Sorry replied to the wrong message. I was chiding a friend about his
reading habits
Russell Shelley
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Shelley, Russell
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 9:52 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Question re "That" vs. "Who"
You should read more.
Russell Shelley
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bruce Despain
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 9:50 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Question re "That" vs. "Who"
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 Stahlke
Another Ball Stater
Everyone: I always read your discussions and appreciate the fact that
you
know much more about grammar than I ever will. Here is a question for
you
experts.
We all know that language is fluid and that what is heard is picked up
and
practiced 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
the
impression 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 this
changed? Was it never true?
Thanks for your input. Helene A. Hoover (Cassopolis Public Schools,
formerly
Ivy Tech and Ball State)
From: Martha Kolln <[log in to unmask]> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
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/ 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/