Thanks, Herb!

I'm curious, now, about regional distribution of the form -- it looks odd in print, of course, but it doesn't sound odd to me at all in speech, and I'm pushing 50. Either I've heard it so much recently that I've rewired to accommodate, or it has been common for a while in at least some areas. Then again, I want to treat it as a relative pronoun, and so I may have self-rewired (standard linguist pitfall #46).

--- Bill Spruiell
________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of STAHLKE, HERBERT F [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2011 1:02 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: More on "thats" as a possessive relative


Some time ago we had a thread on “that’s” as a possessive relative pronoun like “whose.”  Here’s a link to Neal Whitman’s blog.  He posts an interesting bit on relative “that’s.”

http://literalminded.wordpress.com/2011/03/23/we-dont-speak-the-same-language/

Enjoy!

Herb

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/