... end of May soon. ?

the commas should go, I suppose - it's a defining relative clause

What's the problem?

I suppose the sentence should look like this: The ash tree that's in our garden still hasn't sprouted. And it will be the end of May soon.

It seems that the person talking only owns one ash tree. If the person stated "One of the ash trees...", then commas wouldn't be used. Because we are talking about one specific ash tree, the adjective clause isn't necessarily needed, thus commas must be used. But, if the person was speaking about one of many trees, then the adjective clause would be used without commas to clarify what specific ash tree they were talking about.

Then it should be "which", shouldn't it? "that" is not used in those types of sentences as far as I know or have been instructed.

How about me changing the German sentence into: Die Esche in unserem Garten hat immer noch nicht ...

And let's drop the relative clauses altogether. And maaster can change his Hungarian sentence, too.

But that'll need to wait till tomorrow. I'm signig off here.

Anyway, I never said Welcome to Tatoeba. And I'am doing it now. Nice you are here, and long may it continue.

Yes, you're correct. I should have used which instead of that. Thanks for the welcome!

I think Raggione was right in the first and third comments above. It's a fine point, but the subordinate clause "that's in our garden" is essential to the sentence in order to distinguish the ash tree from some other ash tree that grows elsewhere in the woods. So no commas are wanted to set off the clause, and "that's" is fine to introduce it. If one were talking to a nurseryman who had come to look at the dormant tree to determine why it was not sprouting, and you needed to point out the location of the tree in question, the clause becomes non-essential; i.e., the sentence would read perfectly well without a reference to the ash tree's location. The clause would then be set off with commas and begin with "which is," because it is providing nice information that is not essential to the sentence.

The months of the year (like "May") are capitalized in English, although not in French or Esperanto.

In addition, in English it is best not to begin a sentence with a coordinating conjunction like "and" or "but." Rather, one should join the second independent clause to the first with a comma and "and."

Anyway, the sentence should be:

The ash tree that's in our garden still hasn't sprouted, and it will be the end of May soon.

In my opinion, the location of the tree was not relevant enough to be used without commas because I supposed it was the only tree he or she had in their garden.

Also, instead of "sprouted", I wonder if you mean something else.

Good morning (as it is in my place) everybody, and thanks for all your comments.

Sleeping over it I thought that the commas in English - in this case at least - indicate pauses in speaking. And you wouldn't pause after "ash tree" here, which shows you are defining with the relative clause which tree one is talking about. And thank you, Objectivesea, for pointing this out earlier.

Ironically, I had wanted to change the German sentence into something shorter - like CK suggested - but by the time I got to it, I found the direct English translation there already, and the indirect Hungarian one, too. So I just left it and placed my first comment instead.

As a bottom line: it would be a pity changing everything after this lengthy discussion. I'll let the German sentence stand as it is. And will provide the sorter version soonest.

I can't say much about "sprout" (see CK's comment) myself but my dictionary tells me it is something like "to come into leaf". And "my native speaker" at home tells me as much.

So summing up the sentence could run like this (taking over Objectiveseas's suggestion and changing "sprouted"):

The ash tree that's in our garden still hasn't come into leaf, and it will be the end of May soon.

How does everybody feel about it?