brother

azz

Senior Member
armenian
a. He was talking about his brother with loads of money.
b. He was talking about his brother, with loads of money.

Are these two sentence grammaticl? Instead of "his brother who had loads of money" and "his brother, who had loads of money".
 
  • Lakeview

    Senior Member
    Canada - English
    azz said:
    a. He was talking about his brother with loads of money.
    b. He was talking about his brother, with loads of money.

    Are these two sentence grammaticl? Instead of "his brother who had loads of money" and "his brother, who had loads of money".

    Hi azz,

    The second group of sentences is grammatically correct:

    He was talking about his brother who had loads of money.
    He was talking about his brother, who had loads of money.

    I'll tell you about the distinction between the two sentences, even if you don't want to know :) . The first sentence suggests that the speaker has more than one brother, one of whom had loads of money. The second is simply more specific about the brother: among other attributes, he had a great deal of money.
     

    azz

    Senior Member
    armenian
    Thanks Lakeview,

    Don't hesitate to tell me whatever there is to know about the English language. Assume I want to know.

    But, I knew the second group was correct. My question was about the sentences a and b. The ones that have "with".
     

    Lakeview

    Senior Member
    Canada - English
    azz said:
    Thanks Lakeview,

    Don't hesitate to tell me whatever there is to know about the English language. Assume I want to know.

    But, I knew the second group was correct. My question was about the sentences a and b. The ones that have "with".

    Sorry--writing the other two down was my way of saying that neither of the sentences with "with" sounds correct. I suppose either could be used colloquially, but I wouldn't ;) .

    If you really want to use "with", I would suggest:

    "He was talking about his brother, the one with loads of money."
     

    te gato

    Senior Member
    Alberta--TGE (te gato English)
    azz said:
    a. He was talking about his brother with loads of money.
    b. He was talking about his brother, with loads of money.

    Are these two sentence grammaticl? Instead of "his brother who had loads of money" and "his brother, who had loads of money".
    Hi azz;
    I feel the same as Lakeview;

    to me..when you say the sentences..it leaves you wondering "WHO" has the money...the person talking or the brother...

    To use the word "with" the sentence has to be reworked..as was stated...

    te gato;)
     

    VenusEnvy

    Senior Member
    English, United States
    azz said:
    a. He was talking about his brother with loads of money.
    b. He was talking about his brother, with loads of money.

    I agree with Lake and TeGato. Neither one of these sentences sounds complete.

    I was taught to ask myself questions about the sentence. This is my mental process:

    Ex. He was talking about his teacher with an accent.
    What was he doing? Talking
    About what? His teacher
    How was he talking? With an accent

    Ex: He was talking about his teacher, the one with an accent.
    What was he doing? Talking
    About what? His teacher
    Which one? The one with an accent

    Ex: He was talking about his teacher, who had an accent.
    What was he doing? Talking
    About what? His teacher
    Which one? The one who had an accent

    Azz: I hope this is clear, and that I have explained myself well. If you have any other questions, just ask! :)
     

    azz

    Senior Member
    armenian
    Thanks VenusEnvy,
    I had the same feeling, but I am not a native speaker. Your analysis seems fine to me, but the thing is that I think this sentence is really ambiguous:

    A. He was talking to the man with an accent.

    I'd say most probably it is the man who has an accent.' the man who had an accent"
    On the other hand in:

    B. He was talking to the man, with an accent.

    I think he was talking with an accent. I doubt that we can consider "with an accent" as a non-restrictive clause, ie as meaning the same as "the man, who had an accent."
    What do you think?
     

    Artrella

    Banned
    BA
    Spanish-Argentina
    azz said:
    a. He was talking about his brother with loads of money.
    b. He was talking about his brother, with loads of money.

    Are these two sentence grammaticl? Instead of "his brother who had loads of money" and "his brother, who had loads of money".

    Hi azz!


    a >> seems as if his brother had loads of money

    b <<< it seems that the person who was talking had loads of money

    You need to say "who" no matter if you write a comma or not. If not your sentences are ambiguous.
     

    Lakeview

    Senior Member
    Canada - English
    azz said:
    Thanks VenusEnvy,
    I had the same feeling, but I am not a native speaker. Your analysis seems fine to me, but the thing is that I think this sentence is really ambiguous:

    A. He was talking to the man with an accent.

    I'd say most probably it is the man who has an accent.' the man who had an accent"
    On the other hand in:

    B. He was talking to the man, with an accent.

    I think he was talking with an accent. I doubt that we can consider "with an accent" as a non-restrictive clause, ie as meaning the same as "the man, who had an accent."
    What do you think?

    I hope VenusEnvy will pardon me for the intrusion, but I think in general you're right in this case, azz. However, this particular sentence sounds overly truncated. I would be more likely to say "He was talking to the man, and/but was speaking with an accent."
     

    VenusEnvy

    Senior Member
    English, United States
    Lake: I agree with you. That is why I think the sentence needed to be tweeked a little. By the end of this thread, I will be having nightmares about "He was talking to the man with an accent......" lol

    azz said:
    I doubt that we can consider "with an accent" as a non-restrictive clause, ie as meaning the same as "the man, who had an accent."
    What do you think?

    I don't think that "with" can introduce a non-restrictive clause. The words who, whom, which, whose, and (on some conditions), that. I also believe that a non-restrictive clause does demand a comma.
     

    azz

    Senior Member
    armenian
    Thank you all!
    There's no point in delving any further into this matter! I don't want you to have nightmares. So I wish you a good night, with a smile, and a foreign accent!!
     

    Lakeview

    Senior Member
    Canada - English
    VenusEnvy said:
    Lake: I agree with you. That is why I think the sentence needed to be tweeked a little. By the end of this thread, I will be having nightmares about "He was talking to the man with an accent......" lol

    Could there be a worse nightmare :eek: :D ? And from what little I know about non-restrictive clauses, I agree with your assessment. A grammarian I'm not, though :) .

    Azz, I should clarify that I think you're right when you say that "the man, with an accent" is not equivalent to "the man, who had an accent" in this particular instance.
     

    gaer

    Senior Member
    US-English
    azz said:
    a. He was talking about his brother with loads of money.
    b. He was talking about his brother, with loads of money.

    Are these two sentence grammaticl? Instead of "his brother who had loads of money" and "his brother, who had loads of money".
    If you change one word in your first sentence, it will work:

    Question: He has two brothers. One is rich, the other is poor. Which one was he talking about?

    Answer: He was talking about the brother with loads of money.
     
    Top