Herb,

I also am interested in taking up again this question of connectives for
adjective clauses.  It seems to me that there might be a functional
justification of sorts.  In our discussion of the appositive we pointed out that
the noun clause was able to identify the noun like belief, idea, fact, claim,
decision, etc. in much the same way as an adjective (relative) clause often
does.  When we say, "the man that came," the emphasis seems to be this same idea
of identification.  We answer which man we're talking about.  When we say, "the
man who came," the emphasis is not as much on identification per se as on
identification through description.  In this case the man could well be already
identified and the adjective clause may be interpreted as possibly
non-restrictive even.  At least the author can be non-committal about it.
Perhaps these differences in meaning, if I am not imagining things, is evidence
for your claim that the connective is substantially different as well.

Bruce

>>> [log in to unmask] 3/10/2005 7:10:47 AM >>>

Herb,
    I know we have gone back and forth on this one before, and I'm still not
convinced, but I think it may be important to clarify that there seems to be
agreement that there is such a thing as a relative pronoun (who, with its
various forms, and which, when functioning within these adjectival clauses), but
that is a pronoun in some camps and a complementizer in others when it functions
within a relative clause. We tend to agree that it is a complementizer in noun
clauses precisely because it clearly has no role within the noun clause.
    I'm wondering whether you see any difference between a content clause
structure and relative clause structure. (Are these the same structures, but
differing in context by function?) The argument for these as appositional seems
to hinge, at least for me, on the sense that that functions differently. Is the
notion of appositional noun clause somewhat dependent on the misunderstanding of
the role of that as pronoun, at least as you see it? Should we discard the
category?

Craig



Stahlke, Herbert F.W. wrote:
Helene,To expand on my cryptic response to Martha, "that" is the older of the
two ways of starting a relative clause.  "Who" doesn't appear in relative
clauses until the 15th century.  "That" appears six centuries earlier.  At the
time, "that", or its ancestor, was not a pronoun.  It also is not a pronoun in
modern English. It is simply a subordinating conjunction.  This addresses
directly the question of whether or not "that" can refer to humans.  It's a
conjunction.  Conjunctions don't refer to anything.  Using "that" in something
like "The man that met me at the airport" is fine because "that" is a
subordinating conjunction and doesn't replace the subject or stand for the
subject or refer to "the man" because only pronouns refer and it's not a
pronoun.The rule that "that" can't refer to humans is a stylistic preference
based on a faulty grammatical analysis.  I don't claim to be the first to argue
that relative "that" isn't a pronoun.  Otto Jespersen, probably the greatest
grammarian ever in the history of English, argued for it in great detail in the
first half of the 20th century.I haven't presented the evidence for the
conjunction analysis, because I've done that before on this list, but I'll be
glad to if you'd like to see it.Herb StahlkeAnother Ball StaterEveryone: I
always read your discussions and appreciate the fact that youknow much more
about grammar than I ever will. Here is a question for youexperts.We all know
that language is fluid and that what is heard is picked up andpracticed by many.
Recently I seem to be hearing "He is the one that went"or "Those that want ice
cream must come to get it!" I was always under theimpression that whenever we
speak of or refer to people, we should use"who"--"He is the one who went";
"Those who want ice cream...". Has thischanged? Was it never true?Thanks for
your input. Helene A. Hoover (Cassopolis Public Schools, formerlyIvy Tech and
Ball State)  From: Martha Kolln <[log in to unmask]>Reply-To: Assembly for the
Teaching of English GrammarTo join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the
list's web interface at:     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.htmland
select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may contain confidential information, and is
intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it
is addressed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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/