Have attracted / has attracted

[sb70012]

Turkey is one of the countries in the world which …….. a lot of tourists from 1980 to now.

a. has attracted
b. have attracted

Hello,
Some say "a" is correct and some say "b" is correct. I mean some say "which" refers to "the countries" and
some other say that "which" refers to "Turkey"

That's why I'm confused. May I know what your opinion is? Would you please solve my confusion?

Thank you

[sandy14]

has attracted. Turkey is the subject of the sentence and the which refers back to Turkey.

In addition, your sentences uses one of - which shows that you are referring to a singular subject.

One of my buttons has gone missing.

[Calidore]

And I was thinking "have" is correct, because the which is referring to the plural of countries with a lot of tourists, of which Turkey is one. In Sandy's example, on the other hand, there's no "which", just the one button that has gone missing.

[JuniperWoolf]

Wild turkeys have attracted a lot of hunters.

Turkey has attracted a lot of tourists.

[Mohammad Ahmad]

Turkey is one of the countries in the world which …….. a lot of tourists from 1980 to now.

a. has attracted
b. have attracted
Why don't we replace the pronoun it after which to avoid the confusion?
Turkey is one of the countries which it has attracted a lot of tourists form 1980 to now. Here my sentence needs no comma ( restricted) while the first one needs commas
Turkey, is one of the countries in the world, which, has attracted a lot of tourists from 1980 to now.
You can use that instead of "which" and no comma you will mark.
Which it can refer to singular or plural , but by using commas also you can solve the problem

[Mohammad Ahmad]

Now my question to you:
Turkey is one of many countries has \ have attracted a lot of tourists since 1980.

[sb70012]

And I was thinking "have" is correct, because the which is referring to the plural of countries with a lot of tourists, of which Turkey is one. In Sandy's example, on the other hand, there's no "which", just the one button that has gone missing.
Thanks for answering but I want to give you another sentence which is similar to my Turkey example.

That is one of the latest movies in Australia, which has not been released in theaters yet.

Why in this example "singular verb (has)" is used but by Turkey example "plural verb (have)" is used?

Look:

Turkey is one of the countries in the world, which have attracted a lot of tourists from 1980 to now.

You see my confusion now? What's the reason? Why the other example I have given in this post does not
use "have" but Turkey example uses "have"?

Thank you

[mona amon]

That is one of the latest movies in Australia, which has not been released in theaters yet.

In this example 'which' is a pronoun that stands for 'one of the latest movies' - a singular entity, so the singular 'has' is used.

If you wanted 'which' to stand for the latest unreleased movies' it will take the plural form 'have' - This is one of the latest movies in Australia which have not been released yet.

So the meaning changes, depending on whether you use 'has' or 'have'.

Turkey is one of the countries in the world which have attracted a lot of tourists from 1980 to now.

Here the pronoun 'which' stands for 'countries in the world' and not for 'Turkey', so it takes the plural 'have'. Try and identify the noun replaced by the pronoun 'which', and it will become less confusing.

[Mohammad Ahmad]

Why do you not accept with me in using commas? This is the grammar is not my father or my grandfather.
Yes, as many grammarians said that "which" refers to the first preceding noun as what previously I have said ( anaphora & cataphora), moreover, there is two types of relative clause the definite( restrictive) and the indefinite( unrestrictive) and here follows three sources of grammar pertaining to the topic:
Even I don't want any thank, but I recommend that any people must not stick on his mind.



Comma Usage: Restrictive vs. Nonrestrictive Relative Clauses

Task – 1:

In Who, That, Which" I explain which of these pronouns are appropriate for different kinds of antecedents. However, another problem people often have when using relative pronouns is deciding when a relative clause is restrictive or nonrestrictive.

Whether a relative clause is restrictive or nonrestrictive matters for two reasons:

1. Restrictive relative clauses are not set off by commas, while nonrestrictive relative clauses are.

2. As a general rule, the pronoun "that" should be used for restrictive relative clauses, and "which" should be used for nonrestrictive relative clauses.*

In "The Loyal Apposition I offer guidelines for determining whether an appositive is restrictive or nonrestrictive. These guidelines are equally valid for identifying restrictive and nonrestrictive relative clauses.


A. NONRESTRICTIVE RELATIVE CLAUSES

If a relative clause adds parenthetical, non-defining information, it is nonrestrictive. A nonrestrictive (parenthetical) element is set off by commas, as in these examples.

Mr. Smith, who is a well-respected lawyer, has just retired from active practice.

Professor James, who is an expert in Victorian poetry, will be giving a lecture tonight.


MORE EXAMPLES:

Your task, which is to seek out new civilizations and boldly go where no man has gone before, will probably occupy the rest of your adult life.

Kofi Annan, who is the current U.N. Secretary General, has spent much of his tenure working to promote peace in the Third World.

This is Jennifer, who is my college roommate's youngest daughter.
That book, which is the novel I was reading last week, is the one I meant for you to take to the beach with you.




B. RESTRICTIVE RELATIVE CLAUSES

When the relative clause limits or restricts the noun or noun substitute (substantive) it modifies, it is restrictive, and it is not set off by commas.

My brother that lives in Arizona is named Pat.

In this sentence the clause "that lives in Arizona" is needed to specify which brother, since the reader has no other way of knowing how many brothers the writer has or which brother is being referred to. (One way to think of the issue of restrictive and non-restrictive elements is that a restrictive element provides information that is necessary to narrow the field of candidates down to one.)

But check out this example:

My other brother, who lives in Texas, is named Sam.

In this sentence the first substantive, the noun phrase "My other brother," conveys the information that the writer has only two brothers, and it also specifies which of those two brothers is being referred to, so the fact that he lives in Texas is extra information--not necessary for specifying which of two brothers is being referred to. In fact, although the brother's name is given in this sentence, the name itself isn't actually needed to narrow the field of candidates to one: the phrase "my other brother" indicates that the writer has only two brothers, and it also specifies which of those two brothers he is referring to. (Obviously, he would not say "my other brother" except in a context where he has just referred to the first brother.)

If the relative clause "who lives in Texas" were treated as restrictive, then the sentence would convey the information that the writer has two brothers who live in Texas, and that would only make sense if another brother living in Texas had already been mentioned:

I have two brothers that live in Texas. One is named Eric. My other brother who lives in Texas is named Sam.

Judgment Calls or the Subjective decision:

Sometimes whether to treat a relative clause as restrictive or nonrestrictive is simply a judgment call.

My sister, who is even deafer than I am, is named Linda.

In this example, the information that Linda "is even deafer than I am" is extra. Since the main clause names the sister as Linda, the information in the relative clause is not necessary to identify which of the writer's sisters he is referring to.

But this relative clause could be treated as restrictive, giving the sentence a slightly different meaning:

My sister who is even deafer than I am is named Linda.

This version of the sentence indicates that the purpose is to call the reader's attention to a specific sister--the one "who is even deafer than I am," as opposed to one or more other sisters who are not.
This is an important point: sometimes whether a clause is restrictive or nonrestrictive is determined by subtleties of meaning, and it is up to the writer to make sure that the sentence says exactly what he means.

My youngest sister, who has three children, is named Carol.

In this example, the phrase "my youngest sister" doesn't tell exactly how many sisters I have (though it does indicate three or more, because "youngest" is in the superlative form). But it does specify exactly which one I am referring to, as there can be only one "youngest sister," so the information about the three children is extra information, not needed to specify which one of however many sisters I am referring to.

My daughter recently attended a Shakespearean play that was being performed at the rebuilt Globe Theater in London.

In this case, the relative clause "that was being performed at the rebuilt Globe Theater in London" is restrictive because it is being used to specify which Shakespearean play she attended. There are many Shakespearean plays, and they are being performed all the time in many places. The relative clause narrows the field of candidates down to one.

But this is another sentence where the relative clause could be treated as nonrestrictive, giving a slightly different meaning to the sentence:

My daughter recently attended a Shakespearean play, which was being performed at the rebuilt Globe Theater in London.

This version of the sentence emphasizes the fact that the play was being performed in the rebuilt Globe Theater, not which play she attended.


QUICK SUMMARY:

1. If the clause is restrictive, choose "that" over "which" (about a 99% rule), and don't set the clause off with commas.

2. If the clause is nonrestrictive, choose "which" over "that and do set the clause off with commas.


* About a 99% rule.
** The relative pronoun "who" can govern both restrictive and nonrestrictive relative clauses.

Task 2:
That and which in restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses:
To understand the distinctions between that and which it is necessary to understand restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses.
Learning these distinctions is one technical aspect of grammar that every user of English should understand, because it is at the root of an assortment of grammatical errors.
1) Nonrestrictive (non-defining) clauses
A nonrestrictive, or non-defining, clause is one that can be regarded as parenthetical:
My house, which has a blue door, needs painting.
The italicized words are effectively an aside and could be deleted. The real point of the sentence is that the house needs painting; the blue door is incidental.
Use commas to set off nonrestrictive elements, which contribute to, but do not determine, the meaning of the sentence. These elements may be clauses (groups of words that contain a subject and a verb) or phrases (groups of words that do not contain both a subject and a verb).
2) Restrictive (defining) clauses
A restrictive, defining, clause is one that is essential to the sense of the sentence.
My house that has a blue door needs painting.
Here the blue door is a defining characteristic; it helps to distinguish that house from my other houses.
Restrictive clauses or phrases are not separated off with commas. A restrictive clause or phrase is essential to the meaning of the sentence; it defines the word it modifies by "restricting" its meaning. Eliminating a restrictive element from a sentence changes its meaning dramatically.
Note that nonrestrictive and restrictive clauses must be introduced by the appropriate relative pronoun.
NOTE:
In correct usage that is always used to indicate restrictive clauses and which to indicate nonrestrictive ones.
Restrictive clauses should NEVER be set off with commas and
nonrestrictive clauses ALWAYS should.
On that much the authorities are agreed. Where divergence creeps in is on the question of how strictly the distinctions should be observed.
Today, that is more usual in short sentences or early on in longer ones.
The house, that John built.
Which often appears where, that would more strictly be correct, particularly in Britain.
Americans, in contrast, are much more inclined to use that where which might be preferable.
Task 3
Relative Pronouns: Restrictive and Nonrestrictive Clauses
The relative pronouns are: who, whom, whose, which, and that. Relative pronouns introduce subordinate clauses functioning as adjectives. Use commas to set off nonrestrictive subordinate clauses, and do not use commas to set off restrictive clauses. The choice of relative pronouns is determined by the way the pronoun is used and the noun or pronoun to which it refers. Who, which, and that take verbs that agree with their antecedents.
1. Relative pronouns introduce subordinate clauses functioning as adjectives.
The man who robbed us was never caught.
The arrow that has left the bow never returns.
In addition to introducing the clause, the relative pronoun, in this case (who), points back to a noun or pronoun that the clause modifies (man). In the second sentence, that points back to arrow.
Relative pronouns are sometimes "understood."
The things [that] we know best are the things [that] we haven't been taught.
2. Use commas to set off nonrestrictive elements. Do not use commas to set off restrictive elements.
A restrictive element defines or limits the meaning of the word it modifies and is therefore essential to the meaning of the sentence. Because it contains essential information, a restrictive element is not set off with commas.
Restrictive: For camp the children need clothes that are washable.
If you remove a restrictive element from a sentence, the meaning changes significantly, becoming more general than you intended. The writer of the example sentence does not mean that the children need clothes in general. The intended meaning is more limited: The children need washable clothes.
Nonrestrictive: For camp the children need sturdy shoes, which are expensive.
A nonrestrictive element describes a noun or pronoun whose meaning has already been clearly defined or limited. Because it contains nonessential or parenthetical information, a nonrestrictive element is set off with commas. If you remove a nonrestrictive element from a sentence, the meaning does not change significantly. The children need sturdy shoes, and these happen to be expensive.
3- The choice of that, which, who, or whom is dependent upon the way in which the pronoun is used within the sentence, as well as the noun or pronoun to which it refers.
In general, use that with restrictive clauses and which with nonrestrictive clauses.
Do not use which to refer to persons. Use who instead. That, though generally used to refer to things, may be used to refer to a group or class of people.
Fans wondered how an old man who (not that or which) walked with a limp could play football.
The team that scores the most points in this game will win the tournament.
Who is used for subjects and subject complements; whom is used for objects.
Who is bringing what for whom?
4. Who, which, and that take verbs that agree with their antecedents.
Take a suit that travels well. (A suit... travels well.)
Take clothes that are easy to wash. (Clothes... are easy to wash.)
Sometimes problems occur when one of (The is, and only one of the are used). Generally, one of the is treated as plural, and only one of the is treated as singular.
Examine the following sentence:
Our ability to use language is one of the things that set us apart from animals.
The antecedent of that is things, not one. Several things set us apart from animals, and language is one of them.
Carmen is the only one of the applicants who has the ability to step into this position.
The antecedent of who is one, not applicants. Only one applicant, Carmen, has the ability to step into the position.

[sb70012]

Hello again,
What if I add "the only one of"?

Turkey is the only one of the countries of the world that has attracted a lot of tourists.

If I use "the only one of" then can I use a singular verb (has) for it or not? or again I should use "have"?

Thank you

[Mohammad Ahmad]

Hello again,
What if I add "the only one of"?

Turkey is the only one of the countries of the world that has attracted a lot of tourists.

If I use "the only one of" then can I use a singular verb (has) for it or not? or again I should use "have"?

Thank you
Your sentence is incorrect:
Turkey is the only country in the world which\ that attracts a lot of tourists.
or: Turkey is the only country through\ over .....
It is better to omit the pronoun "one' because it is awkward
only and one have the same meaning
Using the present perfect is not always preferable although it works as a bridge connects the past and the present.
Turkey is the only country in the world (yet) has attracted tourists. i.e. form indefinite period in the past upto now.