BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

SC -Q- restrictive clause

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Locked
Previous Topic Next Topic
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 77
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 7:14 pm
Thanked: 1 times

SC -Q- restrictive clause

by Chinn_asama » Sun Aug 11, 2013 9:13 pm
Hi there

Here is a sentence from a Project syndicate article.

"central bankers focused single-mindedly on price stability, though the costs of somewhat higher inflation would have been miniscule compared to the havoc wrought by the financial excesses that they allowed, if not encouraged."

Why is there a comma before the subordinate conjunction 'though'?

Is it because it is not a restrictive clause. can anyone explain the concept of restrictive and non restrictive clauses?

Regards
chinna
Top
Source: — Sentence Correction |
Legendary Member
Posts: 544
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2010 8:10 am
Thanked: 45 times
Followed by:2 members

by sameerballani » Sun Aug 11, 2013 10:47 pm
Chinn_asama wrote:Hi there

Here is a sentence from a Project syndicate article.

"central bankers focused single-mindedly on price stability, though the costs of somewhat higher inflation would have been miniscule compared to the havoc wrought by the financial excesses that they allowed, if not encouraged."

Why is there a comma before the subordinate conjunction 'though'?

Is it because it is not a restrictive clause. can anyone explain the concept of restrictive and non restrictive clauses?

Regards
chinna
Read it as :

ALTHOUGH the costs of somewhat higher inflation would have been miniscule compared to the havoc wrought by the financial excesses that they allowed, if not encouraged, central bankers focused single-mindedly on price stability.

This sentence focuses on the contrasting nature of 2 clauses :
1)The costs of somewhat higher inflation would have been miniscule compared to the havoc wrought by the financial excesses that they allowed, if not encouraged.
STILL
2)Central bankers focused single-mindedly on price stability
If my post was helpful, then please click "Thank".
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 77
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 7:14 pm
Thanked: 1 times

by Chinn_asama » Mon Aug 12, 2013 8:33 am
Hi there

I read somewhere that a comma does not go before a subordinate conjunction. that's why the Q.

Thanks
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 544
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2010 8:10 am
Thanked: 45 times
Followed by:2 members

by sameerballani » Mon Aug 12, 2013 9:45 am
Chinn_asama wrote:Hi there

I read somewhere that a comma does not go before a subordinate conjunction. that's why the Q.

Thanks
I disagree.. I believe its actually the comma which decides whether the clause is restricitive/essential or non-restrictive/non-essential.

Eg:
1) The house THAT is painted red belongs to Sam.
THAT is attached to house without any comma.
The meaning of this sentence is that: Out of all the houses, ONLY the one which is of red color belongs to Sam.

2) This house, which is painted red, belongs to Sam.
The phrase starting with WHICH is attached to House, however it is enclosed within commas. This depicts it is NON-ESSENTIAL and generally brings ADDITIONAL INFO.
The meaning of this sentence is: This house belongs to Sam.
"WHICH IS PAINTED RED": gives additional info about THIS HOUSE.

I hope this helps !!
If my post was helpful, then please click "Thank".
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 77
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 7:14 pm
Thanked: 1 times

by Chinn_asama » Wed Aug 14, 2013 9:40 am
Hi there

Here is a general Q about 'that' usage. Whenever I see 'that' in sentences, I get confused thinking if it is a indirect speech sentence or just a reporter writing in past tense. Could you please explain little about it.

Thanks
Top
Post new topic Locked
• Page 1 of 1