Dear John,

In "Revising the Rules: Traditional Grammar and Modern Linguistics,"
Brock Haussamen calls this kind of nonrestrictive that-clause an
"amplifying clause."  Under the subheading "Polarities, Not
Categories," he gives a number of examples, much like  your Mars
example, which, as he puts it,
"fall in between the two extremes; they contain information which may
not exactly restrict or define the antecedent but which is
nonetheless essential in the sentence."

Here's an example from a student:

        The main character was a rich, egotistic young man who seemed
to think of himself as better than those around him.

And here are two he cites from the NYTimes:

        How fitting, then, that the Nobel Prize in Literature comes
to Ms. Gordimer as her country begins to dismantle the system that
she has opposed with such urgency.

        Now the prospect of housing them is looming in many more
neighborhoods--some of them middle-class enclaves--under a new City
Charter that requires that all city projects be spread equitably
among its neighborhoods.

I think that "amplifying" is a good name for these clauses.  And it
does help to have a name!

Martha







>Gotcha.  Thanks once again, Herb--dead on as usual!
>John
>
>       -----Original Message-----
>       From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf
>of Stahlke, Herbert F.W.
>       Sent: Fri 11/26/2004 2:15 PM
>       To: [log in to unmask]
>       Cc:
>       Subject: Re: Restrictive Clauses
>
>
>
>       John,
>
>       The terms restrictive and non-restrictive have both
>functional and syntactic uses.  Syntactically, a wh-rel preceded
>band perhaps followed by a pause is non-restrictive.  In formal
>written Engish, non-restrictives can't start with "that".  That-rels
>are exclusively restrictive.  In you second example, your
>interpretation that the clause does not restrict is correct, but the
>problem lies in what we consider restricting.  Since the lines were
>the only things on Mars that could be canals, adding who made them
>doesn't really restrict them further.  It does, however, define them
>more precisely, and that's another function of restrictives.
>
>       Herb
>
>       ________________________________
>
>       From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf
>of Crow, John T
>       Sent: Fri 11/26/2004 12:12 PM
>       To: [log in to unmask]
>       Subject: Restrictive Clauses
>
>
>
>       I just discovered a gap in my understanding of restrictive
>vs. non-restrictive clauses that I hope somebody can fill.  Here is
>the text that created the problem for me:
>
>                       Early astronomers, who considered Mars to be
>the best candidate for extraterrestrial life, thought they saw
>straight lines crisscrossing the planet.  They thought that the
>straight lines were irrigation canals that had to have been built by
>intelligent beings.
>
>       Clearly, the relative clause in the first sentence is
>non-restrictive.  However, the relative clause in the second
>sentence is also non-restrictive in that it does not help the reader
>to restrict or identify which irrigation canals the writer is
>discussing.  And yet my internal grammar clearly marks this one as
>being restrictive.  What am I missing??
>
>       Thanks,
>
>       John
>
>       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/