"I created a handout for clients that explains our policy."
Can someone please explain how to punctuate the above sentence? "For clients" is a prepositional phrase, and "that explains our policy" is a relative clause. Both modify "handout", so where does the comma go.
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Hi, Jacob,
@Jacob B. posted:"I created a handout for clients that explains our policy."
The sentence is correct as is, and does not require a comma. Both the prepositional phrase and the relative clause are restrictive in meaning. Notice that the first prepositional phrase could be thought of as stemming from a defining relative clause:
- I created a handout that is intended for clients.
- I created a handout that explains our policy.
- I created a handout that is intended for clients and (that) explains our policy → I created a handout for clients that explains our policy.
That makes sense. Thank you.
@Gustavo, Co-Moderator posted:Hi, Jacob,
The sentence is correct as is, and does not require a comma. Both the prepositional phrase and the relative clause are restrictive in meaning. Notice that the first prepositional phrase could be thought of as stemming from a defining relative clause:
- I created a handout that is intended for clients.
- I created a handout that explains our policy.
- I created a handout that is intended for clients and (that) explains our policy → I created a handout for clients that explains our policy.
Would it also be correct to have the prepositional phrase at the end and the relative clause next to the noun?
Example A: "There were things that the child could have put in its mouth strewn on the floor."
Or would it be more logical to reverse it.
Example B: "There were things strewn on the floor that the child could have put in its mouth."
@Jacob B. posted:Would it also be correct to have the prepositional phrase at the end and the relative clause next to the noun?
Example A: "There were things that the child could have put in its mouth strewn on the floor."
Or would it be more logical to reverse it.
Example B: "There were things strewn on the floor that the child could have put in its mouth."
Actually, "strewn on the floor" is a participial clause, not a prepositional phrase. These clauses work better immediately after the noun, without the interference of a relative clause, as in Example (B), or at the beginning:
C: Strewn on the floor were things that the child could have put in his/her mouth.
@Gustavo, Co-Moderator posted:
Actually, "strewn on the floor" is a participial clause, not a prepositional phrase. These clauses work better immediately after the noun, without the interference of a relative clause, as in Example (B)...
I'm guessing that would be true also If I removed "strewn" and made it a prepositional phrase. That all makes sense now. Thank you.
@Jacob B. posted:I'm guessing that would be true also If I removed "strewn" and made it a prepositional phrase.
Absolutely!
@Jacob B. posted:"I created a handout for clients that explains our policy."
Can someone please explain how to punctuate the above sentence? "For clients" is a prepositional phrase, and "that explains our policy" is a relative clause. Both modify "handout", so where does the comma go.
Very fruitful discussion. I agree with all of Gustavo's replies here. I'd just like to mention that another option is to use a second prepositional phrase after "for clients" instead of the relative clause. Both ways are perfectly fine, though.
@Gustavo, Co-Moderator posted:Absolutely!
Hi Gustavo, just to be clear, you were confirming that a prepositional phrase works better immediately after a noun without the interference of a relative clause?
Yes, that is exactly what I meant to say.
