Sergio,
You're in the midst of a long, intermittent discussion of the status of "that" in relative clauses. Grammarians from Otto Jespersen to Rodney Huddleston have argued that relative "that" is, in fact, a subordinator and not a pronoun. The substitution you suggest is misleading, because that-relatives behave differently from wh-relatives, in ways I can't go into just now.
Herb
Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor of English
Ball State University
Muncie, IN 47306
[log in to unmask]
________________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of sergio [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 1:42 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: relative "that" revisited
Dear Dr. Stankle,
I might be missing the point and for the sake of my better
understanding, I was wondering whether a simple substitution test is
possible here.
"He avoids whatever roads might cross this desolate valley and stays
on the open land, so there's no risk of turning a bend and ramming
head-on into innocent motorists, with all the physical and moral
consequences that(replace it with "which") would ensue."
Therefore in "...with all the physical and moral consequences WHICH
would ensue", the original "that" is a relative pronoun referring to
"all the physical and moral consequences" and subject of "[THEY=the
consequences] would ensue". It is not a subordinating conjunction as
in,
"I think that they would ensue"
because here "which" cannot substitute "that".
Does this make any sense?
Sergio Pizziconi
2013/5/8 Stahlke, Herbert <[log in to unmask]>:
> I came upon an interesting "garden path" sentence today in Dean Koontz's One
> Door away from Heaven (Bantam 2001), p. 287.
>
> "He avoids whatever roads might cross this desolate valley and stays on the
> open land, so there's no risk of turning a bend and ramming head-on into
> innocent motorists, with all the physical and moral consequences that would
> ensue."
>
> When I got to the last three words, I anticipated that "that" would be a
> pronoun referring to "turning a bend and ramming head-on into innocent
> motorists," and I expected a verb like "entail." However, the verb "ensue"
> stopped me cold and forced me to reread and interpret "that" as a
> subordinating conjunction. We've discussed that status of "that" in
> relative clauses at some length, and I've taken the position that it's not a
> pronoun but rather a subordinating conjunction with no referential function.
> In this case, one could write, "that that would entail," but Koontz is a
> better writer than that. The choice, however, is between a demonstrative
> pronoun and a subordinator. The fact that they can be used together
> supports the claim that they are two different words with very different
> functions. Very likely the preference for only the demonstrative in this
> case, rather than both, is an example of haplology.
>
> Herb
>
> Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
> Emeritus Professor of English
> Ball State University
> Muncie, IN 47306
> [log in to unmask]
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
> at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave
> the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
|
