This week's extra practice joins our creative productions with what we learnt about a specific grammatical point - relative clauses. 

We will do the following: 
We will use this forum to share our productions, our poems, with the condition that we post it twice, once containing a non-defining relative clause, and then with a defining relative clause.  The idea is that we, collectively, produce different interpretations from the two versions of the poem (sentence). First, we'll go for the different literal meanings of the sentences, and focus on the difference. Then, we'll be as creative as we want. 

Here's an example: 

A- You are a hammer, whose head makes me cry, and I want to talk.  

B- You are a hammer whose head makes me cry and I want to talk.

In A, the non-defining RC is only extra information, meaning that we could "virtually" have the sentence "You are a hammer and I want to talk." Because of this, the idea of the hammerhead is less important. In B, this idea is essential, since it is part of a defining RC. Therefore, we now understand that the difference in meaning is that in the world of sentence B, the speaker - "the lyrical I, el yo-poetico" - knows and interacts with different types of hammers, and perhaps it could happen that other types of hammers DO let the speaker "talk". The hammer whose head makes the speaker cry, specifically, individually, does not, but other """more empathetic""" hammers probably do.  

For your contributions to the forum, you can just focus on this difference. 

Now, regarding a more creative idea, I imagine that the hammer represents a sturdy, imposing, authoritative individual, a parental figure perhaps, or a romantic partner with toxic attitudes, that only attacks the speaker. The hammer is a very strong image,  a tool that can do one thing and one thing only. I imagine that physical or psychological abuse is common in the speaker's life, and that the speaker wants to communicate, to change this situation by speaking. This would be a more basic meaning that sentence B changes dramatically: since the defining RC lets us know that there are more hammers, we can deduce that the lyrical I suffers from abuse by many different "hammers", but that there is only one of them (defined by the RC) that makes the speaker cry. Maybe the poetic persona enjoys being abused, or has become comfortable with it. It makes a lot more sense, now, that the speaker wants to talk, to communicate, because perhaps this type of relationship is not the speaker's specific cup of tea. 

You don't need to write such a long piece, I was just inspired.