1

"In 1990, at the centre of the park was a Buddha statue with a rectangular flower garden north of it, a telephone booth and entrance to the south of it, and a large play area for children on its western side."

I find myself making sentences like this, but I don't usually know the function of with and whether I should put a comma before it. Dictionaries say it ("with") can be used to specify the position of something, and it also seems that it's a synonym for "which has/had". In my sentence I don't know its function, so I don't know whether a comma should be placed before it.

Also, my intuition tells the sentence is correct, although it doesn't make sense to say a statue was with a rectangular garden.

Please, explain the function of " with" and tell me whether I need to put a comma before it.

2
  • 1
    It is correct. It does make sense to say that there was a statue with a garden in front of it. Commented Oct 15, 2022 at 12:15
  • 1
    Yes, it is correct, and the function in that context is "which has".
    – gotube
    Commented Oct 15, 2022 at 19:43

1 Answer 1

1

Your sentence is correct, and you don't need a comma:

In 1990, at the centre of the park was a Buddha statue with a rectangular flower garden north of it, a telephone booth and entrance to the south of it, and a large play area for children on its western side.

Instead of with, you can substitute that had or which had.

If you use which had, you can add a comma to indicate that what follows the comma is extra information that's not required to understand the sentence (nonrestrictive phrase). But you need to add something after the nonrestrictive phrase, too. For example:

In 1990, at the centre of the park was a Buddha statue, which had a rectangular flower garden north of it, a telephone booth and entrance to the south of it, and a large play area for children on its western side, and a sign.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .