This question seems to have opened the pandora's box
To sum it all up!!
EXCEPTION TO COMMA + WHICH RULEWhich, who, where - are noun modifiers - and noun modifiers, by definition,
have to touch the noun they modifyThe best approach here is to think of "which" as a special modifier that attaches even more strongly to the noun than other modifiers. As a result, unlike most modifiers, "which” isn’t as easy to separate from its noun by an intervening modifier? In ALMOST ALL cases, you are safe to eliminate any answer where the "which" doesn't refer to the word immediately preceding it regardless of whatever else is going on.
Exception. . .when nouns that are modified by prepositional phrases (Preposition = of, above) ---> If, in “X preposition Y” construction ,”Y” can GRAMMATICALLY be the referent of “, which” then pick Y, else pick “X” (noun) or “X preposition Y” (noun phrase)
Examples . . . 1) The
picture of my brothers,
which was taken last year in Mexico, is one of my favorites
- Which cannot refer to brother, because brother needs “who”, so which can only refer to Picture in this case.
2) The
picture above my fireplace,
which was taken last year in Mexico , is my favorite
- Fireplace could not have been taken
3) Emily Dickinson’s
letters to Susan Huntington Dickinson,
which were written . . .
Pictorially speaking. . . See attached image. . . Summary. . . - DO NOT extend this pattern to prepositional phrases in which the object-of-preposition COULD ACTUALLY BE the antecedent of "which” i.e. in “X preposition Y”, Y could be antecedent of “which”
- Also,
comma + which refers noun immediately preceding it or
at best can refer to "noun phrase" represented by “X preposition Y”. But it
can never refer back to "whole clause" . . .
Damn. . . this crazy!!
Target760
Attachments
pic.jpg [ 8.88 KiB | Viewed 2357 times ]