My neighbor Mr. Lee is 70 years old who plays basketball every day.
My teacher said that pronoun "who" is too far from the subject, so this is a grammatical error. But Grammarly told me that this sentence has no grammatical errors. Who is right?
My neighbor Mr. Lee is 70 years old who plays basketball every day.
My teacher said that pronoun "who" is too far from the subject, so this is a grammatical error. But Grammarly told me that this sentence has no grammatical errors. Who is right?
I think the most common phrasing of this sentence (which is ungrammatical exactly as written) simply adds the indefinite article before the age, in order to turn it into a noun.
In short:
My neighbour Mr. Lee is a 70-year-old who plays basketball every day.
With this change, the pronoun now makes perfect sense exactly where it is.
The sentence doesn't make sense as it stands.
I would reconstruct it to something like:
My neighbour Mr Lee, who plays basketball every day, is 70 years old
or
My neighbour Mr Lee, who is 70 years old, plays basketball every day
or even
My neighbour Mr Lee is 70 years old and plays basketball every day
This problem is part of a larger class of informal problems called "dangling modifiers" or "misplaced modifiers."
When you wrote it, you were thinking that:
A) Mr. Lee is 70
B) Mr. Lee plays basketball
However, in the process of putting that into a sentence you moved the relative clause "who plays basketball..." so far away from "Mr. Lee" that the reader no longer quickly sees the intended connection.
As Jason Bassford pointed out above, if you'd provide another noun phrase by changing "70 years old" into a noun phrase "a 70-year old" the reader would connect those two nouns together; and as achAmháin pointed out, the dangling modifier can also be repaired by moving the modifier so that it attaches to the noun you originally intended it to modify.
This is also the source of humor in Groucho Marx's line:
"Colonel Saunders shot a tiger dressed in his pajamas."
Groucho's sentence, unlike yours, is constructed so that there's a noun which could in theory be modified by the participle "dressed", so the reader briefly attempts to picture that situation.
There are several issues:
My neighbor, Mr. Lee, is seventy years old and plays basketball every day.
This properly introduces your subject (“my neighbor”), gives additional information (his name and your relationship to him), and provides a predicate that connects (by contrast) two interesting pieces of information (even at an age people consider too advanced for hard and fast sports like basketball, he plays every day, suggesting also that he is in excellent health).
In this case, the word "is" marks a dividing line between the the subject and it's predicate. Once we have crossed this line it is too late to add additional supporting clauses to the subject. For example, the following would not work "Mary, my sister, is taking the dog for a walk, who likes carrots". To make this work, we must introduce the supporting clause "who likes carrots" before the predicate: "Mary, my sister, who likes carrots, is taking the dog for a walk".
The tricky thing with your sentence is that "is 70 years old" is not an obvious predicate. As a descriptor (as opposed to a definitive action like "is taking the dog for a walk") it may seem like just another supporting clause, but it's not. It is the predicate and supporting clauses introduced after the predicate are, in fact, too far from the subject. Your teacher is correct.
To fix this, we can either move the predicate to the end, after all of the subject's supporting clauses:
My neighbor Mr Lee, who plays basketball every day, is 70 years old.
Or make "is 70 years old" a supporting clause and "plays basketball everyday" the predicate:
My neighbor Mr Lee, who is 70 years old, plays basketball everyday.