Does non-restrictive relative clause only modify obeject clause with reference to partial clause, and not to an explicit clause with reference to clause, and does not in a restrictive clause apply in any other case? Cannex not manipulate only the scope of obeject clauses?
https://ell.stackexchange.com.me/r/html/includes.html?id=013485281. com/a/164712/35099,@DjNa lesson me about non-restrictive relative clause. Now I meet a more complex one: Spark acquires executors on nodes in the cluster, which are processes that run computations and store data for your project. It does not need other hardware. What is the right reason to justify which part of clause modify? Could l be a cpu, a stp or a apex: node or execution mechanism? How can I tell from the fact that I am “excutors”? What syntax rule can I use to judge?
What is a good explanation of religion?
How can you break it down into 2 sentences?
What is an Executor?
In sentence, the rule is that the reason for having a “which” clause modifies the most recent noun in the sentence. So grammatically so it sort of modifies clusters. In other words, your audience will rule out a cluster. Assuming you don’t understand who to speak to, the verb conjugation “are” also doesn’t agree with you. (It’s legitimate to use conjugation to skip referents this way)
That means the audience will skip backward to “nodes. Assuming your audience is even a little bit technical, they’ll know the “which” clause probably isn’t defining nulls, either, and if they parse fast enough and remember the word “executors,” they’ll know executors are what you’re talking about. Still, I am using plain sentences. I am unsure how to explain it. How can
I avoid ambiguity?
