Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums

[rice07]

Hi

Except noun subordinate clauses,as far as I am aware that "that clauses" don't come immediately after comma(,), when they're served as adjective subordinate clauses in compound sentences.

E.g.1 She is the girl ,that I've told you about.(incorrect)
=> She is the girl that I've told you about.

E.g.2 They only used anonymity as a last resort,when they had exhausted all other possible venues and felt,on moral grounds,that they needed to expose a great wrong.
=>"that they needed...wrong" is a noun subordinate clause served as the object of verb felt.

E.g.3 With some exceptions,what the great majority of those sources have in common is the fact that,unlike their predecessors,none of them would face danger,retribution or imprisonment if their identity were exposed.
=>"that,none of them would...exposed." is a noun subordinate clause refering to the fact .

In e.g.3 we could see "that" going right before comma(,). So I wonder whether this structure can apply to adjective subordinate clauses ?(e.g. She is the girl that,I've told you about.=>? perhaps I got an extreme thought?)

Could someone help me with this problem?

[asterix]

You are correct on #1.

#2 ---The commas serve to separate the phrase, "on moral grounds". If you leave out that phrase then you don't need the commas.

#3---The commas serve to separate the phrase, "unlike their predecessors".
If you leave out that phrase, you don't need the commas.

[rice07]

Hi Asterix
Thanks for your reply!
According to you,it seems to imply that you don't recommend there're commas between those main clauses and "that clauses",even "that clauses" are noun subordinate clauses without phrases ahead of them.

To be frank with you,as yet I remember not reading structure like "She's the girl that , I've told you about.".So it's just a passing thought of mine.Anyway,thanks again!