修飾先：関係詞節

Consider the following sentence and answer the question below:

Provided is a fiber having excellent durability that does not impair esthetic property of appearance even when mixed with another fiber.

Question: What is it that does not impair esthetic property?

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

In the sentence, it is the fiber with excellent durability that does not impair the aesthetic property of appearance, even when mixed with another fiber.

The phrase "that does not impair esthetic property" modifies "fiber having excellent durability," indicating that this specific fiber retains or preserves the aesthetic quality when blended.

あなた:

Why not "excellent durability"?

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

It’s a good question! The reason "excellent durability" is not considered the subject that "does not impair esthetic property" lies in how English structures relative clauses and modifiers.

In this sentence, "that does not impair esthetic property of appearance" functions as a relative clause. This clause immediately follows "fiber having excellent durability," which, as a whole, is the noun phrase being modified. In English, relative clauses typically modify the entire noun phrase they immediately follow, rather than a single adjective within it. Here, "fiber having excellent durability" is taken as a single entity, with "fiber" as the core subject, and the durability attribute as additional information about it.

Thus, grammatically and logically, it is the fiber itself—not its durability—that is described as not impairing aesthetic appearance.

あなた:

Consider the following sentence and answer the question below:

Provided is a fiber having excellent durability and containing a coloring agent that does not impair esthetic property of appearance even when mixed with another fiber.

Question: What is it that does not impair esthetic property?

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

In this revised sentence, it is the coloring agent that "does not impair esthetic property of appearance even when mixed with another fiber."

The clause "that does not impair esthetic property of appearance" now directly follows "a coloring agent," making it the most immediate noun being modified by this relative clause. Thus, the structure indicates that the coloring agent is the component that does not affect the aesthetic property.

あなた:

But the noun "a coloring agent" is a modifier modifying the "fiber" and is a part of the noun phrase "a fiber having excellent durability and containing a coloring agent". Then, why doesn't the clause "that does not impair esthetic property of appearance" modify the noun phrase?

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

You're correct in recognizing that "a coloring agent" is part of the larger noun phrase "a fiber having excellent durability and containing a coloring agent." However, in English, relative clauses typically modify the closest noun or noun phrase directly preceding them, rather than the entire preceding phrase, especially when that phrase is complex or contains multiple elements. This proximity rule usually guides interpretation.

In the sentence:

"Provided is a fiber having excellent durability and containing a coloring agent that does not impair esthetic property of appearance even when mixed with another fiber,"

the clause "that does not impair esthetic property of appearance" most naturally attaches to "a coloring agent" rather than the entire phrase "a fiber having excellent durability and containing a coloring agent." This interpretation is reinforced by typical reading patterns in English, where readers expect a relative clause to modify the nearest possible noun to avoid ambiguity.

To make it clear that the entire fiber—including its durability and coloring agent—does not impair aesthetic appearance, a slight restructuring would help:

"Provided is a fiber, which has excellent durability and contains a coloring agent, that does not impair esthetic property of appearance even when mixed with another fiber."

In this case, the use of commas helps signal that the entire fiber is intended as the subject, thus clarifying the scope of the relative clause.