Skip to main content

meaning - Should this be a restrictive or non-restrictive relative clause?


Which makes more sense in American English?


The non-restrictive relative clause:



The bed has a thickness, which may be adjustable.



versus the restrictive relative clause:



The bed has a thickness that may be adjustable.



The use of the word may suggests to me that it is non-restrictive, however, I feel like it is more correctly written as a restrictive clause. Are both acceptable, and if so, how do their meanings differ? The meaning I desire, is a bed with a thickness, that may or may not be adjustable (i.e., the bed's adjustability is not determined).



These sentences don't make much sense, that is because I took a much longer sentence and both genericized it and stripped it down to the the portion that applied to my question. I think the key point is if the relative clause contains words like may or could that make the clause optional, does it make sense to ever use the restrictive clause?



Answer



The second one (restrictive) more correctly communicates your meaning. All mattresses have "a thickness." So there is nothing about that sentence that provides value without the addition of the subsequent clause. The sentence "The mattress has thickness" is grammatically correct but semantically awkward. That is why the first example ("The mattress has thickness, which may be adjustable") sounds incorrect to your ear.


Compare this to:



  • The pot has a lid, which may be scratched.

  • The pot has a lid that may be scratched.


Both of these "sound okay" to my ear, because pots may or may not have lids -- but the shade of meaning is different (just as it's different in your example). In the first, you are definitively stating the presence of the pot's lid, and then subsequently mentioning the scratch as an "oh-by-the-way." In the second sentence, you are mentioning the lid only because you want to specifically talk about how it might be scratched.


Since the possibility of being adjusted is fundamental to your sentence's meaning, a restrictive clause is more appropriate.


Edit: In response to your edit, in which you ask about the impact of "may" on any general restrictive clause, I would say that it doesn't have any impact. What matters is whether that clause is intrinsic to the quality described or not. The questionable adjustability of the mattress is either a necessary descriptor of the thickness or it's merely additional interesting information. The fact that the adjustability happens to be questionable ("may") is irrelevant.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

A man has a garden measuring 84 meters by 56 meters. He divides it into the minimum number of square plots. What is the length of the square plots?

We wish to divide this man's garden into the minimum number of square plots possible. A square has all four sides with the same length.Our garden is a rectangle, so the answer is clearly not 1 square plot. If we choose the wrong length for our squares, we may end up with missing holes or we may not be able to fit our squares inside the garden. So we have 84 meters in one direction and 56 meters in the other direction. When we start dividing the garden in square plots, we are "filling" those lengths in their respective directions. At each direction, there must be an integer number of squares (otherwise, we get holes or we leave the garden), so that all the square plots fill up the garden nicely. Thus, our job here is to find the greatest common divisor of 84 and 56. For this, we prime factor both of them: `56 = 2*2*2*7` `84 = 2*2*3*7` We can see that the prime factors and multiplicities in common are `2*2*7 = 28` . This is the desired length of the square plots. If you wi...
Post a Comment
Read more

What warning does Chuchundra issue to Rikki?

Chuchundra, the sniveling, fearful muskrat who creeps around walls because he is too terrified to go into the center of a room, meets Rikki in the middle of the night. He insults Rikki by begging him not to kill him. He then insults him by suggesting that Nag might mistake Chuchundra for Rikki. He says, "Those who kill snakes get killed by snakes."  He issues this warning to Rikki not to help keep Rikki safe but as a way of explaining why Rikki's presence gives him, Chuchundra, more reason to fear.  Chuchundra starts to tell Rikki what Chua the rat told him--but breaks it off when he realizes he might be overheard by Nag. He says, "Nag is everywhere, Rikki-Tikki." Rikki threatens to bite Chuchundra to get him to talk. Even then, Chuchundra won't overtly reveal any information. But he does say, "Can't you hear, Rikki-Tikki?" This is enough of a clue for the clever mongoose. He listens carefully and can just make out the "faintest scratch-s...
Post a Comment
Read more