RohitSaluja
1. John held parties for his kids that featured clowns, numerous exotic animals, and lots of food
2. John held parties in his house that featured clowns, numerous exotic animals, and lots of food
Hi
VeritasKarishma, hope you are doing well!
Can you please help me with the above two sentences, based on my understanding in both of the above sentences 'that' illogically modifies kids and house in first and second sentences. My reasoning is below. 'that' most of the time modifies a noun immediately preceding it, and only in cases when a noun is modified restrictively by a prepositional phrase, 'that' can jump over to modify the correct noun. Now, in both of the above two cases, 'for his kids' and 'in his house' can be placed at the end of the sentence such as 'John held parties that featured clowns, numerous exotic animals, and lots of food for his kids' without changing the meaning of the sentence, thus in this case 'that' illogically modifies 'kids' and not parties in the first sentence and same goes for B. Please let me know if my understanding is correct.
How you choose to write will depend on what message you want to convey.
John held parties for his kids that featured clowns, numerous exotic animals, and lots of food.Tells u that John held parties for his kids. Logically only parties can feature clowns etc. "Kids" cannot feature clowns etc. You can write the same thing as "For his kids, John held parties that featured ..."
John held parties that featured clowns, numerous exotic animals, and lots of food for his kids.Tells us that John held parties. The parties used to feature clowns, animals and lots of food for his kids.
What works best depends on the given options.
Logically only parties can feature clowns etc. "Kids" cannot feature clowns etc
So does this mean that in the first sentence 'that' correctly modifies party and not kids?