Hi, I’m confused with this:
Venice, which/where we visited last year, is a nice place.
where seems more correct to me but as ‘visit’ requires no preposition I think the other is also correct.
‘Which’ is more natural, though ‘where’ is sometimes used.
But was my analysis correct? And what if we use arrived in instead of visited?
Your analysis was not correctm, because ‘which’ is the most natural. ‘Where’ is not commonly used.
‘arrived’ would not make sense with either ‘which’ or ‘where’.
thank u beesnees for the answer
In my opinion,
‘Venice, that we visited last year, is a nice place,’ could be better and
‘Venice, we visited last year, is a nice place,’ could be the best option this time.
Agree?
Thanks
No,
Venice, which we visited last year, is a nice place. is the best option.
Your last sentence is not grammatically correct.
This sentence is not grammatically correct. As a relative pronoun, ‘that’ cannot be used in non-restrictive relative clause.
Why not Bee?
Venice, where we arrived last year, is a nice place.
In this sentence, “where” = in which or which…arrived in, I think.
My point was just that ‘where’ is used when the verb preceded requires a preposition.
Hi E2e4. Your suggestions were also among my exercise’s suggestions, which are not correct.
"Why not’ what?
If this is in response to this post:
then please note that it was a reply to E2, and his last sentence ‘Venice, we visited last year, is a nice place,’ is not correct.
I haven’t said you are unable to use ‘where’ - just that it is not as common as ‘which’ See post #2.
Venice - we visited last year - is a nice place.
Thanks
That sounds really awkward. It is really best to stop trying to make your idea fit the grammar. The terms would naturally be separated:
We visited Venice last year, it is a nice place.
Venice is a nice place. We visited it last year.
[color=violet]If I hadn’t tried I wouldn’t have gotten your the last answer, would I?
I also thought about this answer below consisting of two sentences,
“We visited Venice last year. It is a very nice place.”
because
“We visited Venice, which we visited last year, is a nice place.” I don’t see literally perfect sentence.
Thanks
No Bee. I mean the reply from you to me. Why ‘arrived’ was not possible? As ‘arrived’ can be used with ‘at’ or ‘in’, where can be used instead of in which and that does make sense to me.
Dear E2e4, we normally use such a clause when the subjects are the same
‘arrived’ is the wrong verb. It does not have the same meaning as ‘visited’.
I agree with Bees. Let’s do some “math”, shall we?
The proposition “Venice, where we arrived last year, is a nice place.” does not hold because:
(1) ‘arrive’ is an “open-descriptive” verb. That is, a description cannot be really completed by a sentence involving such a verb alone. For instance, a supplement should always be made to complete the description as: we arrived in Venice yesterday, and went sightseeing/shopping/etc. Here, succeeding events (sightseeing/shopping/etc.) are always expected from the context or by the reader.
(2) ‘visit’ is a “closed-descriptive” verb. An event can be described in a completed manner by the verb without any contextual expectation. In other words, ‘visit’ has included every activity: ‘arrive’, ‘go shopping’, etc.
Therefore, in your example, ‘where we arrived last year’ (a “very incomplete” description) modifying “Venice is a nice place” (a “very complete” declaration) would give the reader a very incomplete “kick-in”.
Hope this helps a little.
Well, so, the difference between arrived and visited is just like that between been and gone in present perfect? Sorry James, I’m not versed in Maths. In contrast, I don’t even remember some simple terms that a student of my age should know like explicit function, trigonometry, analytics…et cetera. So, please don’t mention it.