Discussion:
John who is drunk
Add Reply
a***@gmail.com
2017-04-16 09:05:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
1) If you hear some strange noises from downstairs, don't panic. It is not
a burglar breaking into the house. It is John who is drunk.

2) If you hear some strange noises from downstairs, don't panic. It is not
a burglar breaking into the house. It is John who has had too much to drink.

Are these grammatical?
Are they idiomatic?

Would a comma after John be correct?

I think the idea is to speak of John in a drunken state and the comma would
not be correct. His being drunk is essential information.

Gratefully,
Navi.
Harrison Hill
2017-04-16 10:30:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) If you hear some strange noises from downstairs, don't panic. It is not
a burglar breaking into the house. It is John who is drunk.
2) If you hear some strange noises from downstairs, don't panic. It is not
a burglar breaking into the house. It is John who has had too much to drink.
Are these grammatical?
Are they idiomatic?
Would a comma after John be correct?
I think the idea is to speak of John in a drunken state and the comma would
not be correct. His being drunk is essential information.
These sorts of strung-together thoughts with mixed-up
tenses, are good natural spoken idiom. It tends to be
Americans who don't like "It is John who is drunk", meaning
"It will be John who will be drunk", but the former is
more natural than the latter in my BrE.

When John Mayer sings "rewrite my history" he means it
as "change my future", so it is in American idiom as well.
GordonD
2017-04-17 13:45:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) If you hear some strange noises from downstairs, don't panic. It
is not a burglar breaking into the house. It is John who is drunk.
2) If you hear some strange noises from downstairs, don't panic. It
is not a burglar breaking into the house. It is John who has had too
much to drink.
Are these grammatical? Are they idiomatic?
Would a comma after John be correct?
I think the idea is to speak of John in a drunken state and the comma
would not be correct. His being drunk is essential information.
I would say a comma was required in both cases, as without it the
sentence means you know someone is drunk, but not who. With the comma
the first part of the sentence tells you who is making the noise, and
the second tells you why.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland
Loading...