Bruce,
I've heard enough spurious double "is" sentences, that I'm tempted to think the construction has grammaticalized in some registers.
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 Bruce Despain [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 10:28 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: relative "that" revisited
Herb, Sergio, et al.,
I experienced the same primrose path. It is interesting that the omitted relative pronoun "that" is the default interpretation. I think that Sergio's suggestion that it be supplied by "which" rather than an ambiguous "that" would be a better choice. Thus the two-"that" situation is avoided.
There is another similar haplology with the content clause introduced by the indefinite pronoun "what." What the cleft-sentence paraphrase brings about is an extra "is" that people seem uncomfortable with (like the two-"that" situation).
"What the problem is is there are too many cooks."
When indefinite pronoun "what" is omitted, though understood like the relative "that," the two-"is" situation becomes even more apparent:
"The problem is is that there are too many cooks."
The desire is is to reword it so that they do not come together:
"The problem is this: that there are too many cooks."
"The problem: there are too many cooks."
Or, they say simply,
"The problem is--there are too many cooks."
Perhaps some people catch themselves saying the two-"is" version because their brain has generated the construction without a careful edit, and, thinking it is wrong, they omit one of them. The pause seems significant, or is this just my dialect playing tricks on me?
Bruce
--- [log in to unmask] wrote:
From: sergio <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: relative "that" revisited
Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 07:42:28 +0200
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/
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/
|
