Which or not which (I saw my houses which had been...)

English as a Second Language English Vocabulary, Grammar and Idioms
1

Please read:

a.
I saw my houses which had been destroyed by the storm.

b.
I saw my houses, which had been destroyed by the storm.

Are they both correct only one of them is correct? Please tell me the diffrfence in meaning.

Thanks

2

Hi

In my understanding, in (a) you mean seeing ALL your houses destoyed (and can equally use that),
whereas in the second - only those (of your houses) that had been actually destoyed.

Generally about which-that and the proper punctualtion (commas), take a look, for example, here:

rightwords.co.nz/that.html

3

Thanks,

But you know, when I write:

I saw my houses which had been destroyed by the storm.

Most of people add “,” after “houses” and I don’t know why :?

The " saw my houses which had been destroyed by the storm" is wrong in grammar???

Thanks
K

4

I can only say that I, personally :), often put extra commas (doing punctuation mistakes and distorting the meaning of English sentences) only because in my first language participal phrase/clause (as well as dangling participle, like storm [,] destroying my houses) ALWAYS should be enclosed in commas – without exceptions.

5

Thanks

6

Hi,

So, If I have 3 houses and I saw all my 3 houses destroyed, in this case , when I write:

I saw my houses which had been destroyed by the storm.

You can’t correct into:

I saw my houses, which had been destroyed by the storm. (in the mentioned situation)

OK?

Thanks

7

I’m not sure whether the use of comma is correct or not in the mentioned situation (when you you see all your houses, all of them have been destroyed and 3 = 3 :slight_smile: )

In this case I consider both are acceptable (with a bit different emphasis), but I’m not native.
Let’s wait :slight_smile:

8

Ok,

We wait together.
:?
Bye.
K

9

You may place comma if my houses, which had been destroyed is attributive relative clause. So, it’s up to you to make a right choice. Make a try :wink: