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