New York Times grammar question

[albert.chi]

I came across this snippet from the NYTimes travel section regarding a review of Oslo, Norway.

Visitors at the painstakingly restored home of the Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen, which is now a museum.

Is this grammatically correct? Doesn't the "which" refer to Henrik Ibsen, or can it refer to the entire preceding clause - in this case "restored home of Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen?"

Any help would be appreciated!

[mikrodj]

here which refers to restored home. Of the Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen is prepositional phrase that you can remove.

Which normally refers to the previous noun. However, if the previous noun comes in a prepositional phrase, then which CAN REFER to the noun that the prepositional phrase modifies.

[albert.chi]

Thanks for the explanation mikrodj

[mikrodj]

you can find here better explanations about this question

verb-usage-for-that-as-subordinating-t5530.html?hilit=patchwork

subject-verb-agreement-tutors-please-help-urgent-t3374.html?hilit=patchwork

I think with those explanations you won't have problems anymore

[esledge]

I just answered a similar question here: doubt-about-relative-pronoun-t7297.html

You can break the so-called "proximity rule" for whose, which, who, etc. IF the phrase between the modifier and the noun you intend to modify:
(1) is essential
(2) does not introduce confusion.

In your example, "at the painstakingly restored home" and "of the Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen" are both essential--without them, visitors would be almost meaningless!

Furthermore, which can only refer back to things, not people. To refer to Ibsen, you'd need whose or who. Therefore, it is not confusing to have which follow the comma after Ibsen--the phrase is rightly understood to modify home.