Caroline,

There is a common misconception here, namely, that "that" as a
relative marker must have a non-human anaphor.  In fact, this
"that" is the same as the "that" used as a subordinating
conjunction introducing noun clauses, as in reported speech.  It
is not related to the "that" used as a demonstrative pronoun.  As
a subordinating conjunction is has no semantic features beyond a
realis sense, as Bolinger shows in his short but excellent
monograph That's That.  The choice to use or not to use "that" in
this sentence, then, has nothing to do with reference because the
relative "that" is not a pronoun and so does not have a referent.

Herb Stahlke
Ball State University

<<< [log in to unmask]  9/19  8:01p >>>
        I would not use 'that'. I understand this is not the
subject
under discussion, but the friend is a person, not an object so
requires
a personal pronoun. One could say "...if he had someone he could
play
with."

        Caroline

On Tue, 19 Sep 2000, Johanna Rubba wrote:

>  "(1)The little child is lonely; he would be happier if he had
someone that
> he can play with."
>
> Do any of the native speakers on this list find this sentence
> grammatical? I can't imagine this being acceptable to anyone,
but maybe
> I'm wrong. The 'that' clause requires 'could'.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Johanna Rubba   Assistant Professor, Linguistics
> English Department, California Polytechnic State University
> One Grand Avenue  * San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
> Tel. (805)-756-2184  *  Fax: (805)-756-6374 * Dept. Phone.
756-259
> * E-mail: [log in to unmask] *  Home page:
http://www.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
>                                        **
> "Understanding is a lot like sex; it's got a practical purpose,
> but that's not why people do it normally"  -            Frank
Oppenheimer
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>