The subject/object of "which" (Grammar)

[Dagl1]

Hi, 

I've been searching online but have not managed to find an answer to my question (most likely due using search terms that lead to unrelated answers). When using "which" in the the case of:

Rule 2b. Which introduces a nonessential clause (also known as a nonrestrictive or nondefining clause), which adds supplementary information.

Example: The product claiming "all natural ingredients," which appeared in the Sunday newspaper, is on sale.
The product is already identified. Therefore, which appeared in the Sunday newspaper is a nonessential clause containing additional, but not essential, information.

 

In this usage of "which", are there any defined rules for what "which" points too? In the following example, "which" does not point to the last named noun, but instead to the subject of the sentence, this to me seems wrong, but I could not find any rules that point out if such a thing is okay or not.

SCP-4380 secretes protein-rich fluid containing reproductive spores, which is often transported by insects. [Bold & underline by me]

 

Due to the usage of "is" it is clear that which points towards the "fluid" and not to "spores". Is this usage of "which" okay? How would one distinguish if "spores" became singular?

Kind regards,
Dagl

Source of pasted rule 2b: https://www.grammarbook.com/grammar/whoVwhVt.asp

Source of example sentence: http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-4380 

Edit: I am not sure if this (Other Sciences) is the right place to post this, if we do have a linguistics subforum then this should be there.

Edited September 28, 2019 by Dagl1

[studiot]

1 hour ago, Dagl1 said:

are there any defined rules for what "which" points too?

Fair question.

 

No I don't think there are any hard and fast rules, English is sometimes very flexible.

Looking through some definitions on the internet I see that no one seems to include that old requirement

A sentence is more than just a group of words which includes subject and a verb.

A sentence has to make sense.

"Earthworms twist uphill."

Is just a collection of random words that do not form a sentence.

 

Referring now to your example question

1 hour ago, Dagl1 said:

SCP-4380 secretes protein-rich fluid containing reproductive spores, which is often transported by insects. [Bold & underline by me]

 

Due to the usage of "is" it is clear that which points towards the "fluid" and not to "spores". Is this usage of "which" okay? How would one distinguish if "spores" became singular?

Yes I think that is technically correct, since the singular and plural distinguishes in this case.

But you are right to point out that such a situation is not always the case.

But it is poor style, as the which clause seems added as an afterthought.

In such cases the standard advice is to either break the prose up into more sentences.

Or to reorder the words.

 

 

SCP-4380 secretes protein-rich fluid,  often transported by an insect, containing a reproductive spore.

Technically correct, but ambiguous and clumsy.

Better to add a connective

SCP-4380 secretes protein-rich fluid,  often transported by an insect and containing a reproductive spore.

or better use of 'which'

SCP-4380 secretes protein-rich fluid,  which contains a reproductive spore and is often transported by an insect.

Alternatively change to two sentences.

SCP-4380 secretes protein-rich fluid,  which contains a reproductive spore. The fluid is often transported by an insect.

Notes

 I assume that it is the fluid, not the SCP-4380, which contains the spore.

I have changed to singular to remove the singular plural distinguishing information.

 

 

 

[Dagl1]

@studiot Thanks for the reply

I also assume that the fluid contains the spores, but to be fair, in the way that it's written it could of course be interpreted in either way (although logically it will be the fluid and not the SCP itself). 

The way you have rewritten the sentences is similar to how I would have done so, but I am surprised that there is not a clear rule that is easily found on the internet. 

[studiot]

36 minutes ago, Dagl1 said:

is not a clear rule that is easily found on the internet. 

The best things are found in a bottle marked Laphroaig or a bottle marked Schnaps, not on the internet.

 

[Strange]

4 hours ago, Dagl1 said:

In this usage of "which", are there any defined rules for what "which" points too? In the following example, "which" does not point to the last named noun, but instead to the subject of the sentence, this to me seems wrong, but I could not find any rules that point out if such a thing is okay or not.

SCP-4380 secretes protein-rich fluid containing reproductive spores, which is often transported by insects. [Bold & underline by me]

 

Due to the usage of "is" it is clear that which points towards the "fluid" and not to "spores". Is this usage of "which" okay? How would one distinguish if "spores" became singular?

There are no simple rues for determining this (or the more general case of pronouns). As you say, the most recent antecedent is usually what is referred to. But that may be changed by context. So, for example, in this case, the use of "is" make it impossible for "spores" to be the antecedent so the next closest seem the obvious choice. (Actually, I would say it is the whole noun phrase " fluid containing reproductive spores".) But is could be the SCP-4380 (whatever that is).

Quote

Source of pasted rule 2b: https://www.grammarbook.com/grammar/whoVwhVt.asp

The rule is not completely correct. It is not the choice of "that" or "which" that determines whether the clause is restrictive or not. It is actually the presence of the comma. "That" is nearly always used with restrictive clauses but "which" can be used for either. (But because someone invented that style rule, people tend to prefer "which" for non-restrictive clauses.)

 

1 hour ago, studiot said:

SCP-4380 secretes protein-rich fluid,  often transported by an insect, containing a reproductive spore.

Technically correct, but ambiguous and clumsy.

I would not say that is correct, or at least, doesn't have the same meaning. It says that the insect contains a spore.

 

[Dagl1]

@strange SCP is a wonderful community written fictional universe, where things are written as SCP-xxxx articles (as if researchers write about SCP's in-universe). SCP stands for secure, contain, protect. And each SCP is an anomalous object, with specific containment procedures and lore behind it.

It remains strange that clear rules are not present for such (grammar) things, but I suppose it is the same as for adjective order; wooden blue big table sounds strange, big blue wooden table does not (IMO) (there are only guidelines for adjective order as far as I know).

Edited September 28, 2019 by Dagl1
Added a few words and punctuation

[studiot]

2 hours ago, studiot said:

Technically correct, but ambiguous and clumsy.

I said it was ambiguous and clumsy.

So offered better.

However I'm sure others will be able to offer equally good alternatives.

That is the beauty of the english language.

18 minutes ago, Dagl1 said:

It remains strange that clear rules are not present for such things, but it is the same as for adjective order wooden blue big table sounds strange, big blue wooden table does not (IMO) (there are only guidelines for adjective order as far as I know).

Both seem strange when you are underneath it after the Laphroaig.

 

[Strange]

15 minutes ago, Dagl1 said:

@strange SCP is a wonderful community written fictional universe, where things are written as SCP-xxxx articles (as if researchers write about SCP's in-universe). SCP stands for secure, contain, protect. And each SCP is an anomalous object, with specific containment procedures and lore behind it.

Oh yes, I have come across it before. Never really got into it, though. (I looked at the page the sample sentence came from and, although I have no problem with that specific sentence, there are some really awkward examples there.)

18 minutes ago, Dagl1 said:

It remains strange that clear rules are not present for such things, but it is the same as for adjective order wooden blue big table sounds strange, big blue wooden table does not (IMO) (there are only guidelines for adjective order as far as I know).

Exactly. Natural language is not readily codified. We can determine some rules that usually apply, but there are always exceptions. And the "rules" are descriptions or how people use that language, rather than rules for how it "works" or must be used.

[Dagl1]

Some SCP's are written much better than others (the benefit and disadvantage of having many writers that can all submit their work). 

I know that Laphroaig is a drink, but I am really not getting it;p are we comparing rules in language with alcoholism or something like that?? 

 

[studiot]

13 minutes ago, Dagl1 said:

Some SCP's are written much better than others (the benefit and disadvantage of having many writers that can all submit their work). 

I know that Laphroaig is a drink, but I am really not getting it;p are we comparing rules in language with alcoholism or something like that?? 

 

Never mind it was a joke.