. All is not lost, however! There's always the option of going back to a grammar book to review.
> 
> In the example, "_The book, the cover of which is green, is mine._
> That book is mine - incidentally, it has a green cover."
> 
> ... the commas are used to set off an apposition, an appositive phrase.
> 
> Rsweet and perhaps someone else, attempted to draw attention to the use of commas in restrictive versus nonrestritive clauses. Before you start arguing with her/him, please go back and review what restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses are.


Since I have participated greatly in this thread I can only presume that this is at least partly a criticism of me.

In the example "the book, the cover of which is green, is mine" then the commas are correct if you are talking as you say of a book of mine which incidentally happens to be green (and I don't think that anyone in the thread has said any different from that). However, if you are drawing a comparison then the commas added are quite wrong. If you agree that "the book that has a green cover is mine" doesn't need commas then the same logic applies for "the book the cover of which is green is mine" (as long as you are making a comparison). To put it another way, it can be restrictive or non-restrictive according to the sense. This is one example where you can't use which/that to decide if it is restrictive or not because you can't say "the book the cover of that..." but the possibility of rephrasing as "the book that has a green cover is mine (whereas the one with the blue cover is yours) shows that it can have this sense.

Panjandrum's suggestion to make the "that"/"which" decision first and then decide about the commas is a good one other than for sentences such as "the cover of which". However, personally I didn't try to go through that further for Jokker because for a non-native speaker "when do you use that or which" comes down to the same question as when do you use the commas (although a good rule for native speakers). Also, I think that the that/which distinction is becoming rather out-of-date. Certainly you see a lot of usage from good writers that ignore it.

It is non-sensical to say "There are a lot of English-speaking people who go through whatever their levels of schooling, and do not master grammar." (as well as a bit presumptuous - perhaps they were taught a different rule and are thinking the same about you...). If you are speaking English as a native you have mastered grammar. You may not be using the grammar that some other person has recommended in a book (which is just the book writer's own personal opinion) but you are using fully mastered grammar of some description.

Your comment was somewhat of a scattergun one so I apologise if I have taken offence at a comment not directed at me. However, if you would like to criticise some of the advice I gave above please specify and I will be happy to explain why you are wrong discuss.

I do agree with your last point about simplify simplify simplify. If the original sentences weren't so tortuous I think that so many people wouldn't have become confused believing that every long sentence _must_ have commas to split it up.


----------



## jokker

Thank you all for your input and help.  

It is exactly the question of Restrictive and Non-restrictive use. 

I queried why it used a comma when it seems to be a restrictive clause to me. Until now, I still have been unable to clear them up.


----------



## jokker

timpeac said:
			
		

> Since I have participated greatly in this thread I can only presume that this is at least partly a criticism of me.


Don't be silly! Tim. It can't be! I mean that you have made some very good and important points. It's just I have been unable to realize them. But at least I am starting to know those point. It's just needed some time. So, please don't think so.


----------



## marget

jokker said:
			
		

> french4beth, if the sentence "I have bought a book, *the cover of which* bears a picture of The Hague." is changed into "I have bought a book, *whose cover* bears a picture of The Hague." Would you still use the comma?


I don't think you can use a comma in your last example.


----------



## jokker

Why? 
I have bought a book, *the cover of which* bears a picture of The Hague.
I have bought a book, *whose cover* bears a picture of The Hague.

Doesn't "the cover of which" equal to "whose cover"?
Then, why does the first sentence need a comma? Why the second one doesn't?


----------



## maxiogee

jokker said:
			
		

> Why?
> I have bought a book, *the cover of which* bears a picture of The Hague.
> I have bought a book, *whose cover* bears a picture of The Hague.
> 
> Doesn't "the cover of which" equal to "whose cover"?


No.
"The cover of which" _might_ be to distinguish it from the book *maxiogee* bought - which has pictures of the Hague *inside* but has a map on the cover.


----------



## jokker

Thank you very much, maxiogee.


----------



## jokker

timpeac said:
			
		

> Personally I prefer no comma - and also I don't think I would pause during the sentence.
> 
> I find that
> Quote:
> 'I have bought a book, which bears a picture of The Hague on the cover'
> containing the comma looks very strange to me. I think that when the last object is being directly described (as here) I would not use a comma. However, if it is the whole preceding clause being described I would - for example
> 
> "He bought a book, which surprised me greatly since I know he can't read" but
> 
> "He bought a book which he gave to his mother as a present."


 
Hi, Tim,

After some work, the conclusion I get is that I agree with you. 

I don't think that 'I have bought a book, the cover of which bears a picture of The Hague.' is correct. The comma is not needed.

Just leave out the relative clause, what left is --
I have bought a book.

A book? What book? What kind of book? It's unclear.

Therefore, the relative clause is essential, which means it's an identifying/restrictive clause.

That's how I think.  If there's anyone think that I am wrong, please tell me your opinion. I would appreciate it.


----------



## jokker

Robbo said:
			
		

> Compare:
> 
> *The soldiers shot all the villagers, who were poor. (with comma)*
> (This means they killed 100% of the villagers. All the villagers were poor.)
> 
> And:
> 
> *The soldiers shot all the villagers who were poor. (no comma)*
> (This means that only the villagers that were poor got shot by the soldiers. Rich villagers were not shot.)
> 
> The difference in meaning is great but the difference of one comma is small.
> 
> Robbo


Now I can distinguish between sentence 1 and sentence 2. Thank you very much, Robbo.


----------



## jokker

panjandrum said:
			
		

> _A) I have bought a book, the cover of which bears a picture of The Hague._
> You need that comma.


Dear panjandrum, with all due respect, I disagree.

"the cover of which bears a picture of The Hague" identify "a book", which means it tells us which book I am talking about or which book is meant.

If the sentence is like this --
_Have you seen *my* new book, the cover of which bears a picture of The Hague?_

Then, I agree that the comma is needed.

I may be wrong, but that's how I think right now. 


> _I have bought a book that bears a picture of The Hague._
> No commas.


Agreed.


> _He bought a book, which surprised me greatly since I know he can't read._
> Good.


Agreed.


> _The book, the cover of which is green, is mine._
> That book is mine - incidentally, it has a green cover.


In my humble opinion, I think that whether the comma is needed or not is depends.

_The book, the cover of which is green, is mine._
-- You know which book I am talking about, maybe the book is just in front of us, which also implies that there is only one book in front of us, and that's why you know which book I am talking about.

_The book the cover of which_ _is green is mine._
-- There could be several books in front of us, and they all have different colours. The one whose cover is green is mine.


> _The book that has a green cover is mine._
> One of the books is mine - mine is the one that has a green cover, not the blue one or the red one.


Agreed.


> _The book, which lies on the table, is mine._
> The only book we can see (it is lying on the table, look) is mine.


Agreed.


> _The book that lies on the table is mine._
> There are lots of books in the room. One of them is mine. The one that is mine is lying on the table.


Agreed.


> _The book, which has a green cover, is mine._
> The only book we can see (it has a green cover by the way) is mine.


Agreed.


> _The book that has a green cover is mine._
> There are lots of books. One of them is mine - it is the one with the green cover.


Agreed.

That's how I understand them.


----------



## timpeac

Jokker - I agree with your interpretations there


----------



## jokker

timpeac said:
			
		

> *In fact, perhaps this is the answer. "The book the cover of which is green is mine" is possible but only if you are not making a simple statement but rather comparing this green book being mine to another which is not mine.* Eg "the book the cover of which is green is mine but the book the cover of which is yellow is Paul's". (horrible horrible phrasing though!)


I agree with you, and that's how I understand it.

But I would simplify the situation --
We are in a room, and there are five books whose covers have different colours. And I say, 'The book the cover of which is green is mine.'. To show you which book is mine.

I mean the compare is not necessarily shown in words, but you would know by the sentence itself.


----------



## jokker

timpeac said:
			
		

> Jokker - I agree with your interpretations there


Thank you  and thank you all for your help.



			
				timpeac said:
			
		

> The book, which lies on the table, is mine. Simple factual sentence.
> The book which lies on the table is mine. There is an implication that there is another book which is not on the table which is not mine!


Now I can understand them.


----------



## jokker

jokker said:
			
		

> Now see *this one below,* which is quoted from the grammar book which has "The book the cover of which is green is mine."
> 
> *The book which lies on the table is mine.*


When I wrote the sentence several days ago, I didn't use the comma.   It should have had a comma, but I didn't know at that time.


----------

