VOOZH about

URL: https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/double-restriction.2495560/

⇱ Double Restriction ? | WordReference Forums

Menu
Install the app
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

Double Restriction ?

wanabee

Senior Member
Japanese
Dear all,

1) The only female that I know who works for the Army is Suzuki-san.
2) The only female that I know and who works for the Army is Suzuki-san.
3) The only female that I know and works for the Army is Suzuki-san.

Sentences 1) and 2) are quoted from a grammar book I use.
I made up sentence 3) myself.

To me, all the three seem to mean the same, but the grammar book says 1) and 2) have different meanings.

I’m not sure how they’re different.
Could you please explain whether the three means the same or not, and if they are different, what’s the difference in meaning.

Thank you.
The first one combines who you know works in the army-
The 2nd one is a female you know that also works for the army.
3rd Praise the lord

FYI

Only answered since no one else has.
The first means that you only know (have knowledge of) that one woman (better than "female" in most contexts$ works for the Army (capitalization is another issue, but I'll leave it be). The second sentence means that there is only woman whom you know (are familiar with) and who works for the Army. You might know (have knowledge) that there are other women who work for the Army but you don't know (be familiar with) them. If English had two different verbs for both of these senses, there wouldn't be this problem. The sentence you made up means the same as the second sentence in the book.
3) The only female that I know and works for the Army is Suzuki-san.
This one doesn't work for me because the subject of 'works' is different from the subject of 'know'.

I would want them to be the same. For instance:
The only woman [that/who] is a friend of mine and works for the Army is Suzuki-san.

In the first two sentences, the relative 'who' serves to distinguish the subject of 'works' from the subject of the previous verb, know.
I've been puzzling over this.

The only option I'd be likely to use is (1) (though I'd probably miss out the "that" - and I'd definitely replace "female" with "woman"👁 Smile :)
). The meaning would be Of the women I know, Suzuki-san is the only one who works for the army.

I suppose wanabee's book is trying to say that sentence (2) means something like Suzuki-san is the only woman I know, and she works for the army. But to be honest, it's taken me ten minutes of puzzling to work that out. I don't think anyone would naturally choose the formulation in (2) to convey that meaning.

(3) does not work at all for me.

.........

EDIT: Re-reading the thread, I see I'm disagreeing with Tazzler👁 Frown :(
. I would convey his first meaning by:
The only woman [that] I know works for the army is Suzuki-san.
Last edited:
I've been puzzling over this.

The only option I'd be likely to use is (1) (though I'd probably miss out the "that" - and I'd definitely replace "female" with "woman"👁 Smile :)
). The meaning would be Of the women I know, Suzuki-san is the only one who works for the army.

I suppose wanabee's book is trying to say that sentence (2) means something like Suzuki-san is the only woman I know, and she works for the army. But to be honest, it's taken me ten minutes of puzzling to work that out. I don't think anyone would naturally choose the formulation in (2) to convey that meaning.

(3) does not work at all for me.

.........

EDIT: Re-reading the thread, I see I'm disagreeing with Tazzler👁 Frown :(
. I would convey his first meaning by:
The only woman [that] I know works for the army is Suzuki-san.

Thank you very much, Online, Tazzler, Cagey, Loob!👁 Smile :)


I was at a loss before starting this thread, but thanks to you, I think I’m gradually understanding it.

The author probably presented the sentence 2) to show us (the readers) how strangely the meaning would change just by inserting “and” after the “know”, and to help us understand the structure of sentence 1) more clearly. (Sadly that method didn’t work for me...👁 Confused :confused:
)

(3) does not work at all for me.

Is this because the subject of "works" is different from that of "know" as Tazzler said?

P.S. Thank you also for the important advice: "female" to "woman". I've got to tell them. 👁 Big Grin :D

Last edited:
2) The only [woman] that I know and who works for the Army is Suzuki-san.

I tend to agree with Online Math Tutor and Tazzler regarding the above sentence. It's comparable with: The only woman working here as a controller is Suzuki-san. There are two conditions that must be met in order to identify 'the only woman': she works here and she is a controller.

In the topic sentence there are also two conditions that must be met: I know her and she works for the army.

I can see how this construction may give rise to disagreement about its exact meaning. I also suspect that it is sometimes used such that the above logic doesn't hold true, which makes the construction somewhat ambiguous.
Back
Top Bottom