“Of” and Relative Pronouns
I wonder whether the following sentences are correct:
The two strands of economic theory, which are used in this article, are endogenous growth and spread-backwash effects.
The two strands, which are used in this article, of economic theory are endogenous growth and spread-backwash effects.
Do these questions mean the same?
Thank!
relative-pronouns
asked 3 hours ago
EthanEthan
111
New contributor
Ethan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
I wonder whether the following sentences are correct:
The two strands of economic theory, which are used in this article, are endogenous growth and spread-backwash effects.
The two strands, which are used in this article, of economic theory are endogenous growth and spread-backwash effects.
Do these questions mean the same?
Thank!
relative-pronouns
asked 3 hours ago
EthanEthan
111
New contributor
Ethan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
I wonder whether the following sentences are correct:
The two strands of economic theory, which are used in this article, are endogenous growth and spread-backwash effects.
The two strands, which are used in this article, of economic theory are endogenous growth and spread-backwash effects.
Do these questions mean the same?
Thank!
relative-pronouns
asked 3 hours ago
EthanEthan
111
New contributor
Ethan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I wonder whether the following sentences are correct:
The two strands of economic theory, which are used in this article, are endogenous growth and spread-backwash effects.
The two strands, which are used in this article, of economic theory are endogenous growth and spread-backwash effects.
Do these questions mean the same?
Thank!
relative-pronouns
relative-pronouns
asked 3 hours ago
EthanEthan
111
New contributor
Ethan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 3 hours ago
EthanEthan
111
New contributor
Ethan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 3 hours ago
EthanEthan
111
New contributor
Ethan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 3 hours ago
EthanEthan
111
asked 3 hours ago
EthanEthan
111
111
New contributor
Ethan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Ethan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Ethan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
In theory, yes. They mean the same thing.
When you have parenthetical information, you can analyze the essential part of the sentence by removing it—and its removal should result in a still-grammatical sentence.
✔ 1. The two strands of economic theory, which are used in this article, are endogenous growth and spread-backwash effects.
→ The two strands of economic theory are endogenous growth and spread-backwash effects.
❔ 2. The two strands, which are used in this article, of economic theory are endogenous growth and spread-backwash effects.
→ The two strands of economic theory are endogenous growth and spread-backwash effects.
In theory, you can put parenthetical information anywhere because it should have no effect on the surrounding text.
However, in practice, the placement of the parenthetical information is important—regardless of the fact that its placement should have no grammatical bearing.
Here is an extreme case of parenthetical information:
✘ 3. The two strands of economic theory are endogenous growth and spread-backwash, which are used in this article, effects.
→ The two strands of economic theory are endogenous growth and spread-backwash effects.
Nobody would ever phrase the sentence in that way. Despite someone arguing that the placement doesn't matter, it certainly does matter when it comes to a reader's ability to easily parse what's being conveyed.
So, in terms of style, the first sentence in the question is more natural—despite the fact that on strict analysis they mean the same thing.
It's the more natural of the two because if you were to rephrase it as essential information, the order of the words would still make sense:
✔ The two strands of economic theory that are used in this article are endogenous growth and spread-backwash effects.
Note that it becomes essential information by removing the comma pairs and replacing which with that. (Replacing which is not as important in UK English, but removing the commas is.)
So, use the same order of words as you would if it were essential information, but use a comma pair and which rather than that:
✔ The two strands of economic theory[,] which are used in this article[,] are endogenous growth and spread-backwash effects.
answered 2 hours ago
Jason BassfordJason Bassford
18.3k32144
add a comment |
No, they are not correct. The which-clause in examples 1 and 2 makes no sense as a nonrestrictive relative clause, so it should not be surrounded by commas. It is a restrictive relative clause. In addition, in example 2, the nonrestrictive (as indicated by commas) is placed inside the subject that it goes with, but nonrestrictive modifiers cannot be inside the NP they go with.
Because the subject is long and complicated, it is natural to put a comma after it, so the best version, imo, is:
The two strands of economic theory which are used in this article, are endogenous growth and spread-backwash effects
answered 1 hour ago
Greg LeeGreg Lee
14.5k2931
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Ethan is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f489023%2fof-and-relative-pronouns%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
In theory, yes. They mean the same thing.
When you have parenthetical information, you can analyze the essential part of the sentence by removing it—and its removal should result in a still-grammatical sentence.
✔ 1. The two strands of economic theory, which are used in this article, are endogenous growth and spread-backwash effects.
→ The two strands of economic theory are endogenous growth and spread-backwash effects.
❔ 2. The two strands, which are used in this article, of economic theory are endogenous growth and spread-backwash effects.
→ The two strands of economic theory are endogenous growth and spread-backwash effects.
In theory, you can put parenthetical information anywhere because it should have no effect on the surrounding text.
However, in practice, the placement of the parenthetical information is important—regardless of the fact that its placement should have no grammatical bearing.
Here is an extreme case of parenthetical information:
✘ 3. The two strands of economic theory are endogenous growth and spread-backwash, which are used in this article, effects.
→ The two strands of economic theory are endogenous growth and spread-backwash effects.
Nobody would ever phrase the sentence in that way. Despite someone arguing that the placement doesn't matter, it certainly does matter when it comes to a reader's ability to easily parse what's being conveyed.
So, in terms of style, the first sentence in the question is more natural—despite the fact that on strict analysis they mean the same thing.
It's the more natural of the two because if you were to rephrase it as essential information, the order of the words would still make sense:
✔ The two strands of economic theory that are used in this article are endogenous growth and spread-backwash effects.
Note that it becomes essential information by removing the comma pairs and replacing which with that. (Replacing which is not as important in UK English, but removing the commas is.)
So, use the same order of words as you would if it were essential information, but use a comma pair and which rather than that:
✔ The two strands of economic theory[,] which are used in this article[,] are endogenous growth and spread-backwash effects.
answered 2 hours ago
Jason BassfordJason Bassford
18.3k32144
add a comment |
In theory, yes. They mean the same thing.
When you have parenthetical information, you can analyze the essential part of the sentence by removing it—and its removal should result in a still-grammatical sentence.
✔ 1. The two strands of economic theory, which are used in this article, are endogenous growth and spread-backwash effects.
→ The two strands of economic theory are endogenous growth and spread-backwash effects.
❔ 2. The two strands, which are used in this article, of economic theory are endogenous growth and spread-backwash effects.
→ The two strands of economic theory are endogenous growth and spread-backwash effects.
In theory, you can put parenthetical information anywhere because it should have no effect on the surrounding text.
However, in practice, the placement of the parenthetical information is important—regardless of the fact that its placement should have no grammatical bearing.
Here is an extreme case of parenthetical information:
✘ 3. The two strands of economic theory are endogenous growth and spread-backwash, which are used in this article, effects.
→ The two strands of economic theory are endogenous growth and spread-backwash effects.
Nobody would ever phrase the sentence in that way. Despite someone arguing that the placement doesn't matter, it certainly does matter when it comes to a reader's ability to easily parse what's being conveyed.
So, in terms of style, the first sentence in the question is more natural—despite the fact that on strict analysis they mean the same thing.
It's the more natural of the two because if you were to rephrase it as essential information, the order of the words would still make sense:
✔ The two strands of economic theory that are used in this article are endogenous growth and spread-backwash effects.
Note that it becomes essential information by removing the comma pairs and replacing which with that. (Replacing which is not as important in UK English, but removing the commas is.)
So, use the same order of words as you would if it were essential information, but use a comma pair and which rather than that:
✔ The two strands of economic theory[,] which are used in this article[,] are endogenous growth and spread-backwash effects.
answered 2 hours ago
Jason BassfordJason Bassford
18.3k32144
add a comment |
In theory, yes. They mean the same thing.
When you have parenthetical information, you can analyze the essential part of the sentence by removing it—and its removal should result in a still-grammatical sentence.
✔ 1. The two strands of economic theory, which are used in this article, are endogenous growth and spread-backwash effects.
→ The two strands of economic theory are endogenous growth and spread-backwash effects.
❔ 2. The two strands, which are used in this article, of economic theory are endogenous growth and spread-backwash effects.
→ The two strands of economic theory are endogenous growth and spread-backwash effects.
In theory, you can put parenthetical information anywhere because it should have no effect on the surrounding text.
However, in practice, the placement of the parenthetical information is important—regardless of the fact that its placement should have no grammatical bearing.
Here is an extreme case of parenthetical information:
✘ 3. The two strands of economic theory are endogenous growth and spread-backwash, which are used in this article, effects.
→ The two strands of economic theory are endogenous growth and spread-backwash effects.
Nobody would ever phrase the sentence in that way. Despite someone arguing that the placement doesn't matter, it certainly does matter when it comes to a reader's ability to easily parse what's being conveyed.
So, in terms of style, the first sentence in the question is more natural—despite the fact that on strict analysis they mean the same thing.
It's the more natural of the two because if you were to rephrase it as essential information, the order of the words would still make sense:
✔ The two strands of economic theory that are used in this article are endogenous growth and spread-backwash effects.
Note that it becomes essential information by removing the comma pairs and replacing which with that. (Replacing which is not as important in UK English, but removing the commas is.)
So, use the same order of words as you would if it were essential information, but use a comma pair and which rather than that:
✔ The two strands of economic theory[,] which are used in this article[,] are endogenous growth and spread-backwash effects.
answered 2 hours ago
Jason BassfordJason Bassford
18.3k32144
In theory, yes. They mean the same thing.
When you have parenthetical information, you can analyze the essential part of the sentence by removing it—and its removal should result in a still-grammatical sentence.
✔ 1. The two strands of economic theory, which are used in this article, are endogenous growth and spread-backwash effects.
→ The two strands of economic theory are endogenous growth and spread-backwash effects.
❔ 2. The two strands, which are used in this article, of economic theory are endogenous growth and spread-backwash effects.
→ The two strands of economic theory are endogenous growth and spread-backwash effects.
In theory, you can put parenthetical information anywhere because it should have no effect on the surrounding text.
However, in practice, the placement of the parenthetical information is important—regardless of the fact that its placement should have no grammatical bearing.
Here is an extreme case of parenthetical information:
✘ 3. The two strands of economic theory are endogenous growth and spread-backwash, which are used in this article, effects.
→ The two strands of economic theory are endogenous growth and spread-backwash effects.
Nobody would ever phrase the sentence in that way. Despite someone arguing that the placement doesn't matter, it certainly does matter when it comes to a reader's ability to easily parse what's being conveyed.
So, in terms of style, the first sentence in the question is more natural—despite the fact that on strict analysis they mean the same thing.
It's the more natural of the two because if you were to rephrase it as essential information, the order of the words would still make sense:
✔ The two strands of economic theory that are used in this article are endogenous growth and spread-backwash effects.
Note that it becomes essential information by removing the comma pairs and replacing which with that. (Replacing which is not as important in UK English, but removing the commas is.)
So, use the same order of words as you would if it were essential information, but use a comma pair and which rather than that:
✔ The two strands of economic theory[,] which are used in this article[,] are endogenous growth and spread-backwash effects.
answered 2 hours ago
Jason BassfordJason Bassford
18.3k32144
answered 2 hours ago
Jason BassfordJason Bassford
18.3k32144
answered 2 hours ago
Jason BassfordJason Bassford
18.3k32144
answered 2 hours ago
Jason BassfordJason Bassford
18.3k32144
18.3k32144
add a comment |
add a comment |
No, they are not correct. The which-clause in examples 1 and 2 makes no sense as a nonrestrictive relative clause, so it should not be surrounded by commas. It is a restrictive relative clause. In addition, in example 2, the nonrestrictive (as indicated by commas) is placed inside the subject that it goes with, but nonrestrictive modifiers cannot be inside the NP they go with.
Because the subject is long and complicated, it is natural to put a comma after it, so the best version, imo, is:
The two strands of economic theory which are used in this article, are endogenous growth and spread-backwash effects
answered 1 hour ago
Greg LeeGreg Lee
14.5k2931
add a comment |
No, they are not correct. The which-clause in examples 1 and 2 makes no sense as a nonrestrictive relative clause, so it should not be surrounded by commas. It is a restrictive relative clause. In addition, in example 2, the nonrestrictive (as indicated by commas) is placed inside the subject that it goes with, but nonrestrictive modifiers cannot be inside the NP they go with.
Because the subject is long and complicated, it is natural to put a comma after it, so the best version, imo, is:
The two strands of economic theory which are used in this article, are endogenous growth and spread-backwash effects
answered 1 hour ago
Greg LeeGreg Lee
14.5k2931
add a comment |
No, they are not correct. The which-clause in examples 1 and 2 makes no sense as a nonrestrictive relative clause, so it should not be surrounded by commas. It is a restrictive relative clause. In addition, in example 2, the nonrestrictive (as indicated by commas) is placed inside the subject that it goes with, but nonrestrictive modifiers cannot be inside the NP they go with.
Because the subject is long and complicated, it is natural to put a comma after it, so the best version, imo, is:
The two strands of economic theory which are used in this article, are endogenous growth and spread-backwash effects
answered 1 hour ago
Greg LeeGreg Lee
14.5k2931
No, they are not correct. The which-clause in examples 1 and 2 makes no sense as a nonrestrictive relative clause, so it should not be surrounded by commas. It is a restrictive relative clause. In addition, in example 2, the nonrestrictive (as indicated by commas) is placed inside the subject that it goes with, but nonrestrictive modifiers cannot be inside the NP they go with.
Because the subject is long and complicated, it is natural to put a comma after it, so the best version, imo, is:
The two strands of economic theory which are used in this article, are endogenous growth and spread-backwash effects
answered 1 hour ago
Greg LeeGreg Lee
14.5k2931
answered 1 hour ago
Greg LeeGreg Lee
14.5k2931
answered 1 hour ago
Greg LeeGreg Lee
14.5k2931
answered 1 hour ago
Greg LeeGreg Lee
14.5k2931
14.5k2931
add a comment |
add a comment |
Ethan is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Ethan is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Ethan is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Ethan is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f489023%2fof-and-relative-pronouns%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
