Korean Job Discussion Forums

[raewon]

I have two questions about the following sentence:

It must be something in your house, that you already own.

1) In this case is "that" functioning as a relative pronoun?

2) I believe that the comma is required.

Would this sentence be correct without the comma?

Thank you for any replies.

[T-Bone]

The comma is completely incorrect in this sentence. A comma is used for a dependent clause (among other things).

Native speakers often make this mistake -- it is reflective of the way native speakers think. In your mind (or in speech) you would make that pause, but it is punctually incorrect in a written sentence. The sentence without a comma is correct.

(See what I did with the comma there?)

It may "feel" wrong to exclude the comma, but that is because you are used to writing the way you think.

Based on the wiki article on relative pronouns, I believe you are correct (about "that" in you example). As you are aware, the wikipedia is the infallible source of all human knowledge.

[raewon]

Thanks for your reply.

I guess I think aloud and sometimes forget to ignore the use a comma when you need to pause "rule."

[ChilgokBlackHole]

[raewon]

Thanks for your reply ChilgokBlackHole.

The intention is for "that you already own" to refer back to the "something". Does that mean that T-Bone's reply is incorrect and my so-called intuition was right?

[raewon]

So it's 1:1. Does anyone want to take sides?

[Hawkeye Pierce]

[ChilgokBlackHole]

[Hawkeye Pierce]