View Single Post
Old 09-02-2015, 01:55 PM
frisco kid frisco kid is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 230
Grammar Bytes! :: The Subordinate Clause

Relative Clauses - The Writing Center

Non-restrictive Relative Clauses

This type of relative clause merely provides extra information. This information may be quite interesting and important to the larger conversation, but it is not essential for precise identification of the noun. “That” cannot be used as a relative pronoun in a non-restrictive relative clause. Commas are always used at the beginning and end of this type of relative clause.

A non-restrictive relative clause can modify a single noun, a noun phrase, or an entire proposition.

My mother is thinking of opening a restaurant. My mother is an excellent cook.

“My mother” is already a clearly defined noun, so the second sentence becomes a non-restrictive relative clause set off by commas on both sides.

My mother, who is an excellent cook, is thinking of opening a restaurant.

Restrictive Relative Clauses

Restrictive relative clauses give information that defines the noun—information that’s necessary for complete identification of the noun. Use “that” or “which” for non-human nouns; use “that” or “who” for human nouns. Do not use commas.

I like the paintings. (Which paintings? We can’t clearly identify them without the relative clause.)

So we add the clause:

The paintings hang in the SASB North lobby.

I like the paintings that hang in the SASB North lobby.

Defining and non-defining Relative clauses - that, which


Note that nonrestrictive and restrictive clauses must be introduced by the appropriate relative pronoun.

In correct usage that is always used to indicate restrictive clauses and which to indicate nonrestrictive ones.

Restrictive clauses should NEVER be set off with commas and nonrestrictive clauses ALWAYS should.

These are comments by someone who wishes to distort the English language with obvious falsehoods and propaganda.

What Did the 14th Amendment Congress Think about "Birthright Citizenship"? - Online Library of Law & Liberty

The author here completely misquotes Senator Howard. According to Pullman, Senator Howard said the following: “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers…..”

The author of the article emphasized that 'or' was needed. I pointed out that it wasn't necessary because it was spoken and transcribed as a series of four: foreigners, aliens, ambassadors or foreign ministers.

However, the conjunction “or,” which Pullman places in brackets, never appeared in the original text. I’m sure he inserted the [or[ for the purpose of clarification, but by inserting the conjunction, Pullman unwittingly changes the grammar–and hence the meaning–of the sentence.

According to the original, unedited (AHEM) text, the phrase “foreigners and aliens” does not mean all foreigners and aliens, but only those “who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States.” Otherwise, the word “who” would be preceded by a conjunction such as “or” (which Pullman helpfully added to aid his case). Grammatically speaking, the absence of a conjunction in the unedited text demonstrates that the phrase “who belong to the families of ambassadors…” is an appositive phrase, which means that it modifies the preceding phrase “foreigners and aliens.”

This is nonsense. Appositives do not contain verbs. They are both relative clauses, the second being non-restrictive.

Here’s an example of a sentence that is parallel to the original (unedited) sentence by Howard: “Children, who are smart, who are good at sports, do well in life.” Like the original quote of Howard, this sentence contains two consecutive “who” clauses without any intervening conjunction. The absence of a conjunction means that the phrase “who are good at sports” is referring to the same children “who are smart.” If you wanted to refer to an additional or different set of children, you would need a conjunction, in addition to some other indication that you are referring to an additional set of children. E.g., “Children who are smart and children who are good at sports do well in life.”

This appears to be an example of stacking two non-restrictives, which is incorrect. It would read something like this; "Children, who are smart, and good at sports, should do well in life."

who are foreigners, aliens, & who belong to the families of, are identifying the subject and predicate: persons born in the United States.

Additionally, this interpretation is consistent with the phrase that follows, which is extremely broad: “but will include every other class of persons.” It would not make sense to include such a broad phrase if all foreigners and aliens were excluded. In other words, “under the jurisdiction thereof” is meant to be a narrow exception to the rule that all persons born in the US are US citizens, but under their interpretation, the exception swallows the rule. In short, Howard’s statement is clearly referring to the so-called “diplomatic exception.”

Adding the conjunction still requires a comma after aliens, in order to set off the non-restrictive clause. The word THAT (Belong) is needed to remove the comma to make it one restrictive clause.

This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners or aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

Birthright Citizenship read

Tenth Amendment Center Blog | Does the 14th Amendment Grant Citizenship to Children of Foreigners?

Who are the subjects of a foreign power? Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.” Thus, the statute can be read as All persons born in the United States who are not alien, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.

Sen. Trumbull stated during the drafting of the above national birthright law debates that it was the goal to “make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States,” and if “the negro or white man belonged to a foreign Government he would not be a citizen.”

Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (39th Congress), James F. Wilson of Iowa, confirmed on March 1, 1866 that children under this class of aliens would not be citizens: “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.”

Framer of the Fourteenth Amendments first section, John Bingham, said Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes meant “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” If this statute merely reaffirmed the old common law rule of citizenship by birth then the condition of the parents would be entirely irrelevant.

An appositive can come before or after the main noun and it can be at the beginning, middle, or end of a sentence, as long as it sits beside the noun it defines. As a noun phrase, an appositive does not have a subject or predicate, and is not a complete thought.

Last edited by frisco kid; 11-01-2018 at 06:31 PM.
Reply With Quote