|
Re: English grammar question
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
Hep
I'm writing some important text, and I've found that I often end up needing to write something like:
"bla bla bla X, which is bla bla bla" - that is, using "which" to refer to something I just wrote. However, sometimes "X" would be an entire sentence, or at least a part of a sentence, as in: "...any further concerns of the decision maker, which should be addressed by...".
Now, one of my co-authors told me that "which" always refers back to the thing immediately before it ("the decision maker" in the previous example), and I'm wondering if this is true? Any native English speakers that can confirm/debunk this postulate?
"I'm having an awful time adjusting to a life without my sumo-robot. It's terrible!" - how the heck do you decide whether "it" refers to the robot, the awful time, the life without the robot, or simply the fact that I'm having an awful time adjusting to the life without my electric friend? And in the latter case, how would you rephrase this, without it turning into an linguistic elephant?
|
An english teacher would tell you that's wrong right off the bat because "It's terrible!" is a sentence fragment. U dont even need the "It's terrible," the sentence has the same sense without it.
I say if a reader wouldn't be able to tell what your "which" is referring to, it's a shitty sentence and you should reword it.
|