The pastor had a kitten that climbed up a tree.

[diamondcutter]

The pastor had a kitten that climbed up a tree in his backyard and then was afraid to come down.
https://viralgfdiy.com/pastor-kitten-climbed-tree/

I wonder if it’s necessary to change the restrictive relative clause to a non-restrictive one like this:

The pastor had a kitten, which climbed up a tree in his backyard....

 

[tzfujimino]

I'd change "had" to "saw".
(I don't think he had the kitten - he happened to see it staying on the tree.)

 

[tzfujimino]

Your version would work if he actually had it.

 

[diamondcutter]

Your version would work if he actually had it.

Thanks for your replies, tzfujimino.

According to the context, the pastor was the owner of the cat.

 

[GoesStation]

The passage is fine as written.

 

[emsr2d2]

The pastor had a kitten, which climbed up a tree in his backyard....

That doesn't work. If you want to use a comma and "which", you'd have to change the construction of the sentence.

The kitten, which belonged to the pastor, climbed up a tree and was then too afraid to come down.

 

[diamondcutter]

Thanks, teachers.

The pastor had a kitten that climbed up a tree in his backyard and then was afraid to come down.

I wonder if the the restrictive relative clause: that climbed up a tree in his backyard indicates that the pastor had other cats which did other things.

 

[Tarheel]

The sentence doesn't indicate that he did or did not have other cats.

(The kitten will come down the tree when it gets hungry enough.)

 

[Phaedrus]

Thanks, teachers.

The pastor had a kitten that climbed up a tree in his backyard and then was afraid to come down.

I wonder if the the restrictive relative clause: that climbed up a tree in his backyard indicates that the pastor had other cats which did other things.

No, it doesn't, as is illustrated by the fact that the following is not self-contradictory:

The pastor had a cat that loved climbing trees, and it was the only cat that he had.

 

[diamondcutter]

I’m confused now.

I read that the restrictive relative clause provides essential information which function is to distinguish one from others.

For example, we can’t write this way:

That man is Tom’s father who is drinking water.

If we do that way, that’ll indicate that Tom has another father who’s doing something else.

We should write this way:

That man is Tom’s father, who is drinking water.

Another example:

Tom lent me a book which is in English.

This sentence indicates it was an English book that Tom lent me, not a Chinese book or Japanese book.

I’d like to read your comments.

 

[Phaedrus]

I’m confused now.

I read that the restrictive relative clause provides essential information [strike]which function is[/strike] [which functions to/whose function is] to distinguish one from others.

Only restrictive relative clauses inside definite noun phrases distinguish one referent from other existing referents of the same category.

For example, we can’t write this way:

That man is Tom’s father who is drinking water.

If we do that way, that’ll indicate that Tom has another father who’s doing something else.

We should write this way:

That man is Tom’s father, who is drinking water.

Yes, and that is because Tom's father is a definite noun phrase. The following noun phrase is indefinite and does not require a comma:

That man is a father who is drinking water.

Another example:

Tom lent me a book which is in English.

This sentence indicates it was an English book that Tom lent me, not a Chinese book or Japanese book.

Yes, and notice that there is no need for a comma before "which is in English." "A book" does not have a unique referent, unlike "Tom's father," which does.

Consider the following three sentences:

(1) Tom went to a Japanese restaurant downtown which serves sake bombs.
(2) Tom went to the Japanese restaurant downtown, which serves sake bombs.
(3) Tom went to the Japanese restaurant downtown which serves sake bombs.

Sentence (1) carries no implication about the number of Japanese restaurants downtown; there could be one, and there could be more.

Sentences (2) and (3) do carry implications about the number of Japanese restaurants downtown; in (2), there is one, and in (3), more than one.

The crucial difference between (1), on the one hand, and (2) and (3), on the other, is that only "a Japanese restaurant downtown" is indefinite.

"A restaurant" will remain an indefinite noun phrase no matter how many adjuncts you add to it, be they adjectives, attributive nouns, or relative clauses.

"The restaurant" will remain a definite noun phrase no matter how many adjuncts you add to it.

At some point, the adjuncts of a definite noun phrase will yield a unique referent in the context. At that point, further adjuncts will be nonrestrictive.

 

[diamondcutter]

I still want to make sure if the beginning of the story in #1 is good enough to your native speakers’ ears. I mean if I told the story, I would start like this.

A pastor had a kitten. One day, the kitten climbed up a tree in his backyard and then was afraid to come down.

At least, it’s the common way to tell a similar story in Chinese. Maybe that’s the culture difference. Would you please enlighten me?

 

[emsr2d2]

I don't think you need two sentences.

There was once a pastor who had a kitten that climbed up a tree and was then too afraid to come down.
A pastor once had a kitten that climbed up a tree and was then too afraid to come down.

 

[Tarheel]

The pastor had a kitten that climbed up a tree in his backyard and then was afraid to come down.

I would not say the kitten climbed up a tree in his backyard. Do you know why?

 

[diamondcutter]

Because people don't plant trees in backyards?

 

[emsr2d2]

It works fine in BrE. Some people refer to their back garden as the backyard. It can contain trees and plants; the only thing "backyard" suggests is that some part of it, at least, is paved.

 

[Tarheel]

Because people don't plant trees in backyards?

No. Of course they do! But kittens don't have backyards. (Obviously, not everybody has a problem with that sentence.)

There's no reason to use "his backyard" as it's not important to the story. Also, there is no reason to say it was scared to come back down. You can speculate about the reason it wouldn't come down, but the important thing is they couldn't get it out of the tree.