# to the place I know <Where I cannot go> [restrictive / non-restrictive clause?]



## JungKim

Granted, song lyrics sometimes defy grammar, but I still like to know if these relative clauses should be construed as restrictive or non-restrictive:
These are part of the lyrics of a Disney animation song "How Far I'll Go":


> ...
> Every path I make
> Every road leads back to the place *I know*
> *Where I cannot go*
> *Where I long to be*
> ...



The boldfaced clauses are all relative clauses. The first one I consider restrictive.
Which do you consider the second and third ones?

That is, if the last three lines were to be written in a single line, which is more correct?
_Every road leads back to the place I know where I cannot go where I long to be _[restrictive]
_Every road leads back to the place I know, where I cannot go, where I long to be _[non-restrictive]


----------



## PaulQ

As I see it, the clauses are all independent and restrictive - they distinguish essential attributes of the noun "place."


_Every road leads back to the place [that] I know,_

_Every road leads back to the place  [that] I cannot go _

_Every road leads back to the place  [that] I long to be._


----------



## Cenzontle

I agree with PaulQ that all three clauses are restrictive, BUT I prefer your second version of punctuation, separating the clauses with commas.
The commas are there to separate elements whose relationship is "A *and* B *and* C".
If, instead of clauses, you had simple adjectives, it would be "...the place that is *known,* *forbidden,* [and] *desired*", with "and" omitted for poetic reasons.
These are *not* the commas of a nonrestrictive clause.


----------



## JungKim

Thanks.
Why can't the three relative clauses be thought of as normal restrictive relative clauses used in a row (as shown in the first rewrite)?
In context, the "place" refers to the ocean. Because I guess you could say that the ocean is the place that meets the three conditions at the same time: (1) she knows the place (2) she cannot go there (3) she longs to be there.


----------



## bennymix

Why can't the three relative clauses be thought of as normal restrictive relative clauses used in a row (as shown in the first rewrite)?

Didn't Paul say that in post #2?


----------



## JungKim

bennymix said:


> Why can't the three relative clauses be thought of as normal restrictive relative clauses used in a row (as shown in the first rewrite)?
> 
> Didn't Paul say that in post #2?



Paul said:


PaulQ said:


> the clauses are all independent and restrictive - they distinguish essential attributes of the noun "place."



If the three clauses are essential attributes of "the place" and the place refers to one thing (the ocean), then those three relative clauses should be written in a row *without any comma*, I think.


----------



## bennymix

Cenzontle dealt with this in his post #3.



JungKim said:


> Paul said:
> 
> 
> If the three clauses are essential attributes of "the place" and the place refers to one thing (the ocean), then those three relative clauses should be written in a row *without any comma*, I think.


----------



## JungKim

bennymix said:


> Cenzontle dealt with this in his post #3.


I don't think he based his analysis on the context.
Or at least he sees it differently than I do.


----------



## PaulQ

JungKim said:


> then those three relative clauses should be written in a row *without any comma*, I think.


You have not grasped the idea of a comma.

Cenzontle explains it well. In *a series of clauses*, each separate clause is separated by a comma, regardless of whether the clause is defining or non-defining.

In a sentence where the subject includes *only one* defining clause, no comma separates the subject and its defining clause.
In a sentence where the subject includes *two or more* defining clause, no comma separates the subject and the first defining clause, but thereafter each defining clause is separated by a comma.

John, who sometimes wears a red hat, who takes my dog for a walk, who went to Italy for his holidays, is 70 years old today. <- non-defining clauses
Every road leads back to the place I know, where I cannot go, where I long to be is about 4 kilometres away. <- defining clauses
(Compare Cenzontle's "...the place that is *known,* *forbidden,* [and] *desired *is about 4 kilometres away. "


JungKim said:


> I don't think he based his analysis on the context.


You would be incorrect to think that.


----------



## SevenDays

JungKim said:


> Granted, song lyrics sometimes defy grammar, but I still like to know if these relative clauses should be construed as restrictive or non-restrictive:
> These are part of the lyrics of a Disney animation song "How Far I'll Go":
> 
> 
> The boldfaced clauses are all relative clauses. The first one I consider restrictive.
> Which do you consider the second and third ones?
> 
> That is, if the last three lines were to be written in a single line, which is more correct?
> _Every road leads back to the place I know where I cannot go where I long to be _[restrictive]
> _Every road leads back to the place I know, where I cannot go, where I long to be _[non-restrictive]



Also, consider this: Without commas, it looks as if "where I cannot go" is the direct object of "know," but that can't be, because the direct object of "know" ("the place") appears _inside_ the relative clause "the place I know." In other words, the commas separate constituents:* [*the place I know*]* *[*where I cannot go*]* etc. Commas are characteristics of non-restrictive relative clauses, but "where I cannot go," with commas, is not a non-restrictive relative clause. This is what's called a "fused/free/independent relative clause," which is restrictive by nature. (It gets that name because "where" encodes _both _the antecedent and the relativised element.) In summary, the commas are necessary in your re-write, not to mark the fused relative clause as "non-restrictive," but to separate _clauses _(as has been explained), thereby avoiding ambiguity and improving readability.


----------



## siares

SevenDays said:


> , the commas separate constituents:* [*the place I know*]* *[*where I cannot go*]* etc.


Do you know whether this functions equivalently to 'that I can't go to'? as in
There is only one place I admire that I can't go to.
I'm confused about the role of 'where'.


PaulQ said:


> In *a series of clauses*, each separate clause is separated by a comma, regardless of whether the clause is defining or non-defining.


Does this go for minimum three clauses, and is there another criterium, you think?
Such as when the noun changes from subject to object or other way round?


----------



## PaulQ

siares said:


> Does this go for minimum three clauses,





PaulQ said:


> In a sentence where the subject includes *only one* defining clause, no comma separates the subject and its defining clause.
> In a sentence where the subject includes *two or more* defining clause, no comma separates the subject and the first defining clause, but thereafter each defining clause is separated by a comma.





> and is there another criterium, you think?


I can't think of one off-hand that is relevant to the OP's example.


> Such as when the noun changes from subject to object or other way round?


An example would be good. You might want to look at this in the same way as simple adjectives as per Cenzontle's "...the place that is *known,* *forbidden,* [and] *desired *is about 4 kilometres away. "


----------



## siares

PaulQ said:


> In a sentence where the subject includes *two or more* defining clause





SevenDays said:


> the commas separate constituents:* [*the place I know*]* *[*where I cannot go*]*


It just seems that above 'where I cannot go' modifies 'the place I know', rather than just 'the place', and it is partly the comma which makes me think so.
This is different to what you and Cenzontle were saying.
But once there is a third part added, it gets difficult to think about, I need commas for clarity and that prevents me from assigning it other roles.


PaulQ said:


> An example would be good.


I hope I will not be confusing types of clauses here:
_This is a picture of a house I built which burnt down.
This is a picture of a house I built, which burnt down._
I think without a comma, it seems he built more houses.

These have the order object - subject and I don't fell like including the comma there.

In reversed order, I would feel so.
_This is a picture of a house which burned down, that I built._

Another type:
_This road leads to a place I know which is lovely.
This road leads to a place I know, which is lovely._
The comma makes the which modify the whole thing before.


----------



## PaulQ

AE speakers are far better at using *that *to introduce a defining clause, and *which/who *to introduce a non-defining clause - but even they are not perfect. In BE, we tend to use both indiscriminately, and this leads to confusion, not to the native reader/listener, who is not really bothered about defining and non-defining clauses, but for the student learning this aspect of grammar. 

Another point that makes the original example hard to parse is that the song requires a short pause between the subsequent clauses to fit the music, but the commas are not there.

Note that *which/who* is therefore preceded by a comma, *that *is not - except, of course, as I have explained, where that comma is a "list comma".


siares said:


> It just seems that above 'where I cannot go' modifies 'the place I know', rather than just 'the place',


No. Although I can see why you might think that - it cannot be the case. The native speaker is looking at the whole sentence, the non-native student is looking at the grammar and not what is meant/being said - they are overthinking it. The singer is identifying/defining one place in three different ways - all of which are negatives and thus emphasise the hopelessness of her(?) situation1.


siares said:


> _This is a picture of a house I built which burnt down.
> This is a picture of a house I built, which burnt down._
> I think without a comma, it seems he built more houses.


What you have done here is to demonstrate the difference between informal, 'ordinary' conversation and formal or precise construction. This is perceptive in a student, but pointless to a native speaker in a natural conversation with the advantage of context.

_This is a picture of a house I built which burnt down. -> (i) This is a picture of one of the three houses that I built that then burnt down. - he built three houses and they all burnt down._

_(ii) This is a picture of one of the three houses that I built; this one burnt down. _

_This is a picture of a house I built which burnt down. -> This is a picture of a house I built*,* which then burnt down.
_
The following are simply bad English:
_This road leads to a place I know which is lovely. - Where is the comma that must precede the *which*? (i) "This road leads to a lovely place that I know."; (ii) This road leads to a place I know and that fact/result is very pleasing._
_
This road leads to a place I know, which is lovely.  = This road leads to a place I know and that fact/result is very pleasing.
_

1 In the conventions of rhetoric, there is a piece of guidance which suggests that if you wish to emphasise a point, you define it three times - twice is insufficient, and four times may be excessive:


----------



## siares

Thank you very much, PaulQ.

I don't understand your text about 'a house I built'
first you mark
_This is a picture of a house I built which burnt down. _with a cross, but then you give three interpretations (I added the green number into the post)


PaulQ said:


> _This is a picture of a house I built which burnt down. ->
> (i) This is a picture of* one of the three houses that I built that then burnt down.* - he built three houses and *they all burnt down*.
> (ii) This is a picture of *one of the three houses that I built*; *this one burnt down*.
> (?iii) This is a picture of a house I built*,* *which then* burnt down._


Would you clarify, please?

And also, with the exception of numbers, is the stance on comma the same if you *change the article*?
OP has 'the' rather than 'a', and I was thinking,  the '*the*' could refer to both parts of sentence.

_This is a picture of *the house I built*, (which burnt down). _(I built one house, and that then burnt down)
_This is a picture of *the house* I built *which burnt down*._
In case I want this to mean:
_- I don't want to hire this constructor, their houses are unsafe.
- Nonsense! That was the only house they built which burnt down, all others still stand - the fire certainly wasn't the fault of the project!_

I think a pause would be strange there! Can there be a comma if there is no pause in speech?



PaulQ said:


> The following are simply bad English:
> _This road leads to a place I know which is lovely. - Where is the comma that must precede the *which*?
> (i) "This road leads to a lovely place that I know.";
> (ii) This road leads to a place I know and that fact/result is very pleasing._


Again i'm confused that the sentence is marked wrong ut two interpretations are given.
Why must the comma precede the 'which'?
I know you are saying that two clauses must be separated by comma, but is there another reason why you singled out the word 'which'?
Because I meant this as a restrictive clause.
Replacing 'a' with 'the only':
_This is the picture of the only place I know which is lovely._ or _This is the picture of the only place we can afford which is lovely._


----------



## Edinburgher

_Every road leads back to the place *I know*
*Where I cannot go*_
*Where I long to be*

To me, the above does not necessarily read like three independent observations about the place.
The road leads back to the place of which I know that I cannot go there, but where I nevertheless long to be.

Normally, and strictly-speaking, the first "where" should be absent for that interpretation, but I put its presence down to poetic licence.


----------



## PaulQ

siares said:


> Thank you very much, PaulQ.
> 
> I don't understand your text about 'a house I built'
> first you mark
> _This is a picture of a house I built which burnt down. _with a cross,


I marked it with a cross because it does have the ambiguity that you proposed.


> but then you give three interpretations (I added the green number into the post)


My apologies, they were not _interpretations,_ they were unambiguous sentences that I offered as alternatives depending upon the meaning that was intended within the context.



> And also, with the exception of numbers, is the stance on comma the same if you *change the article*?


No - not that I can see.


> OP has 'the' rather than 'a', and I was thinking,  the '*the*' could refer to both parts of sentence.


The question here is *solely *about defining and non-defining clauses. I think it will be helpful if we concentrate on that.

The question of commas and defining and non-defining clauses is relatively straightforward: non-defining clauses are introduced by *who/which,* and *who/which* are preceded by a comma.
Defining clauses are introduced by *that*, and *that *is not preceded by a comma because a defining clause forms part of the subject.

More broadly, commas separate clauses in general (including defining clauses) and are roughly equivalent a coordinating conjunction:

"You are not allowed to light fires in this area, hunt any animals, or fish in any of the rivers." -> comma = "or"
"You are encouraged to take a map with you, carry a compass, and travel in parties of at least three people. -> comma = "and"​


> _- I don't want to hire this constructor, their houses are unsafe.
> - Nonsense! That was the only house they built which burnt down, all others still stand - the fire certainly wasn't the fault of the project!_
> 
> I think a pause would be strange there! Can there be a comma if there is no pause in speech?


Officially, there is no such animal as a "pause comma". A comma serves a grammatical purpose only.


> Again I'm confused that the sentence is marked wrong but two interpretations are given.


Again, I explain that these are alternatives - not interpretations.


> Why must the comma precede the 'which'?


See below.


> I know you are saying that two clauses must be separated by comma, but is there another reason why you singled out the word 'which'?
> Because I meant this as a restrictive clause.


In which case, you should not use which.

If we consider relative clauses, we see that they come in several forms:

The man, *who *was carrying his dog, shouted at me. non-defining relative clause - note how it is (i) introduced by which (ii) is in parenthesis / commas
The man*,* carrying his dog*,* shouted at me. -> non-defining reduced relative clause - note how it is in parenthesis / commas
The man *that *was carrying his dog shouted at me. -> defining relative clause introduced by *that *and devoid of commas
The man carrying his dog shouted at me." -> defining reduced relative clause introduced by *that *and devoid of commas
I'm sure I am telling you what you know, but it worthwhile as a lot of less advanced learners are worried why "*that*" can be used to refer to people.

At this point, it is useful to refer back to the original example:

Every road leads back to the place *I know
Where I cannot go
Where I long to be*​
English has lost two very useful words "*whither*" (to where) "*whence*" (from where) and has been left with only "where".

*Where *has now taken on the meaning of at/in/on/from/to, etc, which: "I know a place where (to which) we can go and eat."/ "I know a place where (at/in which) we can sit down and eat."

Now we can see why the clauses are relative clauses and why "where" is essential. The question is, "Why are they defining relative clauses if they are introduced by "which"?"

The answer is


PaulQ said:


> AE speakers are far better at using that to introduce a defining clause, and which/who to introduce a non-defining clause - but even they are not perfect. In BE, we tend to use both indiscriminately, and this leads to confusion, not to the native reader/listener, who is not really bothered about defining and non-defining clauses, but for the student learning this aspect of grammar.


To this, I would add - this is a song - it is not an erudite piece of academic excellence.

Your next question should be: "Why are you sure that they are defining clauses?"


PaulQ said:


> The singer is identifying/defining one place in three different ways - all of which are negatives and thus emphasise the hopelessness of her(?) situation1.
> 1 In the conventions of rhetoric, there is a piece of guidance which suggests that if you wish to emphasise a point, you define it three times - twice is insufficient, and four times may be excessive:


----------



## siares

OK, I will stick with 'that' in front of defining clauses.
Thanks for the where - which explanation!


PaulQ said:


> I marked it with a cross because it does have the ambiguity that you proposed.


So the absence of comma
*between the first and second clause*
is causing ambiguity whilst being grammatical; or, is it ungrammatical?
and comma *between the second and third clause*
same question as above.


PaulQ said:


> More broadly, commas separate clauses in general (including defining clauses) and are roughly equivalent a coordinating conjunction:
> "You are not allowed to light fires in this area, hunt any animals, or fish in any of the rivers." -> comma = "or"
> "You are encouraged to take a map with you, carry a compass, and travel in parties of at least three people. -> comma = "and"


You gave examples of how comma can be replaced.
This


PaulQ said:


> (Compare Cenzontle's "...the place that is *known,* *forbidden,* [and] *desired *is about 4 kilometres away. "


has loosely reminded me of: cumulative adjectives before noun. They are not separated by commas and an 'and' cannot be inserted.
Couldn't two clauses also form one unit of meaning?
Are the two following - one with a comma and one with an and - equivalent in meaning and emphasis, you think?
The house that he built, that burnt down, wasn't insured. (or, without the comma after 'down'?)
The house that he built and that burnt down wasn't insured.



PaulQ said:


> The question here is *solely *about defining and non-defining clauses. I think it will be helpful if we concentrate on that.


I didn't stray from the topic - I wanted to know whether the 'the' makes the clause more likely defining when there's a BE 'which'.


----------



## JungKim

PaulQ said:


> You have not grasped the idea of a comma.


If so, I'd be glad to learn.



PaulQ said:


> In a sentence where the subject includes *two or more* defining clause, no comma separates the subject and the first defining clause, but thereafter each defining clause is separated by a comma.



Interesting. Honestly, this is NOT the idea of a comma as I know it.

So you would think that there needs to be a comma between the two underlined defining relative clauses in the following text?


> We were shocked. We had just assumed that if millions of children were dying and they could be saved, the world would make it a priority to discover and deliver the medicines to save them. But it did not. For under a dollar, there were interventions that could save lives that just weren’t being delivered.



The above text is copied from another thread titled "two relative clauses for one noun," according to which, both the defining relative clauses modify "interventions" and there's no comma shown in between.

Here's the original text as prepared for delivery probably by Bill Gates himself, which shows no comma between the two defining relative clauses.


----------



## bennymix

Jung,  I suspect you're aware that the case in the OP, which Paul addresses in post #2, is of restrictive clauses on the same noun [place].   They are at the same grammatical level.  Hence a series.  Hence commas.   You said, "this is NOT the idea of a comma as I know it."
Then perhaps consider further revision or refinement of your idea.

Your new example, as you likely know, has the second restrictive clause at a deeper level, modifying a second noun [lives] (embedded, so to say), hence the punctuation would be different.

JK: So you would think that there needs to be a comma between the two underlined defining relative clauses in the following text?

_We were shocked. We had just assumed that if millions of children were dying and they could be saved, the world would make it a priority to discover and deliver the medicines to save them. But it did not. *For under a dollar, there were interventions that could save lives that just weren’t being delivered.*
_
_The above text is copied from another thread titled "two relative clauses for one noun," according to which, both the defining relative clauses modify "interventions" and there's no comma shown in between._

Here's the original text as prepared for delivery probably by Bill Gates himself, which shows no comma between the two defining relative clauses. 

*ADD*: There is a mistake, above, which I correct in post #34.


----------



## JungKim

bennymix said:


> Your new example, as you likely know, has the second restrictive clause at a deeper level, modifying a second noun [lives] (embedded, so to say), hence the punctuation would be different.


That is not what I think the quoted thread says. Per the thread, the second relative clause modifies the same antecedent (_interventions_) as the first clause does.


----------



## PaulQ

JungKim said:


> So you would think that there needs to be a comma between the two underlined defining relative clauses in the following text?





bennymix said:


> They are at the same grammatical level.


The sentence is broken up in this way, _*For under a dollar, {there were interventions that could save lives} that just weren’t being delivered. *
_
The relative clauses are nested_* - interventions *_is qualified by _*"that could save lives" *_and *the whole of*_* "{interventions that could save lives}" *_is then, in turn, qualified by _*"**that just weren’t being delivered." *
_
Kim's sentence is Every road leads back to {the place *I know}, {where [the place that] I cannot go}, {where [the place that] I long to be} *The relative clauses are separate. It is, as I said earlier, a common*,* rhetorical*,* literary device (note the respective commas and lack of comma) to repeat and/or define a point/idea/noun, etc* - *after all, this is a song - and this is how it should be parsed.

Referring back to your example, Siares, in her #18, remarks "_[the placement of commas] has loosely reminded me of: cumulative adjectives before a noun. They are not separated by commas and an 'and' cannot be inserted._" If we look at your example - an *and *can be inserted.

As usual, Siares, is very perceptive. Clearly, I overlooked this distinction and fell into the trap of saying "always" and "never" about language.  Siares' insight provides the answer as relative clauses are adjectival.


----------



## JungKim

PaulQ said:


> The relative clauses are nested_* - interventions *_is qualified by _*"that could save lives" *_and *the whole of*_* "{interventions that could save lives}" *_is then, in turn, qualified by _*"**that just weren’t being delivered." *
> _
> Kim's sentence is Every road leads back to {the place *I know}, {where [the place that] I cannot go}, {where [the place that] I long to be} *The relative clauses are separate. It is, as I said earlier, a common*,* rhetorical*,* literary device (note the respective commas and lack of comma) to repeat and/or define a point/idea/noun, etc* - *and, after all, this is a song - and this is how it should be parsed.



I guess my question essentially boils down to what's stopping the OP's sentence from being interpreted the way the Bill Gates' sentence is, as follows: "place" is qualified by "I know" and the whole of "place I know" is then, in turn, qualified by "where I cannot go", and the whole of "place I know where I cannot go" is then, in turn, qualified by "where I long to be".


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I think you are chasing wild geese.

Like many lyrics, these words are gloriously ambiguous and you can accept whichever meaning most appeals to you at the time.


----------



## PaulQ

JungKim said:


> I guess my question essentially boils down to what's stopping the OP's sentence from being interpreted the way the Bill Gates' sentence is, as follows: "place" is qualified by "I know" and the whole of "place I know" is then, in turn, qualified by "where I cannot go", and the whole of "place I know where I cannot go" is then, in turn, qualified by "where I long to be".





PaulQ said:


> Kim's sentence is Every road leads back to {the place *I know}, {where [the place that] I cannot go}, {where [the place that] I long to be} *The relative clauses are separate. It is, as I said earlier, a common*,* rhetorical*,* literary device (note the respective commas and lack of comma) to repeat and/or define a point/idea/noun, etc* - *after all, this is a song - and this is how it should be parsed.


----------



## PaulQ

siares said:


> So the absence of comma *between the first and second clause *is causing ambiguity whilst being grammatical; or, is it ungrammatical? And comma *between the second and third clause? *same question as above.



This is a picture of a house I built which burnt down.  -> There are a variety of constructions here that would be correct, all with slightly different meanings, but the point is that, grammatically, *which *requires to be preceded by a comma and introduces a non-defining clause.

A: "House? I do not understand that word. Can you show me a picture of a "house"?"
B: "Yes, look [shows a picture of a normal house] This is a picture of a house, *which *I built, [and] *which *burnt down."

A: "I hear you are a builder - do you have any photos of examples of your work?"
B: "Yes, look [shows a picture of a normal house] This is a picture of a house *that *I built, [and] *which *burnt down."

A: "I hear you are a builder but that several of the houses that you built burned down?"
B: "Yes, look [shows a picture of a burn-down or normal house] This is a picture of a house *that *I built* that *burnt down."

A: "Have you any photos of a house that burned down?"
B: "Yes, look [shows a picture of a burn-down house] This is a picture of a house, *which *I built,* that *burnt down."

In all cases, the "*which *clause" can be omitted, but the '*that *clause' cannot.

I think this explains commas in restrictive/defining clauses:





PaulQ said:


> Referring back to your example, Siares, in her #18, remarks "_[the placement of commas] has loosely reminded me of: cumulative adjectives before a noun. They are not separated by commas and an 'and' cannot be inserted._" If we look at your example - an *and *can be inserted.
> 
> As usual, Siares, is very perceptive. Clearly, I overlooked this distinction and fell into the trap of saying "always" and "never" about language.  Siares' insight provides the answer as relative clauses are adjectival.


----------



## bennymix

In the OP, the restrictive clauses all apply, arguably, to the same noun.

Since you, Jung Kim, brought the other case (opposite, so to say), of embedding in post #19,  I thought you, or some readers might appreciate 6 levels of embedding with restrictive clauses, well-known example (from Wiki).

This is the judge all shaven and shorn
That married the man all tattered and torn
That kissed the maiden all forlorn
That milked the cow with the crumpled horn
That tossed the dog that worried the cat
That killed the rat that ate the malt
That lay in the house that Jack built.


----------



## siares

JungKim said:


> what's stopping the OP's sentence from being interpreted the way the Bill Gates' sentence is, as follows: "place" is qualified by "I know" and the whole of "place I know" is then, in turn, qualified by "where I cannot go", and the whole of "place I know where I cannot go" is then, in turn, qualified by "where I long to be".


I've been converted by the literary criticism, I now too prefer the all characteristics of the place to stand side by side, especially the contrast between the warmth of 'known' and the other two.
By analogy with Bill Gates' sentence and converting to adjectives:
I prefer _The life-saving interventions were not delivered. _to _The interventions were life-saving and were not delivered._
Whereas I prefer: _The place is known and unreachable and longed for. _to _The known place is unreachable and longed for.

(edit)


PaulQ said:



			Officially, there is no such animal as a "pause comma". A comma serves a grammatical purpose only.
		
Click to expand...

 _Isn't a list comma a pause comma, really?
Thanks for the builder converstions (and the praise!)


bennymix said:


> This is the judge all shaven and shorn
> That married the man all tattered and torn
> That kissed the maiden all forlorn
> That milked the cow with the crumpled horn
> That tossed the dog that worried the cat
> That killed the rat that ate the malt
> That lay in the house that Jack built.


This is wonderful! I knew the last two lines only. If somebody knows such playful other embedding (as in the Gates sentence), please post it too.

By the way, i was surprised to learn that the 'which' used as referring to the whole part of sentence, rather than just a noun, is considered colloquial.


----------



## SevenDays

If I understand our friend JungKim correctly, he starts from the premise that "restrictive relative clauses don't use commas," and from that he concludes that the following sentence works: _Every road leads back to the place I know where I cannot go where I long to be_. The problem here is that such premise is purely _semantic_, but there are _syntactic_ factors that demand the use of commas. The relative clauses "where I cannot go" and "where I long to be" are "free/independent," meaning that they don't have an _overt _antecedent (there's no noun _immediately _before "where"). In fact, we have to look _inside_ the matrix/main clause to find the noun linked to "where" ("the place"). _Free relative clauses _are by nature _restrictive _(with no commas). "Restrictive" means that the information in the relative clause is intrinsically connected to the matrix clause, so the two clauses (matrix and relative) aren't separated by a comma. For example, in _I gave her what she wanted_, the free relative clause "what she wanted" functions as the direct object of the transitive verb "gave" and therefore a comma isn't used. In other words, the verb "gave" and the free relative clause are constituents that form a syntactic unit. In JK's example, without commas, it looks as if "where I cannot go" is the direct object of transitive "know," but "know" already has its direct object, appearing before the verb ("the place": _the place I know_). Commas are used, not because the free relative clause is "non-restrictive," but because the free relative clause and "know" are not constituents, don't form a syntactic unit, and therefore need to be separated: _Every road leads back to the place I Know*, *where I cannot go*, *where I long to be_. Put another way, the free relative clauses may be thought of being "restrictive" _semantically_ (because of the "connection" that we have in our minds to "the place"), but _syntactically_ the commas serve a key purpose: they separate sentence elements that don't belong together. By contrast, in _there were interventions that could save lives that just weren't being delivered _no commas are used precisely because all the elements in the sentence are intrinsically/closely linked, forming, if you will, a _single string_. Moreover, each relative clause and its antecedent forms a syntactic unit. The relationship between the nouns "interventions" and "lives" and their _that-clause_ complements is the same as the relationship between a verb and its direct object: each _that-clause_ is necessary to complete the meaning of its respective noun, and therefore they should not be separated by commas.
edit:
Starting with "Moreover" in the next to last sentence above, what follows should read (see messages #30 and # 39):
_Moreover, the two relative clauses share the same antecedent ("interventions") and form a larger unit. The relationship between the head noun "interventions" and its two relative clauses is the same as the relationship between a verb and its direct object: the relative clauses are necessary to complete the meaning of the head noun, and they should not be separated by commas_.


----------



## JungKim

SevenDays said:


> By contrast, in _there were interventions that could save lives that just weren't being delivered _no commas are used precisely because all the elements in the sentence are intrinsically/closely linked, forming, if you will, a _single string_. Moreover, each relative clause and its antecedent forms a syntactic unit. The relationship between the nouns "interventions" and "lives" and their _that-clause_ complements is the same as the relationship between a verb and its direct object: each _that-clause_ is necessary to complete the meaning of its respective noun, and therefore they should not be separated by commas.



In the Bill Gates speech text, why is it that bennymix and you wrongly assume that the antecedent of the relative clause (_that just weren't being delivered_) is _lives_ when the consensus of the thread was unambiguously that it is _interventions_?

EDIT: Well, I failed to notice that there's another person mistaken about the Bill Gates thread:


siares said:


> If somebody knows such playful other embedding (as in the Gates sentence), please post it too.


So, really, what is going on here???
At least three people seem to be mistaken about the short thread, which is unusual.


----------



## PaulQ

siares said:


> Isn't a list comma a pause comma, really?


No. I can see why there might be a pause there, but that would/should be designated by a dash. I think it wise to remember that we are dealing with a song, and not a piece of prose - poetic licence allows many "mistakes" or variations from what we think of as "normal grammar and punctuation".

A comma, which is never a "pause comma", occurs because there is a *natural* pause in speech at that point and the comma tries to reproduce this in writing, but the pause is caused by the speech patterns - intonations to aid understanding. So, the comma (and other punctuation marks) is the result of imitating a *natural *pause caused by standard language patterns. 

If we used a type of comma to indicate an "unnatural pause" (i.e. one that is introduced for the purpose of reproducing *unusual* speech patterns) then that comma would be a "pause comma" - but we don't. <- note how that dash is used to indicate hesitation - not a pause.

If you have something in your hand, and I am not sure what it is, I can attempt to refer to it by make a tentative guess. In this case:

Me: "What are you going to do with that [pause] pencil?" 

We would not *write* "What are you going to do with that, pencil?" because the sentence would then *read *as if I were addressing you not as "Siares" but as "pencil".

This article How To Punctuate A Pause In A Sentence is useful and the written sentence becomes "What are you going to do with that... pencil?"


----------



## siares

JungKim said:


> So, really, what is going on here???
> At least three people seem to be mistaken about the short thread, which is unusual.


Not so, there are 2 types of embedding 
- One is nested as Russian dolls - that's your reading of OP, and Gates's sentence
- One is linked as a chain - that's the Jack built one. (Bennymix and me called this 'the other' embedding, or the 'other case, opposite')
And then there's no embedding:
- PaulQ's reading of the OP

(Also I saw a meagre single restrictive clause is called 'embedded'.)

Thanks for the comma post, PaulQ.


----------



## PaulQ

JungKim said:


> So, really, what is going on here???


You will not be surprised to find out that I think the others are over-thinking the matter.

In the song, the final two main clauses have been reduced by ellipsis of the noun "place". Simply put, "Every road leads back to the place *I know, Where I cannot go, Where I long to be*" is essentially three main clauses, each describing one particular place:

"Every road leads back to {the place [that] I know.}
Every road leads back to {the place [that] I cannot go.}
Every road leads back to {the place [that] I long to be.}"
Subject......... verb..........{noun definitive/relative/adjectival clause}

In order to be non-defining, any clause must be capable of being omitted without altering the main meaning. As the main clauses are all independent and simple, the clauses (adjuncts) cannot be omitted - they are therefore defining.


----------



## bennymix

This is well stated, Siares.

Jung Kim,  I wish to correct my post #20.   As you know, I agree with Paul's analysis of the sentence in the OP.

As to the sentence _ *For under a dollar, there were interventions that could save lives that just weren’t being delivered.*
_
The clause, 'that just weren't being delivered' is indeed, not like the clauses in the OP.  It modifies "interventions that could save lives", not 'lives' as I stated.

I did not recognize the distinction Siares makes between a chain as in 'the house that Jack built' and the 'Russian doll' type of nesting in your new, Gates, example.






siares said:


> Not so, there are 2 types of embedding
> - One is nested as Russian dolls - that's your reading of OP and Gates's sentence
> - One is linked as a chain - that's the Jack built one. (Bennymix and me called this 'the other' embedding, or the 'other case, opposite')
> And then there's no embedding:
> - PaulQ's reading of the OP
> 
> (Also I saw a meagre single restrictive clause is called 'embedded'.)
> 
> Thanks for the comma post, PaulQ.


----------



## bennymix

Jung Kim, See my post #34, correcting the misstatement in my post #20.   My analysis agrees with Paul on all essential points.

The distinction Siares makes in post #32 was unnoted by me in post #20.  The general point, however, remains:  that your Gates example is dissimilar to your OP example.   Its 'russian doll' style nesting is not, in my opinion, found in the OP example.




JungKim said:


> In the Bill Gates speech text, why is it that bennymix and you wrongly assume that the antecedent of the relative clause (_that just weren't being delivered_) is _lives_ when the consensus of the thread was unambiguously that it is _interventions_?
> 
> EDIT: Well, I failed to notice that there's another person mistaken about the Bill Gates thread:
> 
> So, really, what is going on here???
> At least three people seem to be mistaken about the short thread, which is unusual.


----------



## PaulQ

bennymix said:


> The general point, however, remains: that your Gates example is dissimilar to your OP example. Its 'russian doll' style nesting is not, in my opinion, found in the OP example.


----------



## JungKim

PaulQ said:


> In the song, the final two main clauses have been reduced by ellipsis of the noun "place". Simply put, "Every road leads back to the place *I know, Where I cannot go, Where I long to be*" is essentially three main clauses, each describing one particular place:
> 
> "Every road leads back to {the place [that] I know.}
> Every road leads back to {the place [that] I cannot go.}
> Every road leads back to {the place [that] I long to be.}"
> Subject......... verb..........{noun definitive/relative/adjectival clause}



And you said you reached the above conclusion simply because this is a song, as you stated twice already:


PaulQ said:


> Kim's sentence is Every road leads back to {the place *I know}, {where [the place that] I cannot go}, {where [the place that] I long to be} *The relative clauses are separate. It is, as I said earlier, a common*,* rhetorical*,* literary device (note the respective commas and lack of comma) to repeat and/or define a point/idea/noun, etc* - *after all, this is a song - and this is how it should be parsed.


Your claim about "a song" having a "literary device" may have some truth to it, but I honestly think that you should carefully look into the contextual meaning of song lyrics -- or any text, literary or otherwise -- in order to correctly determine the type of a relative clause or two. Without even discussing the intended meaning of the lines containing the consecutive relative clauses, how can you possibly jump to the conclusion that the clauses are one type or another?

If your claim were to be true, song writers would be precluded from writing a song where two consecutive relative clauses are embedded in the "Russian doll" style. But are they really?

In post #4, I tried to figure out what the song writer intended the quoted lyrics to mean:


JungKim said:


> Why can't the three relative clauses be thought of as normal restrictive relative clauses used in a row (as shown in the first rewrite)?
> In context, the "place" refers to the ocean. Because I guess you could say that the ocean is the place that meets the three conditions at the same time: (1) she knows the place (2) she cannot go there (3) she longs to be there.



I watched the movie and I have analyzed the entire lyrics and I believe I know what those four lines as quoted mean. As I have stated in post #4, the four lines quoted in the OP means:


> Every path I make
> Every road leads back to the ocean


I'm 100% sure this is the intended meaning of the song writer and is understood as such by most people who know the movie and the song.
So in order for that to be the intended meaning of the quoted lines, what is the most appropriate interpretation of the relative clauses, especially those two "where" clauses at the end? I guess this is the real question here.



PaulQ said:


> In the song, the final two main clauses have been reduced by ellipsis of the noun "place". Simply put, "Every road leads back to the place *I know, Where I cannot go, Where I long to be*" is essentially three main clauses, each describing one particular place:
> ....
> In order to be non-defining, any clause must be capable of being omitted without altering the main meaning. As the main clauses are all independent and simple, the clauses (adjuncts) cannot be omitted - they are therefore defining.


And isn't this some sort of circular argument?


----------



## PaulQ

JungKim said:


> Your claim about "a song" having a "literary device" may have some truth to it,


Then you should address that point...


JungKim said:


> you should carefully look into the contextual meaning of song lyrics -- or any text, literary or otherwise -- in order to correctly determine the type of a relative clause or two.


I am somewhat disappointed at this remark - *it is for you to provide context. *By your failure to do this, you might wish to ask yourself if you have contributed to the immense length of this thread.


JungKim said:


> what is the most appropriate interpretation of the relative clauses, especially those two "where" clauses at the end? I guess this is the real question here.


Yes, and that is what I answered when I wrote 





> *"I know, Where I cannot go, Where I long to be*" is essentially three main clauses, each describing one particular place:"


to which I might have usefully added is essentially the end of three main clauses.


JungKim said:


> And isn't this some sort of circular argument?


No. I have explain a non-defining clause and *"I know, Where I cannot go, Where I long to be" *cannot be omitted - they all define, in their own way, a particular place.


----------



## SevenDays

JungKim said:


> In the Bill Gates speech text, why is it that bennymix and you wrongly assume that the antecedent of the relative clause (_that just weren't being delivered_) is _lives_ when the consensus of the thread was unambiguously that it is _interventions_?
> 
> ...



Good catch, and my apologies for that. Just prior to posting my previous comments (post # 29), I decided to edit what I had written to make it shorter (I was making a comparison between relative clauses and _that-clauses, _something that I realized was off topic), but I inadvertently messed up the last part. It should read: _Moreover, the two relative clauses share the same antecedent ("interventions") and form a larger unit. The relationship between the head noun "interventions" and its two relative clauses is the same as the relationship between a verb and its direct object: the relative clauses are necessary to complete the meaning of the head noun, and they should not be separated by commas_. Again, my apologies. One last point, this "stacking" of relative clauses (one appearing immediately after the other) is not unusual at all.


----------



## JungKim

PaulQ said:


> I am somewhat disappointed at this remark - *it is for you to provide context. *By your failure to do this, you might wish to ask yourself if you have contributed to the immense length of this thread.


I don't think I have failed to provide context. As early as post #4, I've made it clear that the "place" refers to the ocean. 



PaulQ said:


> Yes, and that is what I answered when I wrote to which I might have usefully added is essentially the end of three main clauses.
> No. I have explain a non-defining clause and *"I know, Where I cannot go, Where I long to be" *cannot be omitted - they all define, in their own way, a particular place.


I'm not saying that it doesn't make sense to interpret them the way you do, given the literary device and such. What I'm saying is why the whole thing (_the place I know....where I long to be_) cannot be interpreted as having the three consecutive relative clauses all in the "Russian doll" type, as I have put it in the previous post:


JungKim said:


> If your claim were to be true, song writers would be precluded from writing a song where two consecutive relative clauses are embedded in the "Russian doll" style. But are they really?



Does the "literary device" essentially preclude song writers from writing a song where two consecutive relative clauses are embedded in the "Russian doll" style? If not, I have to revert to my earlier question:


JungKim said:


> I guess my question essentially boils down to what's stopping the OP's sentence from being interpreted the way the Bill Gates' sentence is, as follows: "place" is qualified by "I know" and the whole of "place I know" is then, in turn, qualified by "where I cannot go", and the whole of "place I know where I cannot go" is then, in turn, qualified by "where I long to be".


----------



## PaulQ

JungKim said:


> Does the "literary device" essentially preclude song writers from writing a song where two consecutive relative clauses are embedded in the "Russian doll" style?


 This rhetorical question is what I call "the three-leggéd-dog" fallacy:
A: All dogs have four legs (General statement which is true but does not address the specific.)
B: My dog lost a leg in an accident and only has three. (Specific statement which is true, but which does not address the generality.)


> If not, I have to revert to my earlier question:


No you don't. I was under the impression that you were looking for a specific explanation to a specific question rather than a general lesson in writing lyrics.


JungKim said:


> I guess my question essentially boils down to what's stopping the OP's sentence from being interpreted the way the Bill Gates' sentence is, as follows: "place" is qualified by "I know" and the whole of "place I know" is then, in turn, qualified by "where I cannot go", and the whole of "place I know where I cannot go" is then, in turn, qualified by "where I long to be".


I suppose that if that is what you want to do, nobody can stop you, although, at the same time, there will be few who agree with you and if that is what you want to do, then I suggest there are far better examples.

It does not matter if the clauses are individual and independent, or individual and cumulative. However, were they cumulative, you would expect an *and*:
*a place I know, where I cannot go, and where I long to be*"


----------



## siares

JungKim, are you now still thinking about whether the last two clauses are non-restrictive? Or only about whether they are nested or not? 

If they are nested restrictive, I think with the essentiality criterium that would mean that 
there are many places she knows
out of them some are unreachable
out of those unreachable ones one is longed for

Nested non-restrictive
That would mean the essential info is contained in the first clause.
Taxi, take me to the place I know. (which, by the way, I long for, but we don't need to know that to distinguish this place from others).



PaulQ said:


> It does not matter if the clauses are individual and independent, or individual and cumulative.


I don't get this, it is confusing with the terminology because cumulative adjectives don't have an 'and' between them.


----------



## JungKim

siares said:


> PaulQ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It does not matter if the clauses are individual and independent, or individual and cumulative. However, were they cumulative, you would expect an *and*:
> *a place I know, where I cannot go, and where I long to be*"
> 
> 
> 
> I don't get this, it is confusing with the terminology because cumulative adjectives don't have an 'and' between them.
Click to expand...

I don't get it, either. I, for one, attribute this confusion to blindly mixing up the listing of adjectival words with that of relative clauses. 

Unfortunately, I now realize, the confusion has its history going as far back as to post #3 by Cenzontle:


Cenzontle said:


> I agree with PaulQ that all three clauses are restrictive, BUT I prefer your second version of punctuation, separating the clauses with commas.
> The commas are there to separate elements whose relationship is "A *and* B *and* C".
> If, instead of clauses, you had simple adjectives, it would be "...the place that is *known,* *forbidden,* [and] *desired*", with "and" omitted for poetic reasons.
> These are *not* the commas of a nonrestrictive clause.


Here's why you can't just mix up the listing of adjectival words (e.g., _known/forbidden_/_desired_) with that of relative clauses (e.g., _I know_/_where I cannot go_/_where I long to be_). In Cenzontle's example of the listing of adjectival words, there must be commas or and's between the adjectival words, because the three adjectival words cannot be viewed as cumulative but in coordination.

On the other hand, let's make Cenzontle's example three separate relative clauses: "that is know/that is forbidden/that is desired". Now, these three relative clauses can be stacked (i.e., do without any comma) as follows: "...the place that is known that is forbidden that is desired." And according to Paul, these clauses can be coordinated with "and" as follows: "...the place that is known, that is forbidden, and that is desired" (Let's not leave out "and" here because I don't want to complicate the already complicated matter with "poetic reasons.")

Syntactically, the last two are different. But semantically I think there's little difference between them.
Syntactically, the last one may be closer to Cenzontle's example of the listing of adjective words, but I don't think that we can say that there must be commas between the relative clauses just because there are comma between the adjective words. That's because we have two different syntactic structures with relative clauses.

Of the two syntactic structures of relative clauses, the one that I'm more familiar with is the "stacking" without any comma between the relative clauses. I'm not sure if this is the case with native speakers, but I've looked up several reference grammars such as CGEL, and the stacking examples were abundant whereas the coordinating examples of relative clauses are few and far between.

But for some reason I cannot fathom, Paul seems to not think of the stacking structure at all, as is clear from his following remark:


PaulQ said:


> In a sentence where the subject includes *two or more* defining clause, no comma separates the subject and the first defining clause, but thereafter each defining clause is separated by a comma.


Because if two or more defining relative clauses are stacked, then even the second defining clause is not -- and should not be -- separated by a comma.


----------



## Edinburgher

JungKim said:


> Now, these three relative clauses can be stacked (i.e., do without any comma) as follows: "...the place that is known that is forbidden that is desired."


That's the problem.  I don't think they can be stacked like that.  This is just the same as how plain adjectives could not be stacked:
"the place that is known forbidden and desired"  This kind of combination is only possible using "Paul's syntax", i.e. by making a list and separating the list elements using commas.


JungKim said:


> I'm not sure if this is the case with native speakers, but I've looked up several reference grammars such as CGEL, and the stacking examples were abundant whereas the coordinating examples of relative clauses are few and far between.


Perhaps you'd like to quote some favourite examples to us, and we can then comment on whether they sound right.


----------



## JungKim

Edinburgher said:


> I don't think they can be stacked like that.


Can you tell me why that's not possible? 


Edinburgher said:


> Perhaps you'd like to quote some favourite examples to us, and we can then comment on whether they sound right.


 Do you mean stacking examples or coordinating examples?


----------



## Edinburgher

JungKim said:


> Can you tell me why that's not possible?


 Because it looks wrong.


> Do you mean stacking examples or coordinating examples?


 Stacking.  More precisely, I mean any instances of several restrictive (defining) relative clauses without commas between them.


----------



## siares

Perhaps attention should be paid to the form of the verb in the clauses - maybe the commas are required partly depending on what verbs are there? In the first, and the second clause? And whether clauses are reduced or not. There is a lot of combinations for two clauses..predicate adjective, + participle, + active verb, + passive.


Edinburgher said:


> Because it looks wrong.


Could you please have a look if some of these look wrong without a comma? I am trying out all possibilities for the first clause, while leaving the verb in the second clause in active voice.
There are several books written by X / dealing with X / bestsellers
_Book written by X that influenced the most scientists ..../ Book that was written by X that influenced the most scientists ....
Book dealing with X that influenced the most scientists ..../ Book that was dealing with X that influenced the most scientists ....
Book that is famous that influenced the most scientists ....
Book that made it to the top of the chart that influenced the most scientists ....
_
I am purposely leaving out the adjective, those options that are possible, do they work with either?




Edinburgher said:


> This is just the same as how plain adjectives could not be stacked


The adjective comparison, which took the thread into the woods, dealt with adjectives preceding the noun, some of which can form one unit of meaning where commas, change in order and 'and' are impossible: busy main road busy, main road busy and main road main busy road


----------



## Edinburgher

siares said:


> Could you please have a look if some of these look wrong without a comma? I am trying out all possibilities for the first clause, while leaving the verb in the second clause in active voice.


Yes, they all look wrong to me and crave either a comma or an "and", unless the idea is that later clauses refer to something in the earlier clauses and not to the book.  For example:
_ Book that made it to the top of the chart that influenced the most scientists ...._  Syntactically, this can only mean a book that made it to the top of the chart, namely to the chart that influenced the scientists.
For it to mean (1) that the book made it to the top of the chart and (2) that the book influenced the scientists, the simplest fix would be to replace the second "that" with "and".


siares said:


> The adjective comparison, which took the thread into the woods, dealt with adjectives preceding the noun, some of which can form one unit of meaning where commas, change in order and 'and' are impossible: busy main road busy, main road busy and main road main busy road


Agreed. There is no problem in principle with stacking  adjectives before the noun.


----------



## JungKim

Edinburgher said:


> Because it looks wrong.
> Stacking.  More precisely, I mean any instances of several restrictive (defining) relative clauses without commas between them.



Here's one from CGEL:
i. _I like those ties you wear that your sister knits for you._
ii. *_They've given the job to Max, who has no qualifications, who starts next month._
The first one CGEL calls "stacking" comprising two integrated (i.e., restrictive or defining) relative clauses.
The second one is ungrammatical, says CGEL, because the relative clauses are supplementary (i.e., non-restrictive or non-defining). According to CGEL, "stacking" is limited to the integrated construction.

Here are some other examples of "stacking" found in a linguistics paper titled "English Relative Clause Constructions" (p 34-35):


> The people who take this course who Dana likes usually come from Walker High School.
> 
> The only person that I like whose kids Dana is willing to put up with is Pat.
> 
> The only person Dana is willing to put up with who I like is Pat.
> 
> The only person whose kids Dana is willing to put up with who I like is Pat.
> 
> The book that I like which everyone else in the class hates was written in 1843.


----------



## Edinburgher

Thank you for your patience and effort.


JungKim said:


> Here's one from CGEL:
> i. _I like those ties you wear that your sister knits for you._


This one I like, and would not change.  I'm not sure why this is.  Part of the reason is that there is nothing in the first clause that the second could refer to, so the second must refer to the ties.
Perhaps another part is that "that" is omitted from the first clause.  It would look much less attractive as "_I like those ties that you wear that your sister knits for you._"

Perhaps it's all too subjective.  I don't know.  Of the other five examples in #49, I would say:
1,3) No.  They look wrong.  I'd add "and" before "who(m)".
2,4) Marginal.  I'd prefer to add "and" as above.
5) Marginal.  I'd prefer to add "and" before "which".


----------



## JungKim

Edinburgher said:


> It would look much less attractive as "_I like those ties that you wear that your sister knits for you._"
> 
> Perhaps it's all too subjective.  I don't know.  Of the other five examples in #49, I would say:
> 1,3) No.  They look wrong.  I'd add "and" before "who(m)".
> 2,4) Marginal.  I'd prefer to add "and" as above.
> 5) Marginal.  I'd prefer to add "and" before "which".



I forgot to add the link to the source of the five examples, and I've edited post #49 to include it.
Specifically, the examples are taken from Section 6.1 Bare Relatives (p34 to p35), in case you're interested in the context of how these examples are presented in the paper.

That said, I think I _have_ come across with this relative clause "stacking" before quite frequently, perhaps much more so than the relative clause "coordinating". So, in general, the "stacking" sounds more familiar and natural to my ears than the "coordinating". Interestingly, it seems to be the other way around to you and Paul.


----------



## SevenDays

I wanted to go back to one example (from post #43) and offer an opinion as to why the idea of _stacked relative clauses without commas_ doesn't work there. The wording is: _The place that is known that is forbidden that is desired_. The issue here is that we have the copulate verb "to be." This verb lacks lexical meaning; its main function (other than to signal grammatical notions of person, mood, tense, etc.) is to "link" two elements; namely, the "subject" and "predicate." In the sentence, the first "is" properly links "that" and "known" _inside_ the relative clause. The next two "is," however, strongly want to "link" the first part of the sentence to a "predicate" (as it would in _The place that *is* known is forbidden_; _That place that is known *is* desired_). As a result, commas are needed, not because the _free_ relative clauses "that is forbidden" and "that is desired" are either _restrictive_ or_ non-restrictive_, but because the structure of the wording demands that the elements that go together _be kept together_, so that neither the second nor the third "is" is taken as a _main_ verb: _The place that is known*,* that is forbidden*,* that is desired_. As I said earlier, it's not entirely helpful thinking exclusively in terms of "restrictive" and "non-restrictive" relative clauses, because, while free relative clauses are by nature restrictive, the sentence above demands commas, for the reason stated. This issue doesn't arise with lexical verbs. For example, the following can be perfectly "stacked" with free relative clauses (and without commas): _The place that I know that John said didn't exist that Mary visited yesterday_.


----------



## JungKim

SevenDays said:


> I wanted to go back to one example (from post #43) and offer an opinion as to why the idea of _stacked relative clauses without commas_ doesn't work there. The wording is: _The place that is known that is forbidden that is desired_.
> ...
> In the sentence, the first "is" properly links "that" and "known" _inside_ the relative clause.
> 
> The next two "is," however, strongly want to "link" the first part of the sentence to a "predicate" (as it would in _The place that is known *is* forbidden_; _That place that is known *is* desired_). As a result, commas are needed, not because the _free_ relative clauses "that is forbidden" and "that is desired" are either _restrictive_ or_ non-restrictive_, but because the structure of the wording demands that the elements that go together _be kept together_, so that neither the second nor the third "is" is taken as a _main_ verb: _The place that is known*,* that is forbidden*,* that is desired_.



I'm not really saying that the example sentence in #43 is particularly fit to be interpreted as "stacking".
That being said, though, I don't quite follow your logic that the first "is" properly links "that" and "known", but that the second "is" somehow doesn't link "that" and "forbidden" and that the third "is" doesn't link "that" and "desired". 

Honestly, I don't know why you treat the first relative clause differently than the second or the third one. In fact, the second "is" does properly link the second "that" and "forbidden", and the third "is" properly links the third "that" and "desired". Don't they?

So, I don't know where you're going with this logic. Or am I misunderstanding the whole thing?


----------



## SevenDays

JungKim said:


> I'm not really saying that the example sentence in #43 is particularly fit to be interpreted as "stacking".
> That being said, though, I don't quite follow your logic that the first "is" properly links "that" and "known", but that the second "is" somehow doesn't link "that" and "forbidden" and that the third "is" doesn't link "that" and "desired".
> 
> Honestly, I don't know why you treat the first relative clause differently than the second or the third one. In fact, the second "is" does properly link the second "that" and "forbidden", and the third "is" properly links the third "that" and "desired". Don't they?
> 
> So, I don't know where you're going with this logic. Or am I misunderstanding the whole thing?



The point is that "that is forbidden" and "that is desired" are _free_ relative clauses; they are not attached syntactically to "the place that is known," even though that's where you find the referent of both "that" ("the place"). If you write it without commas (as in #43), it looks like all the elements are tightly connected_ in one long string_, but that's not the case because the message gets muddled. Add commas, and the sentence is viable; all the information is properly "positioned" so that the message can be easily understood. In other words, the second and third "is" are kept where they truly belong, _inside_ each relative clause. In any event, this thread was getting longer and longer, but I thought that this particular example kind of got lost, without an explanation (or at least _one_ explanation) as to why it didn't work (though I realize that I'm making this thread even longer).


----------



## JungKim

SevenDays said:


> The point is that "that is forbidden" and "that is desired" are _free_ relative clauses; they are not attached syntactically to "the place that is known," even though that's where you find the referent of both "that" ("the place").


I'm not familiar with this term "free relative clause", so I've looked it up on the Web. According to this site, it's defined as follows:


> In English grammar, a free relative clause is a type of relative clause (that is, a word group beginning with a wh-word) *that contains the antecedent within itself*. Also called a nominal relative clause, a fused relative construction, an independent relative clause, or (in traditional grammar) a noun clause.
> ....
> "Nobody knows it, because nobody knows *what *really happened."


So I wonder how do you claim that "that is forbidden" and "that is desired" are free relative clauses?


----------



## SevenDays

Yes, in terms of _structure_, in "that is forbidden" and "that is desired," _that_ contains the antecedent within itself. Simply put, there's no "noun" _immediately_ before the relative pronoun. In typical relative clauses, there's an overt noun_ right before_ the relative pronoun (as in "the place that I know"). To get the _meaning _of "that" in "that is forbidden," we need to look _back_ in the sentence, song or poem, to see that "that" means "the place." The relative pronoun "that" also heads free relative clauses, in addition to wh-words.


----------



## JungKim

SevenDays said:


> Yes, in terms of _structure_, in "that is forbidden" and "that is desired," _that_ contains the antecedent within itself. Simply put, there's no "noun" _immediately_ before the relative pronoun. In typical relative clauses, there's an overt noun_ right before_ the relative pronoun (as in "the place that I know"). To get the _meaning _of "that" in "that is forbidden," we need to look _back_ in the sentence, song or poem, to see that "that" means "the place." The relative pronoun "that" also heads free relative clauses, in addition to wh-words.



Not to argue about the terminology, but I think that simply labeling a relative that doesn't belong to a "free relative" as a "free relative" and then using the label itself to argue that "that" lacks its antecedent is what I'd call a circular logic.

Even you yourself said in post #53 that what you call "free relative clauses" can be "perfectly stacked":


SevenDays said:


> For example, the following can be perfectly "stacked" with free relative clauses (and without commas): _The place that I know that John said didn't exist that Mary visited yesterday_.


----------



## SevenDays

Of course free relative clauses can be stacked, but that doesn't mean that they should_ always_ be stacked, which explains why some of the examples you've brought into this long thread don't work. The point (or one of the points, given the length of all this) is that _some _free relative clauses need to be separated by commas, given the structure of the overall wording, even though _all _free relative clauses are restrictive. And the fact that they are "free" relative clauses plays a big role in our discussion (at least in the examples I've addressed); there's no circular logic here. In any event, the use of commas and the idea of "restrictive" vs. "non-restrictive" with relative clauses is how you got this thread started.


----------

