I recently learned the game, which in the past I dreaded learning, so I didn’t bother learning it.

This main clause is within the relative clause. Is it o.k. to have that construction?

Is there a name for it? (complex relative clause )

(Obviously you could re-write it and make it “, which I din’t bother learning, because I dreaded learning it”, but I’m not concerned about improving the sentence)

Thanks

I recently learned the game, which in the past I dreaded learning, so I didn’t bother learning it.

This sentence is not a main clause within a relative clause. It’s a compound sentence with a non-restrictive relative clause occurring after the first main clause.

It is possible to have a dependent clause within a main clause, the most common being relative adjective clauses (e.g., My brother, who lives in Ohio, is an attorney).

You can also have adverbial clause in the middle.

I finally acquired, after I had saved money for two years, the last piece in the collection.

There should be a reason for this structure, which is typically for emphasis.

But what did you really mean to ask?

I recently learned the game, which in the past I dreaded learning, so I didn’t bother learning it.

This sentence is not a main clause within a relative clause. It’s a compound sentence with a non-restrictive relative clause occurring after the first main clause.

It is possible to have a dependent clause within a main clause, the most common being relative adjective clauses (e.g., My brother, who lives in Ohio, is an attorney).

You can also have adverbial clause in the middle.

I finally acquired, after I had saved money for two years, the last piece in the collection.

There should be a reason for this structure, which is typically for emphasis.

The examples you give are all obvious to me, and I’m sure you know that I know these constructions you state. I don’t mean ‘within’ exactly.

What I mean is that the relative clause is needed for the next part to make sense. I didn’t bother learning it because I dreaded learning it in the past. I’ll try think of another example:

I recently went to the playground, where I broke my leg, so I cried most of the time.

This one depends more clearly on the relative clause’s existence than the first example I gave you.

See what I mean? The last main clause is sort of as a result of what is said in the relative clause (rather than the first main clause) and has nothing to do with the first main clause.

That’s a better example. What you’re saying is this:

“I recently went to the playground, where I broke my leg, so I cried most of the time” shows more cause and effect than “I broke my leg when I went to the playground, so I cried most of the time.”

I don’t think there is a name for it, but it’s not incorrect. I don’t think many sentences would benefit from this structure, though

I recently went to the playground, where I broke my leg, so I cried most of the time.

Is this not a comma splice, however?

I recently went to the playground, where I broke my leg, so I cried most of the time.

The where makes the second clause dependent. The so makes the sentence compound. So, no.

Soryy, don’t know what I was thinking about when I asked that. Clearly isn’t.

Once again, an example of my not thinking. Don’t know if you can blame me though. I wrote that in the morning after a night of vodka-a nasty drink!

But this no excuse either, since it has been proven that alcohol drinking does not kill brain cells. So I’ll just blame my sporadic brain lapses.

But this no excuse either, since it has been proven that alcohol drinking does not kill brain cells. So I’ll just blame my sporadic brain lapses.

Put a comma before SO instead of a period, and you would have a duplicate construction of the sentence in question.