Defining/non-def relative clauses -pomoc

Jak to jest z tym rozrówżnianiem defining i nondefining relative clauses?? Kiedy użyć przecinków a kiedy nie??

Proszę o sprawdzenie zdań:

1. The company is sending me to LA. I work for this company.
My version: The company I work for is sending me to LA.

2. The singer returned to give yet another encore. The audience burst into even wilder applause at this.
My version: The singer returned to give yet another encore at which the audience burst into even wilder applause.

3. Matthew asked me a question. I had no rely to it.
My version: Matthew asked me a question to which I had no reply.

4. She has two older brothers. Neither of the brothers went to university.
My version: She has two older brothers neither of whom went to university.

5. Nicole read a novel. The main character in it was shiwrecked on a desert island.
My version: Nicole read a novel in which the main character was shipwrecked on a desert island.

6. Ben Nevis is the highest mountain in Britain. I climbed Ben Nevis last spring.
My version: Ben Nevis, which I climbed last spring, is the highest mountain in Britain.

7. John has been my friend since 1998. I met him at a computer course.
My version: John, whom I met on the computer course, has been my friend since 1998.

8. H6N3 is a disease. High sugar consumption is believed to play a part in this disease.
My version: H6N3 is a disease in which high sugar consumption is believed to play a part.


THX IN ADVANCE

>1. The company is sending me to LA. I work for this company.
>My version: The company I work for is sending me to LA. OK
>
>2. The singer returned to give yet another encore. The audience burst
>into even wilder applause at this.
>My version: The singer returned to give yet another encore at which
>the audience burst into even wilder applause. OK
>
>3. Matthew asked me a question. I had no rely to it.
>My version: Matthew asked me a question to which I had no reply. OK
>
>4. She has two older brothers. Neither of the brothers went to
>university.
>My version: She has two older brothers neither of whom went to
>university. OK
>
>5. Nicole read a novel. The main character in it was shiwrecked on a
>desert island.
>My version: Nicole read a novel in which the main character was
>shipwrecked on a desert island. OK
>
>6. Ben Nevis is the highest mountain in Britain. I climbed Ben Nevis
>last spring.
>My version: Ben Nevis, which I climbed last spring, is the highest
>mountain in Britain. OK
>
>7. John has been my friend since 1998. I met him at a computer
>course.
>My version: John, whom I met {at a} computer course, has been my
>friend since 1998.
>
>8. H6N3 is a disease. High sugar consumption is believed to play a
>part in this disease.
>My version: H6N3 is a disease in which high sugar consumption is
>believed to play a part. OK

2 i 4 są źle
4 jest źle, bo mówisz o wszystkich jej starszych braciach. Skoro mówisz o wszystkich, to nie musisz definiować, o których starszych braci chodzi. jak mowisz o Ben Nevis, tez nie musisz definiowac, o co chodzi, oczywiście z nieco innego powodu - ważny jest skutek, tzn, koniecznosc uzycia przecinka
2 jest źle, bo 'this' zastępuje 'the singer('s) returning to give yet another encore'. (jak masz ćwiczenie na relative clauses, to 'this' z reguły zastępuje zdanie, a nie noun phrase :-). A skoro this, a więci which, zastępuje zdanie, to stawia sie przecinek. Zworc uwage, ze po polsku uzyjesz slowa 'co' (na co publicznosc...)
W zdaniu bez przecinka at which odnosi sie do slowa encore
zdanie bez przecinka znaczy:
'wokalista wrocil na kolejny bis, przy ktorym publicznosc zareagowala jeszcze bardziej entuzjastycznie'
i wynika z niego, ze bylo wiecej bisow, przy ktorych publicznosc reagowala na tym samy poziomie, tj. 'jeszcze bardziej entuzjastycznie' - sam widzisz, ze to nie ma sensu: jak mozna zarazem wzmagac reakcje i reagowac na tym samym poziomie?

faktycznie ma Pan racje - nie za bardzo zwrocilem uwagi na przecinki