Scott,
I suspect the reason why you would diagram such a sentence as you would is the same reason why I would too: Reed-Kellogg diagrams don't really provide an alternative. Within R-K grammatical analysis, relative clauses can't have zero constituents, and so "that" would have to be in Subject position. This is, however, not a morpho-syntactic argument; rather, it's an artifact of the model. We have to consider relative "that" a pronoun because that's what the model tells us it is. This is one of a number of weaknesses of R-K diagrams, but that's not our topic here, and I tend to agree that, in spite of its limitations, students who have learned R-K diagramming have a significantly better grounding in grammar than students who have not. It is, after all, a rigorous approach to sentence grammar, something most students are never taught. Better a flawed system that captures a lot of useful information than no system at all.
Herb
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott Catledge
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 9:15 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: ATEG Digest - 19 Dec 2010 to 20 Dec 2010 (#2010-227)
On morphosyntactic and semantic grounds, I would consider 'that' a pronoun
in "Anything that touches you touches me." When I diagram that sentence it
is the subject of a relative clause. To me subjects can only be pronouns,
nouns, or a word, phrase, or clause that replaces a noun or pronoun. I only
consider consider formal English--for informal, hit don't make me no never
mind. I use Joos's Five Clocks very frequently.
I do have a high regard for Herb's opinions even though we are often at
opposite ends of the grammatical spectrum and would like an explanation from
him as to why such a 'that' would not be a pronoun. I will confess that I
would find it quite awkward to say " I'd like you to meet the poet that we
read a lot of her work last year. Colloquially, I might say I would like
for you to meet the poet whose work we read a lot of last year.
In a relaxed situation with fellow academics, I would be far more likely to
say, "I would like for you to meet
Herman Snigglewfritx: we read an discussed a number of his poems last year."
I used similar intros to introduce Alan Ginsberg and Wallace Stevens.
Colmn
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of ATEG automatic digest system
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 12:00 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: ATEG Digest - 19 Dec 2010 to 20 Dec 2010 (#2010-227)
There are 14 messages totalling 4151 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Noun clauses (12)
2. Barron's Master the Basics (2)
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/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 10:21:40 -0500
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Noun clauses
Herb,
I might be content with saying that relative "that" acts in ways=20
that are very unique and that make it hard to classify. The important=20
work is in describing how it acts. In content clauses, it is always=20
outside the clause, but in relative clauses, it sometimes has a place=20
holding function. The category we place it in depends on how we draw the =
lines for the category.
Craig
On 12/18/2010 10:13 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote:
> Craig,
>
> A question was raised off-list about whether "that" is taking on some p=
ronoun function in the genitive in non-standard varieties. This appears =
to be the case. I like your examples showing that rel-that and conj-that=
behave alike, but I think the spelling identity of the subordinator and =
the demonstrative leads speakers to identify them with each other, even i=
f their history and their syntax and morphology argue otherwise. In a n=
on-standard construction like "Did you see a book that's cover was torn?"=
"that's" is clearly pronominal. I think "that's" arises by analogy to t=
he genitive pronouns yours/his/hers/its/ours/theirs even though those can=
't be used as determiners. (And, by the way, I think the spelling should=
be "thats," without the apostrophe, like the other genitive pronouns. M=
icrosoft Word keeps putting in the apostrophe for some reason.) Analogic=
al change is by its very nature irregular, and so that fact that genitive=
"thats" is developing in non-standard usage tells us nothing about what'=
s happening categorially to "that" in other relative constructions. Rem=
ember Sturtevant's Paradox: Sound change is regular and produces irregul=
arity; analogical change is irregular and produces regularity.
>
> On morphosyntactic grounds, I maintain the arguments that relative "tha=
t" is not a pronoun. We can gain insight into how the grammar of "that" =
is changing only by extrapolating from examples of usage. We can't do mu=
ch with people's na=EFve feeling and hunches about grammar, and I know yo=
u're not suggesting that.
>
> Herb
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:ATEG@LISTSER=
V.MUOHIO.EDU] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
> Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 10:38 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Noun clauses
>
> Herb,
> You and I have been over this one before and I don't want to just =
repeat that. But I do have a question. When "that" is required in the sub=
ject slot of a relative clause (As in "Anything that touches you touches =
me") is "that" simply holding down a slot (for sentence processing ease)o=
r is it actually acting as subject in that relative clause?
> My current sense of this is that it's more a matter of drawing clas=
sification lines than it is of disputing how this stuff works. The dynami=
cs of a relative clause are different from the dynamics of a content clau=
se BECAUSE DELETION OF A SENTENCE ELEMENT DOESN'T OCCUR IN CONTENT CLAUSE=
S. In a content clause, "that" remains fully outside the clause (in a way=
that the "wh" pronouns do not.) For that reason, we can say "His wish th=
at she would be at peace was granted" includes a clause ("that she would =
be at peace") that is more like a content clause than a relative. We can =
also use "that" along with "wh" pronouns in a content clause. "I believe =
that what she said was right." In a relative clause, we have much more th=
e feeling that we are choosing between them, as we do with "that" and "wh=
ich". Some books recommend "that" for restrictive, "which" for non-restri=
ctive. You have nothing parallel to that choice in content clauses.
> So "that" has some overlap with the "wh" pronouns in relative claus=
es that it doesn't have in content clauses.
> I have seen a sudden increase in an awkward "in which" pattern, I t=
hink coming out of New York City. "We were driving a car in which I bough=
t from my brother." That's not an actual example, so I may be distorting =
the context, but in the cases I've seen, an unusual number, the "in"
> seems not at all appropriate. It does seem to come more from a spoken d=
ialect.
>
> Craig
> Seth,
>> That's one of the arguments I didn't go into. There is a hierarchy of=
>> grammatical relations that governs all sorts of movement and deletion
>> processes across languages, called the Keenan-Comrie Accessibility
>> Hierarchy. Here's an example from the Wikipedia article on the KCAH,
>> which is worth reading:
>>
>> Subject That's the man [who ran away]. The girl [who came late] is
m=
y
>> sister.
>> Direct object That's the man [I saw yesterday]. The girl
[Kate saw] =
is
>> my sister.
>> Indirect object That's the man [to whom I gave the letter]. The
girl=
>> [whom I wrote a letter to] is my sister.
>> Oblique That's the man [I was talking about]. The girl [whom I sat
n=
ext
>> to] is my sister.
>> Genitive That's the man [whose sister I know]. The girl [whose
fathe=
r
>> died] told me she was sad.
>> Obj of Comp That's the man [I am taller than]. The girl [who Kate
is=
>> smarter than] is my sister.
>>
>> Notice that "that" can occur in prepositional phrases only if the
>> preposition is stranded. "...to that I was talking" is not possible.
>> Also, the genitive, as I pointed out earlier, does not allow "that."
>> These are precisely the positions in which asyndetic relatives are
>> also ungrammatical. There is an extension of this in colloquial
>> speech and in non-standard dialects where the gap in the relative
>> clause is filled by a resumptive pronoun. These occur in genitive and=
>> comparatives especially, although they'll also occur in more complex
>> constructions. An example would be "?I'd like you to meet the poet
>> that we read a lot of her work last year." We certainly would not
>> allow that in formal writing, but it's not at all unusual in speech.
>>
>> The comparative marker "than" acts a lot like a preposition in
>> English, and so if we combine it with prepositional phrases, which in
>> this version are collapsed with indirect objects, then what we see is
>> that asyndetic relatives are blocked only at the lowest level of the
>> hierarchy, Genitives. The fact that "that" can't be dropped if the
>> gap is in subject position is a separate phenomenon that is related to=
>> language processing needs. Otherwise that-deletion in noun clauses
>> and in relatives is pretty much the same rule. That-relatives and
>> zero-relatives then fall together into one subclass of relative
>> clauses that behave differently from wh-relatives.
>>
>> This distinction between that- and wh-relatives reflects the history
>> of the language. Historically, English had only the that-type and asy=
ndetic
>> relatives, although the subordinator was "tha" rather than "that." T=
his
>> is a reflection of the strongly paratactic structure of Old English:
>> not a lot of subordination but lots of main clauses in sequence,
>> sometimes conjoined by "and." Old English did not have wh-relatives
>> until the Late Old English period when they developed probably from
>> indefinite relatives under the influence of Latin, which the scribes
>> of the time knew well. In Latin, relative clauses had to be formed
>> with relative pronouns fully inflected for gender, number, and case.
>> After the Norman Conquest, when the tradition of Alfred the Great's
>> English scriptoria was suppressed, wh-relatives also disappeared and d=
idn't reappear until the late 13th c.
>> when, once again, Latin influenced writers borrowed the structure from=
>> Latin. Wh-relatives even today are more strongly a feature of
>> educated standard English than of non-standard dialects, which use
>> that- and zero- relatives much more. In fact, wh-relatives are still
>> so much a function of formal education and of Standard English that
>> when non-standard speakers attempt to use the wh-pronouns to initiate
>> clauses they frequently use them in unusual ways, as in sentences like=
>> "We were going to have a picnic Saturday, which it rained." Such
>> wh-coordination is not at all uncommon in spoken non-standard dialects=
=2E
>>
>> Herb
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Katz, Seth
>> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 3:04 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Noun clauses
>>
>> Hey, Herb--
>>
>> Thanks for recapitulating the argument for that being just a
>> subordinator and not a pronoun. You always make me think. A lot. A
>> nice break from grading.
>>
>> Unless I am misunderstanding you, I would note an exception to a claim=
>> you make. You say
>>
>>
>> * It is deletable, like the subordinator "that" and unlike
>> pronouns.
>>
>>
>> But the wh-pronouns are deletable in adjective clauses, when the
>> pronoun fills the direct object role in the dependent clause, as in
>>
>> The woman whom you met this morning is an old friend of mine.
>> The woman _____ you met this morning is an old friend of mine.
>>
>> Am I missing something in what you said?
>>
>> Happy end-of-semester--
>> Seth
>>
>> Dr. Seth Katz
>> Assistant Professor
>> Department of English
>> Bradley University
>>
>> Faculty Advisor
>> Bradley University Hillel
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of
>> Stahlke, Herbert F.W.
>> Sent: Fri 12/17/2010 12:45 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Noun clauses
>>
>>
>>
>> John,
>>
>>
>>
>> We've had some extensive discussion in past years on the status of "th=
at"
>> in clauses like these. There has not been complete agreement on all of=
>> it, but here's the position I've taken, which is also the position of
>> Otto Jespersen in his A Modern English Grammar on Historical
>> Principles and Huddleston& Pullum in their rather more recent
>> Cambridge Grammar of the English Language.
>>
>>
>>
>> There are two function words "that" in English. One is the distal
>> demonstrative "that" with its plural "these," and the other is the
>> subordinator "that" as found in the clauses you have provided. When
>> "that" is used to introduce a relative clause, it is simply a
>> subordinator, not a relative pronoun. The relative pronouns are the
>> wh- words. This analysis implies that there is a gap in the relative
>> clause corresponding to the head noun, so in "The pitches that Casey m=
issed..."
>> the gap is in direct object position where "pitches" would be if the
>> relative clause were a main clause instead. If it's the subject that
>> is zero, most speakers require "that" to avoid processing problems
>> that arise when a second finite verb occurs in a sentence without any
>> overt marking that it is in a subordinate clause, so in "The ball that=
>> got past Casey was a strike" the dropping of "that" would leave "The b=
all got past Casey
>> was a strike" which some speakers will use but writers will avoid. T=
he
>> fact that "that" is required there for clarity is not evidence that
>> it's a relative pronoun but simply a restriction on bare or asyndetic
>> relative clauses.
>>
>>
>>
>> There are several reasons for calling "that" a subordinator in all of
>> its non-demonstrative uses.
>>
>>
>>
>> * It's always unstressed, as is the subordinator "that."
>> Pronominal and determiner "that" are rarely unstressed.
>>
>> * If it were a pronoun in relative clauses, then we would expe=
ct
>> it to have a plural "those" in "*The pitches those Casey missed...."
>>
>> * There is no possessive form, although there is for wh-
>> relatives, so we can't say "*The ball that's casing came off...."
>>
>> * It is deletable, like the subordinator "that" and unlike
>> pronouns.
>>
>>
>>
>> There are more argument, and I recommend the treatment in Huddleston&
>> Pullum. There is also a very thorough critique of this analysis by
>> Johan van der Auwera in Journal of Linguistics 21 (1985), 149-179
>> titled "Relative that - a centennial dispute. It's a fascinating,
>> thoughtful, and incisive critique.
>>
>>
>>
>> Herb
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Chorazy
>> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 12:21 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Noun clauses
>>
>>
>>
>> Hello to all... I've been talking with students (11th grade) about
>> clauses and have collected some questions that the list might have
>> some thoughts on.
>>
>> The use of "that" as the head of a noun clause (and subject): "That
>> the healthcare system needs fixing is obvious."
>>
>> "That" used in an adjective phrase: "Unlike the cat that slept all
>> day, the dog ran around and barked."
>>
>> And if we can get some insight to the following use of "that": "Lynn
>> Margulis' theory that evolution is a process rather than a competition=
>> differs dramatically from the theories of most biologists."
>>
>> Are the last two simply restrictive clauses using the relative pronoun=
?
>>
>> Also (a bit different) - anyone care to parse the following? "Should
>> you have any trouble identifying the house, just remember that it has
>> a big brass knocker on the door." Students see the implied "you" as
>> the subject and its verb remember, but not what's going on up front.
>>
>> Thank you very much!
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> John Chorazy
>> English III Academy, Honors, and Academic Pequannock Township High
>> School
>>
>> Nulla dies sine linea. 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/
>>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interf=
ace 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 interf=
ace 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/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 10:25:50 -0500
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Noun clauses
John,
I don't think I have heard it in spoken form, which makes me wonder
where it's coming from and why it has appeared so suddenly. Perhaps it's
an attempt at formality, students aiming at "in which" but overextending
its use? I'm perplexed. I have given back papers, so I don't have a
ready example.
Craig
On 12/19/2010 12:00 AM, John Chorazy wrote:
> Craig - I've seen this usage in student writing quite a lot recently
> and I can't figure it out. Your example is really close to those I've
> read (I'll see if I can post a few from papers). And that I'm in New
> Jersey and you mentioned New York is striking. However, I haven't
> heard anyone speak this way, I've just found it in written form.
> John
> > I have seen a sudden increase in an awkward "in which" pattern, I think
> coming out of New York City. "We were driving a car in which I bought
> from my brother." That's not an actual example, so I may be distorting
> the context, but in the cases I've seen, an unusual number, the "in"
> seems not at all appropriate. It does seem to come more from a spoken
> dialect.
>
> > Craig
>
>
> John Chorazy
> English III Academy, Honors, and Academic
> Pequannock Township High School
>
> Nulla dies sine linea.
>
> 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/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 08:49:49 -0800
From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Barron's Master the Basics
--0-1763630343-1292863789=:82189
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
As is often the case, this will work better if you are set for html, color =
and =0Agraphics, by whatever name.=0A=A0=0ABarron's Master the Basics - Eng=
lish=0A=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0by Jean Yates, Northern Virginia =
Community =0ACollege.=0A=A0=0A#9.3 Present Perfect Tense=0A=A0=0AThis secti=
on starts with an inadequate definition but gives pretty good examples =0Au=
ntil ...=0A=A0=0A(f) to indicate that an action happened a very short time =
ago, use just or =0Afinally.=0A=A0=0APattern: =A0have + just=A0=A0=A0=A0 + =
past participle=0A=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 =A0have + finally=A0=
+ past participle=0A=A0=0A<Have> Did=A0they arrive<d> yet?=A0=A0 Yes they <=
have> did. They <have> just arrived.=0AWhat <has> happened?=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0The president <has> just left.=0A=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Our t=
eam <has> just won the =0Atournament.=0A=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 We <have> finally finished=
.=0A=A0=0A#9.4=A0 Past=A0Perfect Progressive Tense has similar problems.=A0=
=0A=A0=0AWhat had you been doing before you started to work? I had been stu=
dying for five =0Ayears.=0A=A0=0ANonsense. What did you do before you start=
ed to work? I studied for five =0Ayears.=A0=A0=A0=0A=A0=0AWhere had she bee=
n living before she bought this house? She had been living in =0Aan apartme=
nt for a long time.=0A=A0=0ANonsense. Where did she live before she bought =
this house? She lived in an =0Aapartment for a long time.=0A=A0=0AChallenge=
. It is written that there is no such thing as a correct (i.e., =0Areasonab=
le) past perfect progressive. I challenge you to find one. I have only =0Ae=
ver seen one that seemed to make sense=A0but I cannot now find it. I challe=
nge =0Aany and all to put one forth, or even make one up. I'll bet you can'=
t do it.=0A=A0=0ALet's agree, ya wanna, that if no one can either find or c=
reate a reasonable =0Aexample of the "past perfect progressive", we'll=A0(a=
) not teach it and (b) do our =0Abest to get it eliminated from grammar tex=
ts.*=0A=A0=0A.brad.20dec10.=A0=0A=A0=0A*Note 'texts'. Online grammar sites =
are=A0hopeless. They're so screwed up they =0Awill likely never be unscrewe=
d. They are an embarrassment to the English =0ALanguage.=0A=0A=0A
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/
--0-1763630343-1292863789=:82189
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html><head><style type=3D"text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></he=
ad><body><div style=3D"font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:1=
4pt"><DIV style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 12=
pt">=0A<DIV style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: =
10pt">=0A<DIV style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; FONT-SIZE=
: 10pt">=0A<DIV style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; FONT-SI=
ZE: 10pt">=0A<DIV style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR=
: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">=0A<DIV>=0A<DIV><STRONG><FONT color=3D#c00000>A=
s is often the case, this will work better if you are set for <EM>html</EM>=
, color and graphics, by whatever name.</FONT></STRONG></DIV>=0A<DIV><STRON=
G><FONT color=3D#c00000><FONT size=3D3></FONT></FONT></STRONG> </DIV>=
=0A<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=3D3><FONT color=3D#000000>Barron's Master the Ba=
sics - English</FONT></FONT></STRONG></DIV>=0A<DIV><STRONG><FONT color=3D#0=
00000><EM><FONT size=3D3> &n=
bsp;  =
; &n=
bsp; </FONT></EM> <FONT face=3D"">by Jean Yates, Northern Virgini=
a Community College.</FONT></FONT></STRONG></DIV>=0A<DIV><STRONG></STRONG><=
FONT color=3D#000000> </FONT></DIV>=0A<DIV><STRONG><FONT color=3D#0000=
00>#9.3 Present Perfect Tense</FONT></STRONG></DIV>=0A<DIV><STRONG><FONT co=
lor=3D#c00000></FONT></STRONG> </DIV>=0A<DIV><STRONG><FONT color=3D#c0=
0000>This section starts with an inadequate definition but gives pretty goo=
d examples until ...</FONT></STRONG></DIV>=0A<DIV><STRONG><FONT color=3D#00=
0000></FONT></STRONG> </DIV>=0A<DIV><STRONG><FONT color=3D#000000>(f) =
to indicate that an action happened a very short time ago, use just or fina=
lly.</FONT></STRONG></DIV>=0A<DIV><STRONG></STRONG><FONT color=3D#000000>&n=
bsp;</FONT></DIV>=0A<DIV><STRONG><FONT color=3D#000000>Pattern: have =
+ just + past participle</FONT></STRONG></DIV>=0A<D=
IV><STRONG><FONT color=3D#000000> =
have + finally + past participle<=
/FONT></STRONG></DIV>=0A<DIV><STRONG><FONT color=3D#c00000></FONT></STRONG>=
</DIV>=0A<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000><STRONG><FONT color=3D#c00000><=
;</FONT>Have<FONT color=3D#c00000>></FONT> <FONT color=3D#c00000><U>Did<=
/U></FONT> they arrive<FONT color=3D#c00000><</FONT>d<FONT color=3D=
#c00000>></FONT> yet? Yes they <FONT color=3D#c00000><</F=
ONT>have<FONT color=3D#c00000>> <U>did</U></FONT>. They <FONT color=3D#c=
00000><</FONT>have<FONT color=3D#c00000>></FONT> just arrived.</STRON=
G></FONT></DIV>=0A<DIV><STRONG><FONT color=3D#000000>What <FONT color=3D#c0=
0000><</FONT>has<FONT color=3D#c00000>></FONT> happened? &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p;The president <FONT color=3D#c00000><</FONT>has<FONT color=3D#c00000>&=
gt;</FONT> just left.</FONT></STRONG></DIV>=0A<DIV><STRONG><FONT color=3D#0=
00000> &nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
Our team <FONT color=3D#c00000><</FONT>has> just w=
on the tournament.</FONT></STRONG></DIV>=0A<DIV><STRONG><FONT color=3D#0000=
00> =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; We <FONT color=3D#c00000><</FONT>have<FONT color=3D#c000=
00>></FONT> finally finished.</FONT></STRONG></DIV>=0A<DIV><STRONG><FONT=
color=3D#c00000></FONT></STRONG> </DIV>=0A<DIV><STRONG><FONT color=3D=
#c00000><FONT color=3D#000000>#9.4 Past Perfect Progressive Tens=
e</FONT> </FONT><FONT color=3D#c00000>has similar problems. </FONT></S=
TRONG></DIV>=0A<DIV><STRONG><FONT color=3D#c00000></FONT></STRONG> </D=
IV>=0A<DIV><STRONG><FONT color=3D#000000>What had you been doing before you=
started to work? I had been studying for five years.</FONT></STRONG></DIV>=
=0A<DIV><STRONG><FONT color=3D#c00000></FONT></STRONG> </DIV>=0A<DIV><=
STRONG><FONT color=3D#c00000>Nonsense. What did you do before you started t=
o work? I studied for five years. </FONT></STRONG></DIV>=
=0A<DIV><STRONG></STRONG><FONT color=3D#c00000> </FONT></DIV>=0A<DIV><=
STRONG><FONT color=3D#000000>Where had she been living before she bought th=
is house? She had been living in an apartment for a long time.</FONT></STRO=
NG></DIV>=0A<DIV><STRONG><FONT color=3D#c00000></FONT></STRONG> </DIV>=
=0A<DIV><STRONG><FONT color=3D#c00000>Nonsense. Where did she live before s=
he bought this house? She lived in an apartment for a long time.</FONT></ST=
RONG></DIV>=0A<DIV><STRONG><FONT color=3D#c00000></FONT></STRONG> </DI=
V>=0A<DIV><STRONG><FONT color=3D#c00000>Challenge. It is written that there=
is no such thing as a correct (i.e., reasonable) past perfect progressive.=
I challenge you to find one. I have only ever seen one that seemed to make=
sense but I cannot now find it. I challenge any and all to put one fo=
rth, or even make one up. I'll bet you can't do it.</FONT></STRONG></DIV>=
=0A<DIV><STRONG></STRONG><FONT color=3D#c00000> </FONT></DIV>=0A<DIV><=
FONT color=3D#c00000><STRONG>Let's agree, ya wanna, that if no one can eith=
er find or create a reasonable example of the "past perfect progressive", w=
e'll (a) not teach it and (b) do our best to get it eliminated from gr=
ammar texts.</STRONG></FONT><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D3>*</FONT></DIV>=
=0A<DIV><STRONG><FONT color=3D#c00000></FONT></STRONG><STRONG><FONT color=
=3D#c00000></FONT></STRONG> </DIV>=0A<DIV><STRONG><FONT color=3D#c0000=
0>.brad.20dec10. </FONT></STRONG></DIV>=0A<DIV><STRONG></STRONG><FONT =
color=3D#c00000> </FONT></DIV>=0A<DIV><FONT color=3D#c00000><FONT colo=
r=3D#000000 size=3D3>*</FONT><STRONG> Note 'texts'. Online grammar sites ar=
e hopeless. They're so screwed up they will likely never be unscrewed.=
They are an embarrassment to the English Language.</STRONG></FONT></DIV></=
DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></div><br>=0A=0A </body></html>
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"
<p>
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--0-1763630343-1292863789=:82189--
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 13:05:19 -0500
From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Noun clauses
Craig and John,
I've heard it spoken as well, sometimes from undergrads but more often from=
people in the community who are trying to speak formally. I think it fits =
in with other non-standard uses of wh-relatives reflecting their marginal s=
tatus outside of Standard English.
Herb
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]
OHIO.EDU] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 10:26 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Noun clauses
John,
I don't think I have heard it in spoken form, which makes me wonder wh=
ere it's coming from and why it has appeared so suddenly. Perhaps it's an a=
ttempt at formality, students aiming at "in which" but overextending its us=
e? I'm perplexed. I have given back papers, so I don't have a ready example=
.
Craig
On 12/19/2010 12:00 AM, John Chorazy wrote:
> Craig - I've seen this usage in student writing quite a lot recently=20
> and I can't figure it out. Your example is really close to those I've=20
> read (I'll see if I can post a few from papers). And that I'm in New=20
> Jersey and you mentioned New York is striking. However, I haven't=20
> heard anyone speak this way, I've just found it in written form.
> John
> > I have seen a sudden increase in an awkward "in which" pattern, I=20
> > think
> coming out of New York City. "We were driving a car in which I bought=20
> from my brother." That's not an actual example, so I may be distorting=20
> the context, but in the cases I've seen, an unusual number, the "in"
> seems not at all appropriate. It does seem to come more from a spoken=20
> dialect.
>
> > Craig
>
>
> John Chorazy
> English III Academy, Honors, and Academic Pequannock Township High=20
> School
>
> Nulla dies sine linea.
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web=20
> interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select=20
> "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/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 13:10:33 -0500
From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Noun clauses
Craig,
My problem with saying that it sometimes has a place holding function is th=
at it's an impressionistic statement. If we ask what it's doing in a parti=
cular clause we can't provide any sort of evidence for a solution different=
form subordinator. A statement like yours follows from certain assumption=
s, but the assumptions themselves, for example, that "that" is a relative p=
ronoun, are difficult to support. Historical change gives us some help but=
must be interpreted very cautiously, which is why I'm not willing to say t=
hat pronominal status has not developed beyond the non-standard genitive us=
e.
Besides a general feeling about it, how can you argue that relative "that"=
is performing a function in the relative clause, an argument that can't be=
handled as well or better by deletion under identity?
Herb
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]
OHIO.EDU] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 10:22 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Noun clauses
Herb,
I might be content with saying that relative "that" acts in ways that a=
re very unique and that make it hard to classify. The important work is in =
describing how it acts. In content clauses, it is always outside the clause=
, but in relative clauses, it sometimes has a place holding function. The c=
ategory we place it in depends on how we draw the lines for the category.
Craig
On 12/18/2010 10:13 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote:
> Craig,
>
> A question was raised off-list about whether "that" is taking on some pro=
noun function in the genitive in non-standard varieties. This appears to b=
e the case. I like your examples showing that rel-that and conj-that behav=
e alike, but I think the spelling identity of the subordinator and the demo=
nstrative leads speakers to identify them with each other, even if their hi=
story and their syntax and morphology argue otherwise. In a non-standard =
construction like "Did you see a book that's cover was torn?" "that's" is c=
learly pronominal. I think "that's" arises by analogy to the genitive pron=
ouns yours/his/hers/its/ours/theirs even though those can't be used as dete=
rminers. (And, by the way, I think the spelling should be "thats," without=
the apostrophe, like the other genitive pronouns. Microsoft Word keeps pu=
tting in the apostrophe for some reason.) Analogical change is by its very=
nature irregular, and so that fact that genitive "thats" is developing in =
non-standard usage tells us nothing about what's happening categorially to =
"that" in other relative constructions. Remember Sturtevant's Paradox: S=
ound change is regular and produces irregularity; analogical change is irre=
gular and produces regularity.
>
> On morphosyntactic grounds, I maintain the arguments that relative "that"=
is not a pronoun. We can gain insight into how the grammar of "that" is c=
hanging only by extrapolating from examples of usage. We can't do much wit=
h people's na=EFve feeling and hunches about grammar, and I know you're not=
suggesting that.
>
> Herb
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
> Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 10:38 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Noun clauses
>
> Herb,
> You and I have been over this one before and I don't want to just re=
peat that. But I do have a question. When "that" is required in the subject=
slot of a relative clause (As in "Anything that touches you touches me") i=
s "that" simply holding down a slot (for sentence processing ease)or is it =
actually acting as subject in that relative clause?
> My current sense of this is that it's more a matter of drawing classi=
fication lines than it is of disputing how this stuff works. The dynamics o=
f a relative clause are different from the dynamics of a content clause BEC=
AUSE DELETION OF A SENTENCE ELEMENT DOESN'T OCCUR IN CONTENT CLAUSES. In a =
content clause, "that" remains fully outside the clause (in a way that the =
"wh" pronouns do not.) For that reason, we can say "His wish that she would=
be at peace was granted" includes a clause ("that she would be at peace") =
that is more like a content clause than a relative. We can also use "that" =
along with "wh" pronouns in a content clause. "I believe that what she said=
was right." In a relative clause, we have much more the feeling that we ar=
e choosing between them, as we do with "that" and "which". Some books recom=
mend "that" for restrictive, "which" for non-restrictive. You have nothing =
parallel to that choice in content clauses.
> So "that" has some overlap with the "wh" pronouns in relative clauses=
that it doesn't have in content clauses.
> I have seen a sudden increase in an awkward "in which" pattern, I thi=
nk coming out of New York City. "We were driving a car in which I bought fr=
om my brother." That's not an actual example, so I may be distorting the co=
ntext, but in the cases I've seen, an unusual number, the "in"
> seems not at all appropriate. It does seem to come more from a spoken dia=
lect.
>
> Craig
> Seth,
>> That's one of the arguments I didn't go into. There is a hierarchy
>> of grammatical relations that governs all sorts of movement and
>> deletion processes across languages, called the Keenan-Comrie
>> Accessibility Hierarchy. Here's an example from the Wikipedia
>> article on the KCAH, which is worth reading:
>>
>> Subject That's the man [who ran away]. The girl [who came late] is=
my
>> sister.
>> Direct object That's the man [I saw yesterday]. The girl [K=
ate saw] is
>> my sister.
>> Indirect object That's the man [to whom I gave the letter]. The=
girl
>> [whom I wrote a letter to] is my sister.
>> Oblique That's the man [I was talking about]. The girl [whom I sa=
t next
>> to] is my sister.
>> Genitive That's the man [whose sister I know]. The girl [whose fat=
her
>> died] told me she was sad.
>> Obj of Comp That's the man [I am taller than]. The girl [who Kate =
is
>> smarter than] is my sister.
>>
>> Notice that "that" can occur in prepositional phrases only if the
>> preposition is stranded. "...to that I was talking" is not possible.
>> Also, the genitive, as I pointed out earlier, does not allow "that."
>> These are precisely the positions in which asyndetic relatives are
>> also ungrammatical. There is an extension of this in colloquial
>> speech and in non-standard dialects where the gap in the relative
>> clause is filled by a resumptive pronoun. These occur in genitive
>> and comparatives especially, although they'll also occur in more
>> complex constructions. An example would be "?I'd like you to meet
>> the poet that we read a lot of her work last year." We certainly
>> would not allow that in formal writing, but it's not at all unusual in s=
peech.
>>
>> The comparative marker "than" acts a lot like a preposition in
>> English, and so if we combine it with prepositional phrases, which in
>> this version are collapsed with indirect objects, then what we see is
>> that asyndetic relatives are blocked only at the lowest level of the
>> hierarchy, Genitives. The fact that "that" can't be dropped if the
>> gap is in subject position is a separate phenomenon that is related
>> to language processing needs. Otherwise that-deletion in noun
>> clauses and in relatives is pretty much the same rule.
>> That-relatives and zero-relatives then fall together into one
>> subclass of relative clauses that behave differently from wh-relatives.
>>
>> This distinction between that- and wh-relatives reflects the history
>> of the language. Historically, English had only the that-type and asynd=
etic
>> relatives, although the subordinator was "tha" rather than "that." Thi=
s
>> is a reflection of the strongly paratactic structure of Old English:
>> not a lot of subordination but lots of main clauses in sequence,
>> sometimes conjoined by "and." Old English did not have wh-relatives
>> until the Late Old English period when they developed probably from
>> indefinite relatives under the influence of Latin, which the scribes
>> of the time knew well. In Latin, relative clauses had to be formed
>> with relative pronouns fully inflected for gender, number, and case.
>> After the Norman Conquest, when the tradition of Alfred the Great's
>> English scriptoria was suppressed, wh-relatives also disappeared and did=
n't reappear until the late 13th c.
>> when, once again, Latin influenced writers borrowed the structure
>> from Latin. Wh-relatives even today are more strongly a feature of
>> educated standard English than of non-standard dialects, which use
>> that- and zero- relatives much more. In fact, wh-relatives are still
>> so much a function of formal education and of Standard English that
>> when non-standard speakers attempt to use the wh-pronouns to initiate
>> clauses they frequently use them in unusual ways, as in sentences
>> like "We were going to have a picnic Saturday, which it rained."
>> Such wh-coordination is not at all uncommon in spoken non-standard diale=
cts.
>>
>> Herb
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Katz, Seth
>> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 3:04 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Noun clauses
>>
>> Hey, Herb--
>>
>> Thanks for recapitulating the argument for that being just a
>> subordinator and not a pronoun. You always make me think. A lot. A
>> nice break from grading.
>>
>> Unless I am misunderstanding you, I would note an exception to a
>> claim you make. You say
>>
>>
>> * It is deletable, like the subordinator "that" and unlike
>> pronouns.
>>
>>
>> But the wh-pronouns are deletable in adjective clauses, when the
>> pronoun fills the direct object role in the dependent clause, as in
>>
>> The woman whom you met this morning is an old friend of mine.
>> The woman _____ you met this morning is an old friend of mine.
>>
>> Am I missing something in what you said?
>>
>> Happy end-of-semester--
>> Seth
>>
>> Dr. Seth Katz
>> Assistant Professor
>> Department of English
>> Bradley University
>>
>> Faculty Advisor
>> Bradley University Hillel
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of
>> Stahlke, Herbert F.W.
>> Sent: Fri 12/17/2010 12:45 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Noun clauses
>>
>>
>>
>> John,
>>
>>
>>
>> We've had some extensive discussion in past years on the status of "that=
"
>> in clauses like these. There has not been complete agreement on all
>> of it, but here's the position I've taken, which is also the position
>> of Otto Jespersen in his A Modern English Grammar on Historical
>> Principles and Huddleston& Pullum in their rather more recent
>> Cambridge Grammar of the English Language.
>>
>>
>>
>> There are two function words "that" in English. One is the distal
>> demonstrative "that" with its plural "these," and the other is the
>> subordinator "that" as found in the clauses you have provided. When
>> "that" is used to introduce a relative clause, it is simply a
>> subordinator, not a relative pronoun. The relative pronouns are the
>> wh- words. This analysis implies that there is a gap in the relative
>> clause corresponding to the head noun, so in "The pitches that Casey mis=
sed..."
>> the gap is in direct object position where "pitches" would be if the
>> relative clause were a main clause instead. If it's the subject that
>> is zero, most speakers require "that" to avoid processing problems
>> that arise when a second finite verb occurs in a sentence without any
>> overt marking that it is in a subordinate clause, so in "The ball
>> that got past Casey was a strike" the dropping of "that" would leave "Th=
e ball got past Casey
>> was a strike" which some speakers will use but writers will avoid. The
>> fact that "that" is required there for clarity is not evidence that
>> it's a relative pronoun but simply a restriction on bare or asyndetic
>> relative clauses.
>>
>>
>>
>> There are several reasons for calling "that" a subordinator in all of
>> its non-demonstrative uses.
>>
>>
>>
>> * It's always unstressed, as is the subordinator "that."
>> Pronominal and determiner "that" are rarely unstressed.
>>
>> * If it were a pronoun in relative clauses, then we would expect
>> it to have a plural "those" in "*The pitches those Casey missed...."
>>
>> * There is no possessive form, although there is for wh-
>> relatives, so we can't say "*The ball that's casing came off...."
>>
>> * It is deletable, like the subordinator "that" and unlike
>> pronouns.
>>
>>
>>
>> There are more argument, and I recommend the treatment in Huddleston&
>> Pullum. There is also a very thorough critique of this analysis by
>> Johan van der Auwera in Journal of Linguistics 21 (1985), 149-179
>> titled "Relative that - a centennial dispute. It's a fascinating,
>> thoughtful, and incisive critique.
>>
>>
>>
>> Herb
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Chorazy
>> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 12:21 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Noun clauses
>>
>>
>>
>> Hello to all... I've been talking with students (11th grade) about
>> clauses and have collected some questions that the list might have
>> some thoughts on.
>>
>> The use of "that" as the head of a noun clause (and subject): "That
>> the healthcare system needs fixing is obvious."
>>
>> "That" used in an adjective phrase: "Unlike the cat that slept all
>> day, the dog ran around and barked."
>>
>> And if we can get some insight to the following use of "that": "Lynn
>> Margulis' theory that evolution is a process rather than a
>> competition differs dramatically from the theories of most biologists."
>>
>> Are the last two simply restrictive clauses using the relative pronoun?
>>
>> Also (a bit different) - anyone care to parse the following? "Should
>> you have any trouble identifying the house, just remember that it has
>> a big brass knocker on the door." Students see the implied "you" as
>> the subject and its verb remember, but not what's going on up front.
>>
>> Thank you very much!
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> John Chorazy
>> English III Academy, Honors, and Academic Pequannock Township High
>> School
>>
>> Nulla dies sine linea. 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/
>>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interfac=
e 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 interfac=
e 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/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 17:54:22 -0500
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Noun clauses
Herb,
It has always been my understanding that finite subordinate clauses
require an explicit subject. That may be one reason why the relative
can't be dropped if it's in subject role.
Example: "Anyone who touches you touches me."
"Anyone [whom] you touch touches me."
Deletion is possible in the second example, but not the first.
Example: "Anything that touches you touches me."
"Anything [that]you touch touches me."
Deletion is possible in the second, but not the first.
There is nothing parallel to that with content clauses since the
"that" remains fully outside the clause and is never used to stand in
(or place hold)for a missing subject. Relative clauses and content
clauses have formal (not just functional) differences.
Craig
> Craig,
>
> My problem with saying that it sometimes has a place holding function i=
s
> that it's an impressionistic statement. If we ask what it's doing in a
> particular clause we can't provide any sort of evidence for a solution
> different form subordinator. A statement like yours follows from certa=
in
> assumptions, but the assumptions themselves, for example, that "that" i=
s a
> relative pronoun, are difficult to support. Historical change gives us
> some help but must be interpreted very cautiously, which is why I'm not
> willing to say that pronominal status has not developed beyond the
> non-standard genitive use.
>
> Besides a general feeling about it, how can you argue that relative
> "that" is performing a function in the relative clause, an argument tha=
t
> can't be handled as well or better by deletion under identity?
>
> Herb
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 10:22 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Noun clauses
>
> Herb,
> I might be content with saying that relative "that" acts in ways th=
at
> are very unique and that make it hard to classify. The important work
> is in describing how it acts. In content clauses, it is always outside
> the clause, but in relative clauses, it sometimes has a place holding
> function. The category we place it in depends on how we draw the lines
> for the category.
>
> Craig
>
> On 12/18/2010 10:13 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote:
>> Craig,
>>
>> A question was raised off-list about whether "that" is taking on some
>> pronoun function in the genitive in non-standard varieties. This
>> appears to be the case. I like your examples showing that rel-that an=
d
>> conj-that behave alike, but I think the spelling identity of the
>> subordinator and the demonstrative leads speakers to identify them wit=
h
>> each other, even if their history and their syntax and morphology argu=
e
>> otherwise. In a non-standard construction like "Did you see a book
>> that's cover was torn?" "that's" is clearly pronominal. I think
>> "that's" arises by analogy to the genitive pronouns
>> yours/his/hers/its/ours/theirs even though those can't be used as
>> determiners. (And, by the way, I think the spelling should be "thats,=
"
>> without the apostrophe, like the other genitive pronouns. Microsoft
>> Word keeps putting in the apostrophe for some reason.) Analogical
>> change is by its very nature irregular, and so that fact that genitive
>> "thats" is developing in non-standard usage tells us nothing about
>> what's happening categorially to "that" in other relative construction=
s.
>> Remember Sturtevant's Paradox: Sound change is regular and produces
>> irregularity; analogical change is irregular and produces regularity.
>>
>> On morphosyntactic grounds, I maintain the arguments that relative
>> "that" is not a pronoun. We can gain insight into how the grammar of
>> "that" is changing only by extrapolating from examples of usage. We
>> can't do much with people's na=EFve feeling and hunches about grammar,=
and
>> I know you're not suggesting that.
>>
>> Herb
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
>> Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 10:38 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Noun clauses
>>
>> Herb,
>> You and I have been over this one before and I don't want to just
>> repeat that. But I do have a question. When "that" is required in
>> the subject slot of a relative clause (As in "Anything that touches
>> you touches me") is "that" simply holding down a slot (for sentence
>> processing ease)or is it actually acting as subject in that
>> relative clause?
>> My current sense of this is that it's more a matter of drawing
>> classification lines than it is of disputing how this stuff works.
>> The dynamics of a relative clause are different from the dynamics of
>> a content clause BECAUSE DELETION OF A SENTENCE ELEMENT DOESN'T
>> OCCUR IN CONTENT CLAUSES. In a content clause, "that" remains fully
>> outside the clause (in a way that the "wh" pronouns do not.) For
>> that reason, we can say "His wish that she would be at peace was
>> granted" includes a clause ("that she would be at peace") that is
>> more like a content clause than a relative. We can also use "that"
>> along with "wh" pronouns in a content clause. "I believe that what
>> she said was right." In a relative clause, we have much more the
>> feeling that we are choosing between them, as we do with "that" and
>> "which". Some books recommend "that" for restrictive, "which" for
>> non-restrictive. You have nothing parallel to that choice in content
>> clauses.
>> So "that" has some overlap with the "wh" pronouns in relative
>> clauses that it doesn't have in content clauses.
>> I have seen a sudden increase in an awkward "in which" pattern, I
>> think coming out of New York City. "We were driving a car in which I
>> bought from my brother." That's not an actual example, so I may be
>> distorting the context, but in the cases I've seen, an unusual
>> number, the "in"
>> seems not at all appropriate. It does seem to come more from a spoken
>> dialect.
>>
>> Craig
>> Seth,
>>> That's one of the arguments I didn't go into. There is a hierarchy
>>> of grammatical relations that governs all sorts of movement and
>>> deletion processes across languages, called the Keenan-Comrie
>>> Accessibility Hierarchy. Here's an example from the Wikipedia
>>> article on the KCAH, which is worth reading:
>>>
>>> Subject That's the man [who ran away]. The girl [who came late]
>>> is my
>>> sister.
>>> Direct object That's the man [I saw yesterday]. The girl
>>> [Kate saw] is
>>> my sister.
>>> Indirect object That's the man [to whom I gave the letter].
>>> The girl
>>> [whom I wrote a letter to] is my sister.
>>> Oblique That's the man [I was talking about]. The girl [whom I
>>> sat next
>>> to] is my sister.
>>> Genitive That's the man [whose sister I know]. The girl [whose
>>> father
>>> died] told me she was sad.
>>> Obj of Comp That's the man [I am taller than]. The girl [who Ka=
te
>>> is
>>> smarter than] is my sister.
>>>
>>> Notice that "that" can occur in prepositional phrases only if the
>>> preposition is stranded. "...to that I was talking" is not possible.
>>> Also, the genitive, as I pointed out earlier, does not allow "that."
>>> These are precisely the positions in which asyndetic relatives are
>>> also ungrammatical. There is an extension of this in colloquial
>>> speech and in non-standard dialects where the gap in the relative
>>> clause is filled by a resumptive pronoun. These occur in genitive
>>> and comparatives especially, although they'll also occur in more
>>> complex constructions. An example would be "?I'd like you to meet
>>> the poet that we read a lot of her work last year." We certainly
>>> would not allow that in formal writing, but it's not at all unusual i=
n
>>> speech.
>>>
>>> The comparative marker "than" acts a lot like a preposition in
>>> English, and so if we combine it with prepositional phrases, which in
>>> this version are collapsed with indirect objects, then what we see is
>>> that asyndetic relatives are blocked only at the lowest level of the
>>> hierarchy, Genitives. The fact that "that" can't be dropped if the
>>> gap is in subject position is a separate phenomenon that is related
>>> to language processing needs. Otherwise that-deletion in noun
>>> clauses and in relatives is pretty much the same rule.
>>> That-relatives and zero-relatives then fall together into one
>>> subclass of relative clauses that behave differently from wh-relative=
s.
>>>
>>> This distinction between that- and wh-relatives reflects the history
>>> of the language. Historically, English had only the that-type and
>>> asyndetic
>>> relatives, although the subordinator was "tha" rather than "that."
>>> This
>>> is a reflection of the strongly paratactic structure of Old English:
>>> not a lot of subordination but lots of main clauses in sequence,
>>> sometimes conjoined by "and." Old English did not have wh-relatives
>>> until the Late Old English period when they developed probably from
>>> indefinite relatives under the influence of Latin, which the scribes
>>> of the time knew well. In Latin, relative clauses had to be formed
>>> with relative pronouns fully inflected for gender, number, and case.
>>> After the Norman Conquest, when the tradition of Alfred the Great's
>>> English scriptoria was suppressed, wh-relatives also disappeared and
>>> didn't reappear until the late 13th c.
>>> when, once again, Latin influenced writers borrowed the structure
>>> from Latin. Wh-relatives even today are more strongly a feature of
>>> educated standard English than of non-standard dialects, which use
>>> that- and zero- relatives much more. In fact, wh-relatives are still
>>> so much a function of formal education and of Standard English that
>>> when non-standard speakers attempt to use the wh-pronouns to initiate
>>> clauses they frequently use them in unusual ways, as in sentences
>>> like "We were going to have a picnic Saturday, which it rained."
>>> Such wh-coordination is not at all uncommon in spoken non-standard
>>> dialects.
>>>
>>> Herb
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Katz, Seth
>>> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 3:04 PM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: Noun clauses
>>>
>>> Hey, Herb--
>>>
>>> Thanks for recapitulating the argument for that being just a
>>> subordinator and not a pronoun. You always make me think. A lot. A
>>> nice break from grading.
>>>
>>> Unless I am misunderstanding you, I would note an exception to a
>>> claim you make. You say
>>>
>>>
>>> * It is deletable, like the subordinator "that" and unlike
>>> pronouns.
>>>
>>>
>>> But the wh-pronouns are deletable in adjective clauses, when the
>>> pronoun fills the direct object role in the dependent clause, as in
>>>
>>> The woman whom you met this morning is an old friend of mine.
>>> The woman _____ you met this morning is an old friend of mine.
>>>
>>> Am I missing something in what you said?
>>>
>>> Happy end-of-semester--
>>> Seth
>>>
>>> Dr. Seth Katz
>>> Assistant Professor
>>> Department of English
>>> Bradley University
>>>
>>> Faculty Advisor
>>> Bradley University Hillel
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of
>>> Stahlke, Herbert F.W.
>>> Sent: Fri 12/17/2010 12:45 PM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: Noun clauses
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> John,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We've had some extensive discussion in past years on the status of
>>> "that"
>>> in clauses like these. There has not been complete agreement on all
>>> of it, but here's the position I've taken, which is also the position
>>> of Otto Jespersen in his A Modern English Grammar on Historical
>>> Principles and Huddleston& Pullum in their rather more recent
>>> Cambridge Grammar of the English Language.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There are two function words "that" in English. One is the distal
>>> demonstrative "that" with its plural "these," and the other is the
>>> subordinator "that" as found in the clauses you have provided. When
>>> "that" is used to introduce a relative clause, it is simply a
>>> subordinator, not a relative pronoun. The relative pronouns are the
>>> wh- words. This analysis implies that there is a gap in the relative
>>> clause corresponding to the head noun, so in "The pitches that Casey
>>> missed..."
>>> the gap is in direct object position where "pitches" would be if the
>>> relative clause were a main clause instead. If it's the subject that
>>> is zero, most speakers require "that" to avoid processing problems
>>> that arise when a second finite verb occurs in a sentence without any
>>> overt marking that it is in a subordinate clause, so in "The ball
>>> that got past Casey was a strike" the dropping of "that" would leave
>>> "The ball got past Casey
>>> was a strike" which some speakers will use but writers will avoid.
>>> The
>>> fact that "that" is required there for clarity is not evidence that
>>> it's a relative pronoun but simply a restriction on bare or asyndetic
>>> relative clauses.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There are several reasons for calling "that" a subordinator in all of
>>> its non-demonstrative uses.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> * It's always unstressed, as is the subordinator "that."
>>> Pronominal and determiner "that" are rarely unstressed.
>>>
>>> * If it were a pronoun in relative clauses, then we would
>>> expect
>>> it to have a plural "those" in "*The pitches those Casey missed...."
>>>
>>> * There is no possessive form, although there is for wh-
>>> relatives, so we can't say "*The ball that's casing came off...."
>>>
>>> * It is deletable, like the subordinator "that" and unlike
>>> pronouns.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There are more argument, and I recommend the treatment in Huddleston&
>>> Pullum. There is also a very thorough critique of this analysis by
>>> Johan van der Auwera in Journal of Linguistics 21 (1985), 149-179
>>> titled "Relative that - a centennial dispute. It's a fascinating,
>>> thoughtful, and incisive critique.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Herb
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Chorazy
>>> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 12:21 PM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Noun clauses
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hello to all... I've been talking with students (11th grade) about
>>> clauses and have collected some questions that the list might have
>>> some thoughts on.
>>>
>>> The use of "that" as the head of a noun clause (and subject): "That
>>> the healthcare system needs fixing is obvious."
>>>
>>> "That" used in an adjective phrase: "Unlike the cat that slept all
>>> day, the dog ran around and barked."
>>>
>>> And if we can get some insight to the following use of "that": "Lynn
>>> Margulis' theory that evolution is a process rather than a
>>> competition differs dramatically from the theories of most biologists=
."
>>>
>>> Are the last two simply restrictive clauses using the relative pronou=
n?
>>>
>>> Also (a bit different) - anyone care to parse the following? "Should
>>> you have any trouble identifying the house, just remember that it has
>>> a big brass knocker on the door." Students see the implied "you" as
>>> the subject and its verb remember, but not what's going on up front.
>>>
>>> Thank you very much!
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> John Chorazy
>>> English III Academy, Honors, and Academic Pequannock Township High
>>> School
>>>
>>> Nulla dies sine linea. 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/
>>>
>> 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 interf=
ace
> 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 interf=
ace
> 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/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 19:41:40 -0500
From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Noun clauses
Craig,
The pattern you illustrate below is certainly true of Standard English. Ho=
wever, in colloquial speech and in non-ztandard varieties of English "that"=
is dropped regularly before 0 subjects in relatives. I hear people say th=
ings like "Anyone/thing touches you touches me" fairly regularly. This syn=
tactic change is taking place because that's outside the relative clause, j=
ust as it's outside the content clause. If it were a pronoun and perceived=
as a pronoun cognitively, then I would also expect to hear things like "Th=
atever gambles loses" along with "Whoever gambles loses." But that's one I=
don't hear. The fact that "that" doesn't delete before a 0 subject relat=
ive clause in Formal Standard English reflects the conservatism of that dia=
lect.
Herb
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]
OHIO.EDU] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 5:54 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Noun clauses
Herb,
It has always been my understanding that finite subordinate clauses req=
uire an explicit subject. That may be one reason why the relative can't be =
dropped if it's in subject role.
Example: "Anyone who touches you touches me."
"Anyone [whom] you touch touches me."
Deletion is possible in the second example, but not the first.
Example: "Anything that touches you touches me."
"Anything [that]you touch touches me."
Deletion is possible in the second, but not the first.
There is nothing parallel to that with content clauses since the "that"=
remains fully outside the clause and is never used to stand in (or place h=
old)for a missing subject. Relative clauses and content clauses have formal=
(not just functional) differences.
Craig
> Craig,
>
> My problem with saying that it sometimes has a place holding function
> is that it's an impressionistic statement. If we ask what it's doing
> in a particular clause we can't provide any sort of evidence for a
> solution different form subordinator. A statement like yours follows
> from certain assumptions, but the assumptions themselves, for example,
> that "that" is a relative pronoun, are difficult to support.
> Historical change gives us some help but must be interpreted very
> cautiously, which is why I'm not willing to say that pronominal status
> has not developed beyond the non-standard genitive use.
>
> Besides a general feeling about it, how can you argue that relative
> "that" is performing a function in the relative clause, an argument
> that can't be handled as well or better by deletion under identity?
>
> Herb
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 10:22 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Noun clauses
>
> Herb,
> I might be content with saying that relative "that" acts in ways
> that are very unique and that make it hard to classify. The important
> work is in describing how it acts. In content clauses, it is always
> outside the clause, but in relative clauses, it sometimes has a place
> holding function. The category we place it in depends on how we draw
> the lines for the category.
>
> Craig
>
> On 12/18/2010 10:13 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote:
>> Craig,
>>
>> A question was raised off-list about whether "that" is taking on some
>> pronoun function in the genitive in non-standard varieties. This
>> appears to be the case. I like your examples showing that rel-that
>> and conj-that behave alike, but I think the spelling identity of the
>> subordinator and the demonstrative leads speakers to identify them
>> with each other, even if their history and their syntax and morphology a=
rgue
>> otherwise. In a non-standard construction like "Did you see a book
>> that's cover was torn?" "that's" is clearly pronominal. I think
>> "that's" arises by analogy to the genitive pronouns
>> yours/his/hers/its/ours/theirs even though those can't be used as
>> determiners. (And, by the way, I think the spelling should be "thats,"
>> without the apostrophe, like the other genitive pronouns. Microsoft
>> Word keeps putting in the apostrophe for some reason.) Analogical
>> change is by its very nature irregular, and so that fact that
>> genitive "thats" is developing in non-standard usage tells us nothing
>> about what's happening categorially to "that" in other relative construc=
tions.
>> Remember Sturtevant's Paradox: Sound change is regular and
>> produces irregularity; analogical change is irregular and produces regul=
arity.
>>
>> On morphosyntactic grounds, I maintain the arguments that relative
>> "that" is not a pronoun. We can gain insight into how the grammar of
>> "that" is changing only by extrapolating from examples of usage. We
>> can't do much with people's na=EFve feeling and hunches about grammar,
>> and I know you're not suggesting that.
>>
>> Herb
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
>> Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 10:38 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Noun clauses
>>
>> Herb,
>> You and I have been over this one before and I don't want to
>> just repeat that. But I do have a question. When "that" is required
>> in the subject slot of a relative clause (As in "Anything that
>> touches you touches me") is "that" simply holding down a slot (for
>> sentence processing ease)or is it actually acting as subject in that
>> relative clause?
>> My current sense of this is that it's more a matter of drawing
>> classification lines than it is of disputing how this stuff works.
>> The dynamics of a relative clause are different from the dynamics of
>> a content clause BECAUSE DELETION OF A SENTENCE ELEMENT DOESN'T OCCUR
>> IN CONTENT CLAUSES. In a content clause, "that" remains fully outside
>> the clause (in a way that the "wh" pronouns do not.) For that reason,
>> we can say "His wish that she would be at peace was granted" includes
>> a clause ("that she would be at peace") that is more like a content
>> clause than a relative. We can also use "that"
>> along with "wh" pronouns in a content clause. "I believe that what
>> she said was right." In a relative clause, we have much more the
>> feeling that we are choosing between them, as we do with "that" and
>> "which". Some books recommend "that" for restrictive, "which" for
>> non-restrictive. You have nothing parallel to that choice in content
>> clauses.
>> So "that" has some overlap with the "wh" pronouns in relative
>> clauses that it doesn't have in content clauses.
>> I have seen a sudden increase in an awkward "in which" pattern, I
>> think coming out of New York City. "We were driving a car in which I
>> bought from my brother." That's not an actual example, so I may be
>> distorting the context, but in the cases I've seen, an unusual
>> number, the "in"
>> seems not at all appropriate. It does seem to come more from a spoken
>> dialect.
>>
>> Craig
>> Seth,
>>> That's one of the arguments I didn't go into. There is a hierarchy
>>> of grammatical relations that governs all sorts of movement and
>>> deletion processes across languages, called the Keenan-Comrie
>>> Accessibility Hierarchy. Here's an example from the Wikipedia
>>> article on the KCAH, which is worth reading:
>>>
>>> Subject That's the man [who ran away]. The girl [who came late]
>>> is my
>>> sister.
>>> Direct object That's the man [I saw yesterday]. The girl
>>> [Kate saw] is
>>> my sister.
>>> Indirect object That's the man [to whom I gave the letter].
>>> The girl
>>> [whom I wrote a letter to] is my sister.
>>> Oblique That's the man [I was talking about]. The girl [whom I
>>> sat next
>>> to] is my sister.
>>> Genitive That's the man [whose sister I know]. The girl [whose
>>> father
>>> died] told me she was sad.
>>> Obj of Comp That's the man [I am taller than]. The girl [who Kate
>>> is
>>> smarter than] is my sister.
>>>
>>> Notice that "that" can occur in prepositional phrases only if the
>>> preposition is stranded. "...to that I was talking" is not possible.
>>> Also, the genitive, as I pointed out earlier, does not allow "that."
>>> These are precisely the positions in which asyndetic relatives are
>>> also ungrammatical. There is an extension of this in colloquial
>>> speech and in non-standard dialects where the gap in the relative
>>> clause is filled by a resumptive pronoun. These occur in genitive
>>> and comparatives especially, although they'll also occur in more
>>> complex constructions. An example would be "?I'd like you to meet
>>> the poet that we read a lot of her work last year." We certainly
>>> would not allow that in formal writing, but it's not at all unusual
>>> in speech.
>>>
>>> The comparative marker "than" acts a lot like a preposition in
>>> English, and so if we combine it with prepositional phrases, which
>>> in this version are collapsed with indirect objects, then what we
>>> see is that asyndetic relatives are blocked only at the lowest level
>>> of the hierarchy, Genitives. The fact that "that" can't be dropped
>>> if the gap is in subject position is a separate phenomenon that is
>>> related to language processing needs. Otherwise that-deletion in
>>> noun clauses and in relatives is pretty much the same rule.
>>> That-relatives and zero-relatives then fall together into one
>>> subclass of relative clauses that behave differently from wh-relatives.
>>>
>>> This distinction between that- and wh-relatives reflects the history
>>> of the language. Historically, English had only the that-type and
>>> asyndetic relatives, although the subordinator was "tha" rather than
>>> "that."
>>> This
>>> is a reflection of the strongly paratactic structure of Old English:
>>> not a lot of subordination but lots of main clauses in sequence,
>>> sometimes conjoined by "and." Old English did not have wh-relatives
>>> until the Late Old English period when they developed probably from
>>> indefinite relatives under the influence of Latin, which the scribes
>>> of the time knew well. In Latin, relative clauses had to be formed
>>> with relative pronouns fully inflected for gender, number, and case.
>>> After the Norman Conquest, when the tradition of Alfred the Great's
>>> English scriptoria was suppressed, wh-relatives also disappeared and
>>> didn't reappear until the late 13th c.
>>> when, once again, Latin influenced writers borrowed the structure
>>> from Latin. Wh-relatives even today are more strongly a feature of
>>> educated standard English than of non-standard dialects, which use
>>> that- and zero- relatives much more. In fact, wh-relatives are
>>> still so much a function of formal education and of Standard English
>>> that when non-standard speakers attempt to use the wh-pronouns to
>>> initiate clauses they frequently use them in unusual ways, as in
>>> sentences like "We were going to have a picnic Saturday, which it raine=
d."
>>> Such wh-coordination is not at all uncommon in spoken non-standard
>>> dialects.
>>>
>>> Herb
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Katz, Seth
>>> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 3:04 PM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: Noun clauses
>>>
>>> Hey, Herb--
>>>
>>> Thanks for recapitulating the argument for that being just a
>>> subordinator and not a pronoun. You always make me think. A lot. A
>>> nice break from grading.
>>>
>>> Unless I am misunderstanding you, I would note an exception to a
>>> claim you make. You say
>>>
>>>
>>> * It is deletable, like the subordinator "that" and unlike
>>> pronouns.
>>>
>>>
>>> But the wh-pronouns are deletable in adjective clauses, when the
>>> pronoun fills the direct object role in the dependent clause, as in
>>>
>>> The woman whom you met this morning is an old friend of mine.
>>> The woman _____ you met this morning is an old friend of mine.
>>>
>>> Am I missing something in what you said?
>>>
>>> Happy end-of-semester--
>>> Seth
>>>
>>> Dr. Seth Katz
>>> Assistant Professor
>>> Department of English
>>> Bradley University
>>>
>>> Faculty Advisor
>>> Bradley University Hillel
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of
>>> Stahlke, Herbert F.W.
>>> Sent: Fri 12/17/2010 12:45 PM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: Noun clauses
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> John,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We've had some extensive discussion in past years on the status of
>>> "that"
>>> in clauses like these. There has not been complete agreement on all
>>> of it, but here's the position I've taken, which is also the
>>> position of Otto Jespersen in his A Modern English Grammar on
>>> Historical Principles and Huddleston& Pullum in their rather more
>>> recent Cambridge Grammar of the English Language.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There are two function words "that" in English. One is the distal
>>> demonstrative "that" with its plural "these," and the other is the
>>> subordinator "that" as found in the clauses you have provided. When
>>> "that" is used to introduce a relative clause, it is simply a
>>> subordinator, not a relative pronoun. The relative pronouns are the
>>> wh- words. This analysis implies that there is a gap in the
>>> relative clause corresponding to the head noun, so in "The pitches
>>> that Casey missed..."
>>> the gap is in direct object position where "pitches" would be if the
>>> relative clause were a main clause instead. If it's the subject
>>> that is zero, most speakers require "that" to avoid processing
>>> problems that arise when a second finite verb occurs in a sentence
>>> without any overt marking that it is in a subordinate clause, so in
>>> "The ball that got past Casey was a strike" the dropping of "that"
>>> would leave "The ball got past Casey was a strike" which some
>>> speakers will use but writers will avoid.
>>> The
>>> fact that "that" is required there for clarity is not evidence that
>>> it's a relative pronoun but simply a restriction on bare or
>>> asyndetic relative clauses.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There are several reasons for calling "that" a subordinator in all
>>> of its non-demonstrative uses.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> * It's always unstressed, as is the subordinator "that."
>>> Pronominal and determiner "that" are rarely unstressed.
>>>
>>> * If it were a pronoun in relative clauses, then we would
>>> expect
>>> it to have a plural "those" in "*The pitches those Casey missed...."
>>>
>>> * There is no possessive form, although there is for wh-
>>> relatives, so we can't say "*The ball that's casing came off...."
>>>
>>> * It is deletable, like the subordinator "that" and unlike
>>> pronouns.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There are more argument, and I recommend the treatment in
>>> Huddleston& Pullum. There is also a very thorough critique of this
>>> analysis by Johan van der Auwera in Journal of Linguistics 21
>>> (1985), 149-179 titled "Relative that - a centennial dispute. It's
>>> a fascinating, thoughtful, and incisive critique.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Herb
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Chorazy
>>> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 12:21 PM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Noun clauses
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hello to all... I've been talking with students (11th grade) about
>>> clauses and have collected some questions that the list might have
>>> some thoughts on.
>>>
>>> The use of "that" as the head of a noun clause (and subject): "That
>>> the healthcare system needs fixing is obvious."
>>>
>>> "That" used in an adjective phrase: "Unlike the cat that slept all
>>> day, the dog ran around and barked."
>>>
>>> And if we can get some insight to the following use of "that": "Lynn
>>> Margulis' theory that evolution is a process rather than a
>>> competition differs dramatically from the theories of most biologists."
>>>
>>> Are the last two simply restrictive clauses using the relative pronoun?
>>>
>>> Also (a bit different) - anyone care to parse the following? "Should
>>> you have any trouble identifying the house, just remember that it
>>> has a big brass knocker on the door." Students see the implied "you"
>>> as the subject and its verb remember, but not what's going on up front.
>>>
>>> Thank you very much!
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> John Chorazy
>>> English III Academy, Honors, and Academic Pequannock Township High
>>> School
>>>
>>> Nulla dies sine linea. 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/
>>>
>> 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/
>
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/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 20:25:42 -0500
From: Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Noun clauses
--0016e6de03bed723040497e18392
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Herb,
Here's some additional data about "that" in relative clauses to supplement
what you presented in an earlier post. In the examples, =D8 represents no
spoken word (e.g., "the book =D8 we read" =3D the book we read), and *
represents an ungrammatical term (e.g., "the author *to that we wrote").
*Restrictive relative clause*
Subject:
the author who/that/*=D8 wrote the book...
the book which/that/*=D8 inspired us...
Direct object:
the author whom/that/=D8 we admired...
the book which/that/=D8 the author wrote...
Object of preposition:
the author whom/that/=D8 we wrote to...
the author to whom/*to that/*to =D8 we wrote...
the book from which/*from that/*from =D8 we read...
Possessive:
the author whose/?that's/*=D8 book we admired...
the book whose/*which's/*that's/*=D8 cover we admired...
*Nonrestrictive relative clause*
Tolstoy, who/*that/*=D8 wrote *War and Peace*, ...
*War and Peace*, which/*that/*=D8 Tolstoy wrote, ...
Tolstoy, whom/*that/*=D8 we read about, ...
Tolstoy, about whom/*about that/*about =D8 we read, ...
*War and Peace*, whose/*which's/*that's/*=D8 plot we summarized, ...
Some observations:
1. In restrictive clauses, "that" occurs in the same positions as "who,"
"whom," and "which" for subject, direct object, and object of a clause-f=
inal
preposition.
2. "That" occurs in the same positions as =D8 except for subject of a
restrictive clause.
3. Unlike "who" or "which," "that" cannot directly follow a preposition.
4. Unlike "who" but like "which," "that" does not have a possessive form
("whose" but not "which's" or "that's"). This fact might not be signific=
ant,
since "whose" seems to be the universal possessive relative pronoun,
representing both animate and inanimate noun phrases (unlike "who/m," wh=
ich
represents only animate phrases).
5. Unlike "who," "whom," and "which," "that" does not occur in
nonrestrictive clauses.
The data is decidedly mixed, and you are wise to state, "I'm not willing to
say that pronominal status [of "that"] has not developed beyond the
non-standard genitive use [that's]." You and others presented several
arguments, historical and otherwise, for the anti-pronoun position. The
chief argument for the pro-pronoun position is intuitive. For at least some
people, "the author who wrote the book" and "the author that wrote the book=
"
seem indistinguishable, with the "who" and "that" seeming* *to represent
"the author" in the relative clause. On the other hand, if "that" is a
relative pronoun, why can't we say "the author to that we wrote"? For me th=
e
jury is still out, and I hope to read further contributions.
Dick
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 1:10 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> Craig,
>
> My problem with saying that it sometimes has a place holding function is
> that it's an impressionistic statement. If we ask what it's doing in a
> particular clause we can't provide any sort of evidence for a solution
> different form subordinator. A statement like yours follows from certain
> assumptions, but the assumptions themselves, for example, that "that" is =
a
> relative pronoun, are difficult to support. Historical change gives us s=
ome
> help but must be interpreted very cautiously, which is why I'm not willin=
g
> to say that pronominal status has not developed beyond the non-standard
> genitive use.
>
> Besides a general feeling about it, how can you argue that relative "tha=
t"
> is performing a function in the relative clause, an argument that can't b=
e
> handled as well or better by deletion under identity?
>
> Herb
>
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/
--0016e6de03bed723040497e18392
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Herb, <br><br>Here's some additional data about "that" in rel=
ative clauses to supplement what you presented in an earlier post. In the e=
xamples, <font style=3D"background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" size=3D"2"><=
span style=3D"line-height: 115%;">=D8 represents no spoken word (e.g., &quo=
t;the book </span></font><font style=3D"background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255=
);" size=3D"2"><span style=3D"line-height: 115%;"><span style=3D"background=
-color: rgb(255, 255, 153);">=D8</span> we read" =3D the book we read<=
/span></font>), and * represents an ungrammatical term (e.g., "the aut=
hor <span style=3D"background-color: rgb(255, 255, 153);">*to that</span> w=
e wrote").<br>
<br><b>Restrictive relative clause</b><br><div style=3D"margin-left: 40px;"=
>Subject:<br></div><div style=3D"margin-left: 80px;"><font size=3D"2">the a=
uthor <span style=3D"background-color: rgb(255, 255, 153);">who/that/*</spa=
n><span style=3D"line-height: 115%; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 153);">=
=D8</span> wrote the book...<br>
</font>
</div><div style=3D"margin-left: 80px;"><font size=3D"2">the book <span sty=
le=3D"background-color: rgb(255, 255, 153);">which/that/*</span><span style=
=3D"line-height: 115%;"><span style=3D"background-color: rgb(255, 255, 153)=
;">=D8</span> inspired us...</span><br>
</font>
</div><div style=3D"margin-left: 40px;"><font size=3D"2">Direct object:</fo=
nt><br></div><div style=3D"margin-left: 80px;"><font size=3D"2">the author =
<span style=3D"background-color: rgb(255, 255, 153);">whom/that/</span><spa=
n style=3D"line-height: 115%;"><span style=3D"background-color: rgb(255, 25=
5, 153);">=D8</span> we admired...</span><br>
the book <span style=3D"background-color: rgb(255, 255, 153);">which/that/<=
/span><span style=3D"line-height: 115%; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 153=
);">=D8</span> the author wrote...<br></font>
</div><div style=3D"margin-left: 40px;"><font size=3D"2">Object of preposit=
ion:</font><br></div><div style=3D"margin-left: 80px;"><font size=3D"2">the=
author <span style=3D"background-color: rgb(255, 255, 153);">whom/that/</s=
pan><span style=3D"line-height: 115%;"><span style=3D"background-color: rgb=
(255, 255, 153);">=D8</span> we wrote to...</span><br>
<span style=3D"line-height: 115%;">the author <span style=3D"background-col=
or: rgb(255, 255, 153);">to whom/*to that/*to </span></span></font>
<font size=3D"2"><span style=3D"line-height: 115%;"><span style=3D"backgrou=
nd-color: rgb(255, 255, 153);">=D8</span> we wrote...</span><br>
the book <span style=3D"background-color: rgb(255, 255, 153);">from which/*=
from that/*from </span><span style=3D"line-height: 115%;"><span style=3D"ba=
ckground-color: rgb(255, 255, 153);">=D8 we read...<br>
</span></span></font></div><div style=3D"margin-left: 40px;"><font size=3D"=
2"><span style=3D"line-height: 115%;">Possessive: </span></font><br><div st=
yle=3D"margin-left: 40px;"><font size=3D"2"><span style=3D"line-height: 115=
%;"></span>the author<span style=3D"background-color: rgb(255, 255, 153);">=
whose/?that's/</span><span style=3D"line-height: 115%; background-colo=
r: rgb(255, 255, 153);">*=D8</span><span style=3D"background-color: rgb(255=
, 255, 255);"> book we</span> admired...</font><br>
<font size=3D"2">
the book <span style=3D"background-color: rgb(255, 255, 153);">whose/*which=
's/*that's/*</span><span style=3D"line-height: 115%; background-col=
or: rgb(255, 255, 153);">=D8</span> cover we admired...</font><br></div></d=
iv>
<div style=3D"margin-left: 40px;">
</div><b>Nonrestrictive relative clause</b><br><div style=3D"margin-left: 8=
0px;">Tolstoy, <span style=3D"background-color: rgb(255, 255, 153);">who/*t=
hat/*</span><font size=3D"2"><span style=3D"line-height: 115%; background-c=
olor: rgb(255, 255, 153);"><span style=3D"background-color: rgb(255, 255, 1=
53);">=D8</span><span style=3D"background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> wrot=
e </span><i style=3D"background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">War and Peace</=
i><span style=3D"background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, ...</span><br sty=
le=3D"background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<i style=3D"background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">War and Peace</i><span s=
tyle=3D"background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, <span style=3D"background-=
color: rgb(255, 255, 153);">which/*that/*</span></span></span></font><font =
style=3D"background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" size=3D"2"><span style=3D"l=
ine-height: 115%;"><span style=3D"background-color: rgb(255, 255, 153);">=
=D8</span> Tolstoy <span style=3D"background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">wr=
ote</span></span></font><font style=3D"background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255)=
;" size=3D"2"><span style=3D"line-height: 115%;">, ...<br>
Tolstoy, <span style=3D"background-color: rgb(255, 255, 153);">whom/*that/*=
</span></span></font><font style=3D"background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" =
size=3D"2"><span style=3D"line-height: 115%;"><span style=3D"background-col=
or: rgb(255, 255, 153);">=D8</span> we read about, ...<br>
Tolstoy, <span style=3D"background-color: rgb(255, 255, 153);">about whom/*=
about that/*about </span></span></font><font style=3D"background-color: rgb=
(255, 255, 255);" size=3D"2"><span style=3D"line-height: 115%;"><span style=
=3D"background-color: rgb(255, 255, 153);">=D8</span> we read, ...<br>
<i>War and Peace</i>, <span style=3D"background-color: rgb(255, 255, 153);"=
>whose/*which's/*that's/*</span></span></font><font style=3D"backgr=
ound-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" size=3D"2"><span style=3D"line-height: 115=
%;"><span style=3D"background-color: rgb(255, 255, 153);">=D8</span> plot w=
e summarized, ...<br>
<br></span></font></div><font style=3D"background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255)=
;" size=3D"2"><span style=3D"line-height: 115%;">Some observations:<br></sp=
an></font><ol><li><font style=3D"background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" siz=
e=3D"2"><span style=3D"line-height: 115%;">In restrictive clauses, "th=
at" occurs in the same positions as "who," "whom,"=
and "which" for subject, direct object, and object of a clause-f=
inal preposition.</span></font></li>
<li><font style=3D"background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" size=3D"2"><span =
style=3D"line-height: 115%;">"That" occurs in the same positions =
as </span></font><font style=3D"background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" size=
=3D"2"><span style=3D"line-height: 115%;">=D8 except for subject of a restr=
ictive clause.<br>
</span></font></li><li><font style=3D"background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);=
" size=3D"2"><span style=3D"line-height: 115%;">Unlike "who" or &=
quot;which," "that" cannot directly follow a preposition.</s=
pan></font></li>
<li><font style=3D"background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" size=3D"2"><span =
style=3D"line-height: 115%;">Unlike "who" but like "which,&q=
uot; "that" does not have a possessive form ("whose" bu=
t not "which's" or "that's"). This fact might n=
ot be significant, since "whose" seems to be the universal posses=
sive relative pronoun, representing both animate and inanimate noun phrases=
(unlike "who/m," which represents only animate phrases).<br>
</span></font></li><li><font style=3D"background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);=
" size=3D"2"><span style=3D"line-height: 115%;">Unlike "who," &qu=
ot;whom," and "which," "that" does not occur in no=
nrestrictive clauses.</span></font></li>
</ol>The data is decidedly mixed, and you are wise to state, "I'm =
not willing to say that pronominal status [of "that"] has not dev=
eloped beyond the non-standard genitive use [that's]." You and oth=
ers presented several arguments, historical and otherwise, for the anti-pro=
noun position. The chief argument for the pro-pronoun position is intuitive=
. For at least some people, "the author who wrote the book" and &=
quot;the author that wrote the book" seem indistinguishable, with the =
"who" and "that" seeming<i> </i>to represent "the =
author" in the relative clause. On the other hand, if "that"=
is a relative pronoun, why can't we say "the author to that we wr=
ote"? For me the jury is still out, and I hope to read further contrib=
utions.<br>
<br>Dick <br><div style=3D"margin-left: 40px;"><font style=3D"background-co=
lor: rgb(255, 255, 255);" size=3D"2"><span style=3D"line-height: 115%;"></s=
pan></font></div><br style=3D"background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div c=
lass=3D"gmail_quote">
<span style=3D"background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 =
at 1:10 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <<a href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]" targ=
et=3D"_blank">[log in to unmask]</a>> wrote:</span><br style=3D"background=
-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; borde=
r-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><span style=3D"ba=
ckground-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
Craig,</span><br>
<br>
My problem with saying that it sometimes has a place holding function is th=
at it's an impressionistic statement. =A0If we ask what it's doing =
in a particular clause we can't provide any sort of evidence for a solu=
tion different form subordinator. =A0A statement like yours follows from ce=
rtain assumptions, but the assumptions themselves, for example, that "=
that" is a relative pronoun, are difficult to support. =A0Historical c=
hange gives us some help but must be interpreted very cautiously, which is =
why I'm not willing to say that pronominal status has not developed bey=
ond the non-standard genitive use.<br>
<br>
Besides a general feeling about it, how can =A0you argue that relative &quo=
t;that" is performing a function in the relative clause, an argument t=
hat can't be handled as well or better by deletion under identity?<br>
<div><br>
Herb<br></div></blockquote></div><br>
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"
<p>
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--0016e6de03bed723040497e18392--
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 20:51:28 -0500
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Noun clauses
Herb,
By the same logic, "Anyone touches you touches me" would be proof tha=
t
"who" is not a pronoun. I think deleting "who" is equally likely (at
least to my ear test), though, as you say, nonstandard.
We also have "that" as pronoun in content clauses in ways that could
seem parallel to the relatives.
"I believe that is true." That, in this sentence, is clearly pronoun
subject. We can add a subordinator. "I believe that that is true." It
can also be contracted, something that doesn't happen with a
subordinator. "I believe that's true."
Relative version: "I believe anything that is true." "I believe
anything that's true." "A belief that's true..."
I don't mean by this to diminish the argument that "that" is more
limited than you would expect from a pronoun. Again, I think it may be
slipping between categories, acting a little differently in relatives
than it does as subordinator in content clauses. Again, I think
noticing how it acts is more useful than wedging it into a category,
especially if it will be unique in whatever category you place it in.
It's either a unique pronoun or a unique subordinator.
Craig>
Craig,
>
> The pattern you illustrate below is certainly true of Standard English.
> However, in colloquial speech and in non-ztandard varieties of English
> "that" is dropped regularly before 0 subjects in relatives. I hear peo=
ple
> say things like "Anyone/thing touches you touches me" fairly regularly.
> This syntactic change is taking place because that's outside the relati=
ve
> clause, just as it's outside the content clause. If it were a pronoun =
and
> perceived as a pronoun cognitively, then I would also expect to hear
> things like "Thatever gambles loses" along with "Whoever gambles loses.=
"
> But that's one I don't hear. The fact that "that" doesn't delete befo=
re
> a 0 subject relative clause in Formal Standard English reflects the
> conservatism of that dialect.
>
> Herb
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 5:54 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Noun clauses
>
> Herb,
> It has always been my understanding that finite subordinate clauses
> require an explicit subject. That may be one reason why the relative
> can't be dropped if it's in subject role.
> Example: "Anyone who touches you touches me."
> "Anyone [whom] you touch touches me."
> Deletion is possible in the second example, but not the first.
>
> Example: "Anything that touches you touches me."
> "Anything [that]you touch touches me."
> Deletion is possible in the second, but not the first.
>
> There is nothing parallel to that with content clauses since the
> "that" remains fully outside the clause and is never used to stand in
> (or place hold)for a missing subject. Relative clauses and content
> clauses have formal (not just functional) differences.
>
> Craig
>
>
>> Craig,
>>
>> My problem with saying that it sometimes has a place holding function
>> is that it's an impressionistic statement. If we ask what it's doing
>> in a particular clause we can't provide any sort of evidence for a
>> solution different form subordinator. A statement like yours follows
>> from certain assumptions, but the assumptions themselves, for example,
>> that "that" is a relative pronoun, are difficult to support.
>> Historical change gives us some help but must be interpreted very
>> cautiously, which is why I'm not willing to say that pronominal status
>> has not developed beyond the non-standard genitive use.
>>
>> Besides a general feeling about it, how can you argue that relative
>> "that" is performing a function in the relative clause, an argument
>> that can't be handled as well or better by deletion under identity?
>>
>> Herb
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
>> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 10:22 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Noun clauses
>>
>> Herb,
>> I might be content with saying that relative "that" acts in ways
>> that are very unique and that make it hard to classify. The important
>> work is in describing how it acts. In content clauses, it is always
>> outside the clause, but in relative clauses, it sometimes has a place
>> holding function. The category we place it in depends on how we draw
>> the lines for the category.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>> On 12/18/2010 10:13 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote:
>>> Craig,
>>>
>>> A question was raised off-list about whether "that" is taking on some
>>> pronoun function in the genitive in non-standard varieties. This
>>> appears to be the case. I like your examples showing that rel-that
>>> and conj-that behave alike, but I think the spelling identity of the
>>> subordinator and the demonstrative leads speakers to identify them
>>> with each other, even if their history and their syntax and morpholog=
y
>>> argue
>>> otherwise. In a non-standard construction like "Did you see a book
>>> that's cover was torn?" "that's" is clearly pronominal. I think
>>> "that's" arises by analogy to the genitive pronouns
>>> yours/his/hers/its/ours/theirs even though those can't be used as
>>> determiners. (And, by the way, I think the spelling should be "thats=
,"
>>> without the apostrophe, like the other genitive pronouns. Microsoft
>>> Word keeps putting in the apostrophe for some reason.) Analogical
>>> change is by its very nature irregular, and so that fact that
>>> genitive "thats" is developing in non-standard usage tells us nothing
>>> about what's happening categorially to "that" in other relative
>>> constructions.
>>> Remember Sturtevant's Paradox: Sound change is regular and
>>> produces irregularity; analogical change is irregular and produces
>>> regularity.
>>>
>>> On morphosyntactic grounds, I maintain the arguments that relative
>>> "that" is not a pronoun. We can gain insight into how the grammar of
>>> "that" is changing only by extrapolating from examples of usage. We
>>> can't do much with people's na=EFve feeling and hunches about grammar=
,
>>> and I know you're not suggesting that.
>>>
>>> Herb
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
>>> Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 10:38 AM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: Noun clauses
>>>
>>> Herb,
>>> You and I have been over this one before and I don't want to
>>> just repeat that. But I do have a question. When "that" is required
>>> in the subject slot of a relative clause (As in "Anything that
>>> touches you touches me") is "that" simply holding down a slot (for
>>> sentence processing ease)or is it actually acting as subject in that
>>> relative clause?
>>> My current sense of this is that it's more a matter of drawing
>>> classification lines than it is of disputing how this stuff works.
>>> The dynamics of a relative clause are different from the dynamics of
>>> a content clause BECAUSE DELETION OF A SENTENCE ELEMENT DOESN'T OCCUR
>>> IN CONTENT CLAUSES. In a content clause, "that" remains fully outside
>>> the clause (in a way that the "wh" pronouns do not.) For that reason,
>>> we can say "His wish that she would be at peace was granted" includes
>>> a clause ("that she would be at peace") that is more like a content
>>> clause than a relative. We can also use "that"
>>> along with "wh" pronouns in a content clause. "I believe that what
>>> she said was right." In a relative clause, we have much more the
>>> feeling that we are choosing between them, as we do with "that" and
>>> "which". Some books recommend "that" for restrictive, "which" for
>>> non-restrictive. You have nothing parallel to that choice in content
>>> clauses.
>>> So "that" has some overlap with the "wh" pronouns in relative
>>> clauses that it doesn't have in content clauses.
>>> I have seen a sudden increase in an awkward "in which" pattern, I
>>> think coming out of New York City. "We were driving a car in which I
>>> bought from my brother." That's not an actual example, so I may be
>>> distorting the context, but in the cases I've seen, an unusual
>>> number, the "in"
>>> seems not at all appropriate. It does seem to come more from a spoken
>>> dialect.
>>>
>>> Craig
>>> Seth,
>>>> That's one of the arguments I didn't go into. There is a hierarchy
>>>> of grammatical relations that governs all sorts of movement and
>>>> deletion processes across languages, called the Keenan-Comrie
>>>> Accessibility Hierarchy. Here's an example from the Wikipedia
>>>> article on the KCAH, which is worth reading:
>>>>
>>>> Subject That's the man [who ran away]. The girl [who came late=
]
>>>> is my
>>>> sister.
>>>> Direct object That's the man [I saw yesterday]. The gir=
l
>>>> [Kate saw] is
>>>> my sister.
>>>> Indirect object That's the man [to whom I gave the letter].
>>>> The girl
>>>> [whom I wrote a letter to] is my sister.
>>>> Oblique That's the man [I was talking about]. The girl [whom =
I
>>>> sat next
>>>> to] is my sister.
>>>> Genitive That's the man [whose sister I know]. The girl [whose
>>>> father
>>>> died] told me she was sad.
>>>> Obj of Comp That's the man [I am taller than]. The girl [who
>>>> Kate
>>>> is
>>>> smarter than] is my sister.
>>>>
>>>> Notice that "that" can occur in prepositional phrases only if the
>>>> preposition is stranded. "...to that I was talking" is not possible.
>>>> Also, the genitive, as I pointed out earlier, does not allow "that."
>>>> These are precisely the positions in which asyndetic relatives are
>>>> also ungrammatical. There is an extension of this in colloquial
>>>> speech and in non-standard dialects where the gap in the relative
>>>> clause is filled by a resumptive pronoun. These occur in genitive
>>>> and comparatives especially, although they'll also occur in more
>>>> complex constructions. An example would be "?I'd like you to meet
>>>> the poet that we read a lot of her work last year." We certainly
>>>> would not allow that in formal writing, but it's not at all unusual
>>>> in speech.
>>>>
>>>> The comparative marker "than" acts a lot like a preposition in
>>>> English, and so if we combine it with prepositional phrases, which
>>>> in this version are collapsed with indirect objects, then what we
>>>> see is that asyndetic relatives are blocked only at the lowest level
>>>> of the hierarchy, Genitives. The fact that "that" can't be dropped
>>>> if the gap is in subject position is a separate phenomenon that is
>>>> related to language processing needs. Otherwise that-deletion in
>>>> noun clauses and in relatives is pretty much the same rule.
>>>> That-relatives and zero-relatives then fall together into one
>>>> subclass of relative clauses that behave differently from
>>>> wh-relatives.
>>>>
>>>> This distinction between that- and wh-relatives reflects the history
>>>> of the language. Historically, English had only the that-type and
>>>> asyndetic relatives, although the subordinator was "tha" rather than
>>>> "that."
>>>> This
>>>> is a reflection of the strongly paratactic structure of Old English:
>>>> not a lot of subordination but lots of main clauses in sequence,
>>>> sometimes conjoined by "and." Old English did not have wh-relatives
>>>> until the Late Old English period when they developed probably from
>>>> indefinite relatives under the influence of Latin, which the scribes
>>>> of the time knew well. In Latin, relative clauses had to be formed
>>>> with relative pronouns fully inflected for gender, number, and case.
>>>> After the Norman Conquest, when the tradition of Alfred the Great's
>>>> English scriptoria was suppressed, wh-relatives also disappeared and
>>>> didn't reappear until the late 13th c.
>>>> when, once again, Latin influenced writers borrowed the structure
>>>> from Latin. Wh-relatives even today are more strongly a feature of
>>>> educated standard English than of non-standard dialects, which use
>>>> that- and zero- relatives much more. In fact, wh-relatives are
>>>> still so much a function of formal education and of Standard English
>>>> that when non-standard speakers attempt to use the wh-pronouns to
>>>> initiate clauses they frequently use them in unusual ways, as in
>>>> sentences like "We were going to have a picnic Saturday, which it
>>>> rained."
>>>> Such wh-coordination is not at all uncommon in spoken non-standard
>>>> dialects.
>>>>
>>>> Herb
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Katz, Seth
>>>> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 3:04 PM
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: Re: Noun clauses
>>>>
>>>> Hey, Herb--
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for recapitulating the argument for that being just a
>>>> subordinator and not a pronoun. You always make me think. A lot. A
>>>> nice break from grading.
>>>>
>>>> Unless I am misunderstanding you, I would note an exception to a
>>>> claim you make. You say
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> * It is deletable, like the subordinator "that" and unlike
>>>> pronouns.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But the wh-pronouns are deletable in adjective clauses, when the
>>>> pronoun fills the direct object role in the dependent clause, as in
>>>>
>>>> The woman whom you met this morning is an old friend of mine.
>>>> The woman _____ you met this morning is an old friend of mine.
>>>>
>>>> Am I missing something in what you said?
>>>>
>>>> Happy end-of-semester--
>>>> Seth
>>>>
>>>> Dr. Seth Katz
>>>> Assistant Professor
>>>> Department of English
>>>> Bradley University
>>>>
>>>> Faculty Advisor
>>>> Bradley University Hillel
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>>
>>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of
>>>> Stahlke, Herbert F.W.
>>>> Sent: Fri 12/17/2010 12:45 PM
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: Re: Noun clauses
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> John,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We've had some extensive discussion in past years on the status of
>>>> "that"
>>>> in clauses like these. There has not been complete agreement on all
>>>> of it, but here's the position I've taken, which is also the
>>>> position of Otto Jespersen in his A Modern English Grammar on
>>>> Historical Principles and Huddleston& Pullum in their rather more
>>>> recent Cambridge Grammar of the English Language.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are two function words "that" in English. One is the distal
>>>> demonstrative "that" with its plural "these," and the other is the
>>>> subordinator "that" as found in the clauses you have provided. When
>>>> "that" is used to introduce a relative clause, it is simply a
>>>> subordinator, not a relative pronoun. The relative pronouns are the
>>>> wh- words. This analysis implies that there is a gap in the
>>>> relative clause corresponding to the head noun, so in "The pitches
>>>> that Casey missed..."
>>>> the gap is in direct object position where "pitches" would be if the
>>>> relative clause were a main clause instead. If it's the subject
>>>> that is zero, most speakers require "that" to avoid processing
>>>> problems that arise when a second finite verb occurs in a sentence
>>>> without any overt marking that it is in a subordinate clause, so in
>>>> "The ball that got past Casey was a strike" the dropping of "that"
>>>> would leave "The ball got past Casey was a strike" which some
>>>> speakers will use but writers will avoid.
>>>> The
>>>> fact that "that" is required there for clarity is not evidence that
>>>> it's a relative pronoun but simply a restriction on bare or
>>>> asyndetic relative clauses.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are several reasons for calling "that" a subordinator in all
>>>> of its non-demonstrative uses.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> * It's always unstressed, as is the subordinator "that."
>>>> Pronominal and determiner "that" are rarely unstressed.
>>>>
>>>> * If it were a pronoun in relative clauses, then we would
>>>> expect
>>>> it to have a plural "those" in "*The pitches those Casey missed...."
>>>>
>>>> * There is no possessive form, although there is for wh-
>>>> relatives, so we can't say "*The ball that's casing came off...."
>>>>
>>>> * It is deletable, like the subordinator "that" and unlike
>>>> pronouns.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are more argument, and I recommend the treatment in
>>>> Huddleston& Pullum. There is also a very thorough critique of this
>>>> analysis by Johan van der Auwera in Journal of Linguistics 21
>>>> (1985), 149-179 titled "Relative that - a centennial dispute. It's
>>>> a fascinating, thoughtful, and incisive critique.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Herb
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Chorazy
>>>> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 12:21 PM
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: Noun clauses
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hello to all... I've been talking with students (11th grade) about
>>>> clauses and have collected some questions that the list might have
>>>> some thoughts on.
>>>>
>>>> The use of "that" as the head of a noun clause (and subject): "That
>>>> the healthcare system needs fixing is obvious."
>>>>
>>>> "That" used in an adjective phrase: "Unlike the cat that slept all
>>>> day, the dog ran around and barked."
>>>>
>>>> And if we can get some insight to the following use of "that": "Lynn
>>>> Margulis' theory that evolution is a process rather than a
>>>> competition differs dramatically from the theories of most
>>>> biologists."
>>>>
>>>> Are the last two simply restrictive clauses using the relative
>>>> pronoun?
>>>>
>>>> Also (a bit different) - anyone care to parse the following? "Should
>>>> you have any trouble identifying the house, just remember that it
>>>> has a big brass knocker on the door." Students see the implied "you"
>>>> as the subject and its verb remember, but not what's going on up
>>>> front.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you very much!
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> John Chorazy
>>>> English III Academy, Honors, and Academic Pequannock Township High
>>>> School
>>>>
>>>> Nulla dies sine linea. 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/
>>>>
>>> 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/
>>
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interf=
ace
> 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 interf=
ace
> 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/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 21:02:04 -0500
From: Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Noun clauses
--0016367fa6a2e8a54a0497e2053c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Herb,
Oddly enough, I found this on a site about grooming Maltese
dogs<http://spoiledmaltese.com/forum/51-maltese-grooming/70607-grooming-ahem
-male-pee-pee.html>:
"Then take his two front paws in one hand. Raise your hand carefully until
his underside is "get-at-able" then very carefully perform thatever i[t] is
you intend to do."
Dick
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 7:41 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
> Craig,
>
> The pattern you illustrate below is certainly true of Standard English.
> However, in colloquial speech and in non-ztandard varieties of English
> "that" is dropped regularly before 0 subjects in relatives. I hear people
> say things like "Anyone/thing touches you touches me" fairly regularly.
> This syntactic change is taking place because that's outside the relative
> clause, just as it's outside the content clause. If it were a pronoun and
> perceived as a pronoun cognitively, then I would also expect to hear
> things like "Thatever gambles loses" along with "Whoever gambles loses."
> But that's one I don't hear. The fact that "that" doesn't delete before
a
> 0 subject relative clause in Formal Standard English reflects the
> conservatism of that dialect.
>
> Herb
>
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/
--0016367fa6a2e8a54a0497e2053c
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Herb,<br><br>Oddly enough, I found this on a <a href=3D"http://spoiledmalte=
se.com/forum/51-maltese-grooming/70607-grooming-ahem-male-pee-pee.html">sit=
e about grooming Maltese dogs</a>: "Then take his two front paws in on=
e hand. Raise your hand carefully=20
until his underside is "get-at-able" then very carefully perform=
=20
thatever i[t] is you intend to do."<br><br>Dick<br><br><div class=3D"g=
mail_quote">On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 7:41 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <span dir=
=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</a>></=
span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; borde=
r-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">Craig,<br>
<br>
The pattern you illustrate below is certainly true of Standard English. =A0=
However, in colloquial speech and in non-ztandard varieties of English &quo=
t;that" is dropped regularly before 0 subjects in relatives. =A0I hear=
people say things like "Anyone/thing touches you touches me" fai=
rly regularly. =A0This syntactic change is taking place because that's =
outside the relative clause, just as it's outside the content clause. =
=A0If it were a pronoun and perceived as a pronoun cognitively, then <span =
style=3D"background-color: rgb(255, 255, 153);">I would also expect to hear=
things like "Thatever gambles loses"</span> along with "Who=
ever gambles loses." =A0But that's one I don't hear. =A0 The f=
act that "that" doesn't delete before a 0 subject relative cl=
ause in Formal Standard English reflects the conservatism of that dialect.<=
br>
<div class=3D"im"><br>
Herb<br></div></blockquote></div><br>
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"
<p>
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--0016367fa6a2e8a54a0497e2053c--
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 21:21:03 -0500
From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Noun clauses
--_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C5BE881DAEMAILBACKEND0_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dick,
Evidence that the surest way to find an example of something in the wild is=
to say that it doesn't occur!
As you undoubtedly noticed, "thatever" gets 17,600 raw googits, many of whi=
ch are spacing problems that end up linking subordinator "that" with adverb=
"ever" as in "the strangest thing that ever happened." But if you elimina=
te those, there is still a significant proportion of hits that use "thateve=
r" as an indefinite relative pronoun. So it does occur and, while not comm=
on, isn't at all rare enough to be passed off as a blip in the data.
I take this as another way in which relative "that" is behaving pronominall=
y. Like genitive "that's," we have morphosyntactic evidence of the change,=
not just impressionistic judgment.
I just googled "thats" and got over a hundred million hits. I went through=
the first hundred, and there was not a single instance of "thats" as a gen=
itive relative pronoun, although I know I've heard it used that way. Googl=
e being what it is, my "thats" search turned up a lot of instances with the=
apostrophe as well. I don't know quite what to make of this result.
Herb
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]
OHIO.EDU] On Behalf Of Dick Veit
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 9:02 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Noun clauses
Herb,
Oddly enough, I found this on a site about grooming Maltese dogs<http://spo=
iledmaltese.com/forum/51-maltese-grooming/70607-grooming-ahem-male-pee-pee.=
html>: "Then take his two front paws in one hand. Raise your hand carefully=
until his underside is "get-at-able" then very carefully perform thatever =
i[t] is you intend to do."
Dick
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 7:41 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]<mailt=
o:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Craig,
The pattern you illustrate below is certainly true of Standard English. Ho=
wever, in colloquial speech and in non-ztandard varieties of English "that"=
is dropped regularly before 0 subjects in relatives. I hear people say th=
ings like "Anyone/thing touches you touches me" fairly regularly. This syn=
tactic change is taking place because that's outside the relative clause, j=
ust as it's outside the content clause. If it were a pronoun and perceived=
as a pronoun cognitively, then I would also expect to hear things like "Th=
atever gambles loses" along with "Whoever gambles loses." But that's one I=
don't hear. The fact that "that" doesn't delete before a 0 subject relat=
ive clause in Formal Standard English reflects the conservatism of that dia=
lect.
Herb
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/
--_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C5BE881DAEMAILBACKEND0_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-micr=
osoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns=3D"http:=
//www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=
=3D"text/html; charset=3Dus-ascii"><meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Micros=
oft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit">
<o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vli=
nk=3Dpurple><div class=3DWordSection1><p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'f=
ont-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Dick,<o:p=
></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font=
-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><=
p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","=
sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Evidence that the surest way to find an example =
of something in the wild is to say that it doesn’t occur!<o:p></o:p><=
/span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:=
"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=
=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-se=
rif";color:#1F497D'>As you undoubtedly noticed, “thatever” gets=
17,600 raw googits, many of which are spacing problems that end up linking=
subordinator “that” with adverb “ever” as in ̶=
0;the strangest thing that ever happened.” But if you eliminate=
those, there is still a significant proportion of hits that use “tha=
tever” as an indefinite relative pronoun. So it does occur and,=
while not common, isn’t at all rare enough to be passed off as a bli=
p in the data. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=
=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p=
> </o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:11.0p=
t;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I take this as another =
way in which relative “that” is behaving pronominally. Li=
ke genitive “that’s,” we have morphosyntactic evidence of=
the change, not just impressionistic judgment.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p cla=
ss=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-=
serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><spa=
n style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497=
D'>I just googled “thats” and got over a hundred million hits.&=
nbsp; I went through the first hundred, and there was not a single instance=
of “thats” as a genitive relative pronoun, although I know I&#=
8217;ve heard it used that way. Google being what it is, my “th=
ats” search turned up a lot of instances with the apostrophe as well.=
I don’t know quite what to make of this result.<o:p></o:p></sp=
an></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Ca=
libri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=3DM=
soNormal><span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"=
;color:#1F497D'>Herb<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=
=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p=
> </o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><b><span style=3D'font-size:10=
.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style=3D'font=
-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Assembly for the Teaching =
of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Di=
ck Veit<br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, December 20, 2010 9:02 PM<br><b>To:</b> ATE=
[log in to unmask]<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: Noun clauses<o:p></o:p></span>=
</p><p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D=
'margin-bottom:12.0pt'>Herb,<br><br>Oddly enough, I found this on a <a href=
=3D"http://spoiledmaltese.com/forum/51-maltese-grooming/70607-grooming-ahem=
-male-pee-pee.html">site about grooming Maltese dogs</a>: "Then take h=
is two front paws in one hand. Raise your hand carefully until his undersid=
e is "get-at-able" then very carefully perform thatever i[t] is y=
ou intend to do."<br><br>Dick<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=3DMsoNormal>=
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 7:41 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <<a href=3D"mailto:h=
[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=3DM=
soNormal>Craig,<br><br>The pattern you illustrate below is certainly true o=
f Standard English. However, in colloquial speech and in non-ztandard=
varieties of English "that" is dropped regularly before 0 subjec=
ts in relatives. I hear people say things like "Anyone/thing tou=
ches you touches me" fairly regularly. This syntactic change is =
taking place because that's outside the relative clause, just as it's outsi=
de the content clause. If it were a pronoun and perceived as a pronou=
n cognitively, then <span style=3D'background:#FFFF99'>I would also expect =
to hear things like "Thatever gambles loses"</span> along with &q=
uot;Whoever gambles loses." But that's one I don't hear. =
The fact that "that" doesn't delete before a 0 subject relative c=
lause in Formal Standard English reflects the conservatism of that dialect.=
<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=3DMsoNormal><br>Herb<o:p></o:p></p></div></div=
><p class=3DMsoNormal><br>To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit=
the list's web interface at: <a href=3D"http://listserv.muohio.edu/archive=
s/ateg.html">http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html</a> and select &=
quot;Join or leave the list" <o:p></o:p></p><p>Visit ATEG's web site a=
t <a href=3D"http://ateg.org/">http://ateg.org/</a> <o:p></o:p></p></div></=
body></html>=
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"
<p>
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C5BE881DAEMAILBACKEND0_--
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 23:23:07 -0500
From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Noun clauses
--_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C5BE881DCEMAILBACKEND0_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dick,
I appreciate the clarity of your arguments and of your presentation of data=
. I don't know how to evaluate claims that are based on impression, howeve=
r well-informed the impression is.
There is no question that interesting things are happening in the grammar o=
f "that." I suspect that the strong impression that Craig and others on th=
e list have that relative "that" is distinct from subordinator "that" and i=
s pronominal is at least congruent with the changes that are taking place, =
the occurrence of genitive "thats" and of "thatever."
This raises questions of how historical change works in language, especiall=
y analogical change, which is consistent in its irregularity. We get the i=
nnovative past tense "dove" from "dive" by analogy to "drive/drove," but we=
don't get "diven" by analogy to "driven." These two changes in the gramma=
r of "that" don't indicate that relative "that" is becoming a pronoun but s=
imply that in two morphologically distinct uses it has taken on pronominal =
function. Without morphosyntactic evidence I'm not comfortable calling re=
lative "that" a pronoun. It's part of one of two relative clause structure=
s in English. "That" relatives are an innovation in late Old English, but =
they develop from the OE paratactic relative, where the status of the claus=
e as relative could frequently only be established pragmatically. Wh-relat=
ives, as I noted earlier, are a separate system borrowed from Latin. The t=
raditional school grammar treatment of relative "that" as a pronoun is simp=
ly a bad analysis based on the orthographic identity of subordinator "that"=
and demonstrative "that," one that has a long history but no validity, as =
Jespersen showed three quarters of a century ago.
These two relative clause systems persist in Modern Standard English, and t=
he wh-relative remains a result of overt learning, hence the continuing con=
fusion over matters like the gender of relative "that." And, interestingly=
, wh-relatives are not a systematic feature for a lot of non-standard speak=
ers of English. They are a feature of educated English, passed on through=
education.
I know as a linguist I'm supposed to examine contemporary data to determine=
how the language works now, but I'm also a historical linguist, and my col=
leagues have occasionally chided me for using historical evidence to unders=
tand how the language is today.
Herb
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]
OHIO.EDU] On Behalf Of Dick Veit
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 8:26 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Noun clauses
Herb,
Here's some additional data about "that" in relative clauses to supplement =
what you presented in an earlier post. In the examples, =D8 represents no s=
poken word (e.g., "the book =D8 we read" =3D the book we read), and * repre=
sents an ungrammatical term (e.g., "the author *to that we wrote").
Restrictive relative clause
Subject:
the author who/that/*=D8 wrote the book...
the book which/that/*=D8 inspired us...
Direct object:
the author whom/that/=D8 we admired...
the book which/that/=D8 the author wrote...
Object of preposition:
the author whom/that/=D8 we wrote to...
the author to whom/*to that/*to =D8 we wrote...
the book from which/*from that/*from =D8 we read...
Possessive:
the author whose/?that's/*=D8 book we admired...
the book whose/*which's/*that's/*=D8 cover we admired...
Nonrestrictive relative clause
Tolstoy, who/*that/*=D8 wrote War and Peace, ...
War and Peace, which/*that/*=D8 Tolstoy wrote, ...
Tolstoy, whom/*that/*=D8 we read about, ...
Tolstoy, about whom/*about that/*about =D8 we read, ...
War and Peace, whose/*which's/*that's/*=D8 plot we summarized, ...
Some observations:
1. In restrictive clauses, "that" occurs in the same positions as "who," =
"whom," and "which" for subject, direct object, and object of a clause-fina=
l preposition.
2. "That" occurs in the same positions as =D8 except for subject of a res=
trictive clause.
3. Unlike "who" or "which," "that" cannot directly follow a preposition.
4. Unlike "who" but like "which," "that" does not have a possessive form =
("whose" but not "which's" or "that's"). This fact might not be significant=
, since "whose" seems to be the universal possessive relative pronoun, repr=
esenting both animate and inanimate noun phrases (unlike "who/m," which rep=
resents only animate phrases).
5. Unlike "who," "whom," and "which," "that" does not occur in nonrestric=
tive clauses.
The data is decidedly mixed, and you are wise to state, "I'm not willing to=
say that pronominal status [of "that"] has not developed beyond the non-st=
andard genitive use [that's]." You and others presented several arguments, =
historical and otherwise, for the anti-pronoun position. The chief argument=
for the pro-pronoun position is intuitive. For at least some people, "the =
author who wrote the book" and "the author that wrote the book" seem indist=
inguishable, with the "who" and "that" seeming to represent "the author" in=
the relative clause. On the other hand, if "that" is a relative pronoun, w=
hy can't we say "the author to that we wrote"? For me the jury is still out=
, and I hope to read further contributions.
Dick
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 1:10 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]<mailt=
o:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Craig,
My problem with saying that it sometimes has a place holding function is th=
at it's an impressionistic statement. If we ask what it's doing in a parti=
cular clause we can't provide any sort of evidence for a solution different=
form subordinator. A statement like yours follows from certain assumption=
s, but the assumptions themselves, for example, that "that" is a relative p=
ronoun, are difficult to support. Historical change gives us some help but=
must be interpreted very cautiously, which is why I'm not willing to say t=
hat pronominal status has not developed beyond the non-standard genitive us=
e.
Besides a general feeling about it, how can you argue that relative "that"=
is performing a function in the relative clause, an argument that can't be=
handled as well or better by deletion under identity?
Herb
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/
--_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C5BE881DCEMAILBACKEND0_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-micr=
osoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns=3D"http:=
//www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=
=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1"><meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Micr=
osoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:1985159198;
mso-list-template-ids:-1437669014;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit">
<o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vli=
nk=3Dpurple><div class=3DWordSection1><p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'f=
ont-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Dick,<o:p=
></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font=
-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><=
p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","=
sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I appreciate the clarity of your arguments and o=
f your presentation of data.=A0 I don’t know how to evaluate claims t=
hat are based on impression, however well-informed the impression is.=A0 <o=
:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;fo=
nt-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p=
><p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri"=
,"sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>There is no question that interesting things a=
re happening in the grammar of “that.” =A0I suspect that the st=
rong impression that Craig and others on the list have that relative “=
;that” is distinct from subordinator “that” and is pronom=
inal is at least congruent with the changes that are taking place, the occu=
rrence of genitive “thats” and of “thatever.”=A0 <o=
:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;fo=
nt-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p=
><p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri"=
,"sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>This raises questions of how historical change=
works in language, especially analogical change, which is consistent in it=
s irregularity.=A0 We get the innovative past tense “dove” from=
“dive” by analogy to “drive/drove,” but we donR=
17;t get “diven” by analogy to “driven.”=A0 These t=
wo changes in the grammar of “that” don’t indicate that r=
elative “that” is becoming a pronoun but simply that in two mor=
phologically distinct uses it has taken on pronominal function.=A0=A0 Witho=
ut morphosyntactic evidence I’m not comfortable calling relative R=
20;that” a pronoun.=A0 It’s part of one of two relative clause =
structures in English.=A0 “That” relatives are an innovation in=
late Old English, but they develop from the OE paratactic relative, where =
the status of the clause as relative could frequently only be established p=
ragmatically.=A0 Wh-relatives, as I noted earlier, are a separate system bo=
rrowed from Latin.=A0 The traditional school grammar treatment of relative =
“that” as a pronoun is simply a bad analysis based on the ortho=
graphic identity of subordinator “that” and demonstrative ̶=
0;that,” one that has a long history but no validity, as Jespersen sh=
owed three quarters of a century ago.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNo=
rmal><span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";col=
or:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D=
'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>These t=
wo relative clause systems persist in Modern Standard English, and the wh-r=
elative remains a result of overt learning, hence the continuing confusion =
over matters like the gender of relative “that.”=A0 And, intere=
stingly, wh-relatives are not a systematic feature for a lot of non-standar=
d speakers of English. =A0=A0They are a feature of educated English, passed=
on through education.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span styl=
e=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:=
p> </o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:11.0=
pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I know as a linguist I=
’m supposed to examine contemporary data to determine how the languag=
e works now, but I’m also a historical linguist, and my colleagues ha=
ve occasionally chided me for using historical evidence to understand how t=
he language is today.=A0 <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span s=
tyle=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>=
<o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:1=
1.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Herb<o:p></o:p></sp=
an></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Ca=
libri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=3DM=
soNormal><span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"=
;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span styl=
e=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:=
p> </o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><b><span style=3D'font-size:1=
0.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style=3D'fon=
t-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Assembly for the Teaching=
of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] <b>On Behalf Of </b>D=
ick Veit<br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, December 20, 2010 8:26 PM<br><b>To:</b> AT=
[log in to unmask]<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: Noun clauses<o:p></o:p></span=
></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=3DMsoNormal>Herb, <=
br><br>Here's some additional data about "that" in relative claus=
es to supplement what you presented in an earlier post. In the examples, <s=
pan style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;background:white'>=D8 represents no spoken wo=
rd (e.g., "the book </span><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;background:=
#FFFF99'>=D8</span><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;background:white'> we re=
ad" =3D the book we read</span>), and * represents an ungrammatical te=
rm (e.g., "the author <span style=3D'background:#FFFF99'>*to that</spa=
n> we wrote").<br><br><b>Restrictive relative clause</b><o:p></o:p></p=
><div style=3D'margin-left:30.0pt'><p class=3DMsoNormal>Subject:<o:p></o:p>=
</p></div><div style=3D'margin-left:60.0pt'><p class=3DMsoNormal><span styl=
e=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>the author <span style=3D'background:#FFFF99'>who/th=
at/*=D8</span> wrote the book...</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div style=3D'm=
argin-left:60.0pt'><p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>th=
e book <span style=3D'background:#FFFF99'>which/that/*=D8</span> inspired u=
s...</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div style=3D'margin-left:30.0pt'><p class=
=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>Direct object:</span><o:p></o=
:p></p></div><div style=3D'margin-left:60.0pt'><p class=3DMsoNormal><span s=
tyle=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>the author <span style=3D'background:#FFFF99'>who=
m/that/=D8</span> we admired...<br>the book <span style=3D'background:#FFFF=
99'>which/that/=D8</span> the author wrote...</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><d=
iv style=3D'margin-left:30.0pt'><p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-si=
ze:10.0pt'>Object of preposition:</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div style=3D'=
margin-left:60.0pt'><p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>t=
he author <span style=3D'background:#FFFF99'>whom/that/=D8</span> we wrote =
to...<br>the author <span style=3D'background:#FFFF99'>to whom/*to that/*to=
=D8</span> we wrote...<br>the book <span style=3D'background:#FFFF99'>from=
which/*from that/*from =D8 we read...</span></span><o:p></o:p></p></div><d=
iv style=3D'margin-left:30.0pt'><p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-si=
ze:10.0pt'>Possessive: </span><o:p></o:p></p><div style=3D'margin-left:30.0=
pt'><p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>the author<span s=
tyle=3D'background:#FFFF99'> whose/?that's/*=D8</span><span style=3D'backgr=
ound:white'> book we</span> admired...</span><br><span style=3D'font-size:1=
0.0pt'>the book <span style=3D'background:#FFFF99'>whose/*which's/*that's/*=
=D8</span> cover we admired...</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=3D=
MsoNormal><b>Nonrestrictive relative clause</b><o:p></o:p></p><div style=3D=
'margin-left:60.0pt'><p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin-bottom:12.0pt'>To=
lstoy, <span style=3D'background:#FFFF99'>who/*that/*</span><span style=3D'=
font-size:10.0pt;background:#FFFF99'>=D8</span><span style=3D'font-size:10.=
0pt;background:white'> wrote <i>War and Peace</i>, ...</span><span style=3D=
'font-size:10.0pt;background:#FFFF99'><br></span><i><span style=3D'font-siz=
e:10.0pt;background:white'>War and Peace</span></i><span style=3D'font-size=
:10.0pt;background:white'>, </span><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;backgrou=
nd:#FFFF99'>which/*that/*=D8</span><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;backgrou=
nd:white'> Tolstoy wrote, ...<br>Tolstoy, </span><span style=3D'font-size:1=
0.0pt;background:#FFFF99'>whom/*that/*=D8</span><span style=3D'font-size:10=
.0pt;background:white'> we read about, ...<br>Tolstoy, </span><span style=
=3D'font-size:10.0pt;background:#FFFF99'>about whom/*about that/*about =D8<=
/span><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;background:white'> we read, ...<br><i=
>War and Peace</i>, </span><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;background:#FFFF=
99'>whose/*which's/*that's/*=D8</span><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;backg=
round:white'> plot we summarized, ...</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=
=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;background:white'>Some observa=
tions:</span><o:p></o:p></p><ol start=3D1 type=3D1><li class=3DMsoNormal st=
yle=3D'mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level=
1 lfo1'><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;background:white'>In restrictive cl=
auses, "that" occurs in the same positions as "who," &q=
uot;whom," and "which" for subject, direct object, and objec=
t of a clause-final preposition.</span><o:p></o:p></li><li class=3DMsoNorma=
l style=3D'mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 l=
evel1 lfo1'><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;background:white'>"That&qu=
ot; occurs in the same positions as =D8 except for subject of a restrictive=
clause.</span><o:p></o:p></li><li class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'mso-margin-to=
p-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><span style=
=3D'font-size:10.0pt;background:white'>Unlike "who" or "whic=
h," "that" cannot directly follow a preposition.</span><o:p>=
</o:p></li><li class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margi=
n-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;=
background:white'>Unlike "who" but like "which," "=
that" does not have a possessive form ("whose" but not "=
;which's" or "that's"). This fact might not be significant, =
since "whose" seems to be the universal possessive relative prono=
un, representing both animate and inanimate noun phrases (unlike "who/=
m," which represents only animate phrases).</span><o:p></o:p></li><li =
class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:au=
to;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;background:whit=
e'>Unlike "who," "whom," and "which," "t=
hat" does not occur in nonrestrictive clauses.</span><o:p></o:p></li><=
/ol><p class=3DMsoNormal>The data is decidedly mixed, and you are wise to s=
tate, "I'm not willing to say that pronominal status [of "that&qu=
ot;] has not developed beyond the non-standard genitive use [that's]."=
You and others presented several arguments, historical and otherwise, for =
the anti-pronoun position. The chief argument for the pro-pronoun position =
is intuitive. For at least some people, "the author who wrote the book=
" and "the author that wrote the book" seem indistinguishabl=
e, with the "who" and "that" seeming<i> </i>to represen=
t "the author" in the relative clause. On the other hand, if &quo=
t;that" is a relative pronoun, why can't we say "the author to th=
at we wrote"? For me the jury is still out, and I hope to read further=
contributions.<br><br>Dick <o:p></o:p></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> =
</o:p></p><div><p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'background:white'>On Mon=
, Dec 20, 2010 at 1:10 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <<a href=3D"mailto:hstahlk=
[log in to unmask]" target=3D"_blank">[log in to unmask]</a>> wrote:</span><o:p></o=
:p></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'background:white'>Craig,</span><=
br><br>My problem with saying that it sometimes has a place holding functio=
n is that it's an impressionistic statement. If we ask what it's doin=
g in a particular clause we can't provide any sort of evidence for a soluti=
on different form subordinator. A statement like yours follows from c=
ertain assumptions, but the assumptions themselves, for example, that "=
;that" is a relative pronoun, are difficult to support. Historic=
al change gives us some help but must be interpreted very cautiously, which=
is why I'm not willing to say that pronominal status has not developed bey=
ond the non-standard genitive use.<br><br>Besides a general feeling about i=
t, how can you argue that relative "that" is performing a f=
unction in the relative clause, an argument that can't be handled as well o=
r better by deletion under identity?<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=3DMsoNorma=
l><br>Herb<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=3DMsoNormal><br>To join or le=
ave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: <a href=
=3D"http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html">http://listserv.muohio.e=
du/archives/ateg.html</a> and select "Join or leave the list" <o:=
p></o:p></p><p>Visit ATEG's web site at <a href=3D"http://ateg.org/">http:/=
/ateg.org/</a> <o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>=
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"
<p>
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431C5BE881DCEMAILBACKEND0_--
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 23:27:30 -0500
From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Noun clauses
Craig,
You'd be right about extending the argument to "who" if it weren't for the =
case that wh-relatives are a separate system borrowed from Latin. Wh-relat=
ives and "that"/asyndetic relatives are two separate systems historically, =
grammatically, and socially. I just wrote about some of this to Dick so I =
won't repeat it here.
I'm comfortable with "thats" and "thatever" as pronominal now that I've loo=
ked at some evidence. But I can't extend that analysis to bare relative "t=
hat" because there is simply no evidence. To make a cognitive argument we =
still have to have evidence, and I suspect that could be done, but I haven'=
t seen it done yet.
Herb
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]
OHIO.EDU] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 8:51 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Noun clauses
Herb,
By the same logic, "Anyone touches you touches me" would be proof that =
"who" is not a pronoun. I think deleting "who" is equally likely (at least =
to my ear test), though, as you say, nonstandard.
We also have "that" as pronoun in content clauses in ways that could se=
em parallel to the relatives.
"I believe that is true." That, in this sentence, is clearly pronoun sub=
ject. We can add a subordinator. "I believe that that is true." It can also=
be contracted, something that doesn't happen with a subordinator. "I belie=
ve that's true."
Relative version: "I believe anything that is true." "I believe anything=
that's true." "A belief that's true..."
I don't mean by this to diminish the argument that "that" is more limite=
d than you would expect from a pronoun. Again, I think it may be slipping b=
etween categories, acting a little differently in relatives than it does as=
subordinator in content clauses. Again, I think noticing how it acts is mo=
re useful than wedging it into a category, especially if it will be unique =
in whatever category you place it in.
It's either a unique pronoun or a unique subordinator.
Craig>
Craig,
>
> The pattern you illustrate below is certainly true of Standard English.
> However, in colloquial speech and in non-ztandard varieties of English
> "that" is dropped regularly before 0 subjects in relatives. I hear
> people say things like "Anyone/thing touches you touches me" fairly regul=
arly.
> This syntactic change is taking place because that's outside the
> relative clause, just as it's outside the content clause. If it were
> a pronoun and perceived as a pronoun cognitively, then I would also
> expect to hear things like "Thatever gambles loses" along with "Whoever g=
ambles loses."
> But that's one I don't hear. The fact that "that" doesn't delete before
> a 0 subject relative clause in Formal Standard English reflects the
> conservatism of that dialect.
>
> Herb
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 5:54 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Noun clauses
>
> Herb,
> It has always been my understanding that finite subordinate
> clauses require an explicit subject. That may be one reason why the
> relative can't be dropped if it's in subject role.
> Example: "Anyone who touches you touches me."
> "Anyone [whom] you touch touches me."
> Deletion is possible in the second example, but not the first.
>
> Example: "Anything that touches you touches me."
> "Anything [that]you touch touches me."
> Deletion is possible in the second, but not the first.
>
> There is nothing parallel to that with content clauses since the
> "that" remains fully outside the clause and is never used to stand in
> (or place hold)for a missing subject. Relative clauses and content
> clauses have formal (not just functional) differences.
>
> Craig
>
>
>> Craig,
>>
>> My problem with saying that it sometimes has a place holding function
>> is that it's an impressionistic statement. If we ask what it's doing
>> in a particular clause we can't provide any sort of evidence for a
>> solution different form subordinator. A statement like yours follows
>> from certain assumptions, but the assumptions themselves, for
>> example, that "that" is a relative pronoun, are difficult to support.
>> Historical change gives us some help but must be interpreted very
>> cautiously, which is why I'm not willing to say that pronominal
>> status has not developed beyond the non-standard genitive use.
>>
>> Besides a general feeling about it, how can you argue that relative
>> "that" is performing a function in the relative clause, an argument
>> that can't be handled as well or better by deletion under identity?
>>
>> Herb
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
>> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 10:22 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Noun clauses
>>
>> Herb,
>> I might be content with saying that relative "that" acts in ways
>> that are very unique and that make it hard to classify. The important
>> work is in describing how it acts. In content clauses, it is always
>> outside the clause, but in relative clauses, it sometimes has a place
>> holding function. The category we place it in depends on how we draw
>> the lines for the category.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>> On 12/18/2010 10:13 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote:
>>> Craig,
>>>
>>> A question was raised off-list about whether "that" is taking on
>>> some pronoun function in the genitive in non-standard varieties.
>>> This appears to be the case. I like your examples showing that
>>> rel-that and conj-that behave alike, but I think the spelling
>>> identity of the subordinator and the demonstrative leads speakers to
>>> identify them with each other, even if their history and their
>>> syntax and morphology argue
>>> otherwise. In a non-standard construction like "Did you see a book
>>> that's cover was torn?" "that's" is clearly pronominal. I think
>>> "that's" arises by analogy to the genitive pronouns
>>> yours/his/hers/its/ours/theirs even though those can't be used as
>>> determiners. (And, by the way, I think the spelling should be "thats,"
>>> without the apostrophe, like the other genitive pronouns. Microsoft
>>> Word keeps putting in the apostrophe for some reason.) Analogical
>>> change is by its very nature irregular, and so that fact that
>>> genitive "thats" is developing in non-standard usage tells us
>>> nothing about what's happening categorially to "that" in other
>>> relative constructions.
>>> Remember Sturtevant's Paradox: Sound change is regular and
>>> produces irregularity; analogical change is irregular and produces
>>> regularity.
>>>
>>> On morphosyntactic grounds, I maintain the arguments that relative
>>> "that" is not a pronoun. We can gain insight into how the grammar
>>> of "that" is changing only by extrapolating from examples of usage.
>>> We can't do much with people's na=EFve feeling and hunches about
>>> grammar, and I know you're not suggesting that.
>>>
>>> Herb
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
>>> Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 10:38 AM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: Noun clauses
>>>
>>> Herb,
>>> You and I have been over this one before and I don't want to
>>> just repeat that. But I do have a question. When "that" is required
>>> in the subject slot of a relative clause (As in "Anything that
>>> touches you touches me") is "that" simply holding down a slot (for
>>> sentence processing ease)or is it actually acting as subject in that
>>> relative clause?
>>> My current sense of this is that it's more a matter of drawing
>>> classification lines than it is of disputing how this stuff works.
>>> The dynamics of a relative clause are different from the dynamics of
>>> a content clause BECAUSE DELETION OF A SENTENCE ELEMENT DOESN'T
>>> OCCUR IN CONTENT CLAUSES. In a content clause, "that" remains fully
>>> outside the clause (in a way that the "wh" pronouns do not.) For
>>> that reason, we can say "His wish that she would be at peace was
>>> granted" includes a clause ("that she would be at peace") that is
>>> more like a content clause than a relative. We can also use "that"
>>> along with "wh" pronouns in a content clause. "I believe that what
>>> she said was right." In a relative clause, we have much more the
>>> feeling that we are choosing between them, as we do with "that" and
>>> "which". Some books recommend "that" for restrictive, "which" for
>>> non-restrictive. You have nothing parallel to that choice in content
>>> clauses.
>>> So "that" has some overlap with the "wh" pronouns in relative
>>> clauses that it doesn't have in content clauses.
>>> I have seen a sudden increase in an awkward "in which" pattern,
>>> I think coming out of New York City. "We were driving a car in which
>>> I bought from my brother." That's not an actual example, so I may be
>>> distorting the context, but in the cases I've seen, an unusual
>>> number, the "in"
>>> seems not at all appropriate. It does seem to come more from a
>>> spoken dialect.
>>>
>>> Craig
>>> Seth,
>>>> That's one of the arguments I didn't go into. There is a hierarchy
>>>> of grammatical relations that governs all sorts of movement and
>>>> deletion processes across languages, called the Keenan-Comrie
>>>> Accessibility Hierarchy. Here's an example from the Wikipedia
>>>> article on the KCAH, which is worth reading:
>>>>
>>>> Subject That's the man [who ran away]. The girl [who came late]
>>>> is my
>>>> sister.
>>>> Direct object That's the man [I saw yesterday]. The girl
>>>> [Kate saw] is
>>>> my sister.
>>>> Indirect object That's the man [to whom I gave the letter].
>>>> The girl
>>>> [whom I wrote a letter to] is my sister.
>>>> Oblique That's the man [I was talking about]. The girl [whom I
>>>> sat next
>>>> to] is my sister.
>>>> Genitive That's the man [whose sister I know]. The girl [whose
>>>> father
>>>> died] told me she was sad.
>>>> Obj of Comp That's the man [I am taller than]. The girl [who
>>>> Kate
>>>> is
>>>> smarter than] is my sister.
>>>>
>>>> Notice that "that" can occur in prepositional phrases only if the
>>>> preposition is stranded. "...to that I was talking" is not possible.
>>>> Also, the genitive, as I pointed out earlier, does not allow "that."
>>>> These are precisely the positions in which asyndetic relatives are
>>>> also ungrammatical. There is an extension of this in colloquial
>>>> speech and in non-standard dialects where the gap in the relative
>>>> clause is filled by a resumptive pronoun. These occur in genitive
>>>> and comparatives especially, although they'll also occur in more
>>>> complex constructions. An example would be "?I'd like you to meet
>>>> the poet that we read a lot of her work last year." We certainly
>>>> would not allow that in formal writing, but it's not at all unusual
>>>> in speech.
>>>>
>>>> The comparative marker "than" acts a lot like a preposition in
>>>> English, and so if we combine it with prepositional phrases, which
>>>> in this version are collapsed with indirect objects, then what we
>>>> see is that asyndetic relatives are blocked only at the lowest
>>>> level of the hierarchy, Genitives. The fact that "that" can't be
>>>> dropped if the gap is in subject position is a separate phenomenon
>>>> that is related to language processing needs. Otherwise
>>>> that-deletion in noun clauses and in relatives is pretty much the same=
rule.
>>>> That-relatives and zero-relatives then fall together into one
>>>> subclass of relative clauses that behave differently from
>>>> wh-relatives.
>>>>
>>>> This distinction between that- and wh-relatives reflects the
>>>> history of the language. Historically, English had only the
>>>> that-type and asyndetic relatives, although the subordinator was
>>>> "tha" rather than "that."
>>>> This
>>>> is a reflection of the strongly paratactic structure of Old English:
>>>> not a lot of subordination but lots of main clauses in sequence,
>>>> sometimes conjoined by "and." Old English did not have
>>>> wh-relatives until the Late Old English period when they developed
>>>> probably from indefinite relatives under the influence of Latin,
>>>> which the scribes of the time knew well. In Latin, relative
>>>> clauses had to be formed with relative pronouns fully inflected for ge=
nder, number, and case.
>>>> After the Norman Conquest, when the tradition of Alfred the Great's
>>>> English scriptoria was suppressed, wh-relatives also disappeared
>>>> and didn't reappear until the late 13th c.
>>>> when, once again, Latin influenced writers borrowed the structure
>>>> from Latin. Wh-relatives even today are more strongly a feature of
>>>> educated standard English than of non-standard dialects, which use
>>>> that- and zero- relatives much more. In fact, wh-relatives are
>>>> still so much a function of formal education and of Standard
>>>> English that when non-standard speakers attempt to use the
>>>> wh-pronouns to initiate clauses they frequently use them in unusual
>>>> ways, as in sentences like "We were going to have a picnic
>>>> Saturday, which it rained."
>>>> Such wh-coordination is not at all uncommon in spoken non-standard
>>>> dialects.
>>>>
>>>> Herb
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Katz, Seth
>>>> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 3:04 PM
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: Re: Noun clauses
>>>>
>>>> Hey, Herb--
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for recapitulating the argument for that being just a
>>>> subordinator and not a pronoun. You always make me think. A lot. A
>>>> nice break from grading.
>>>>
>>>> Unless I am misunderstanding you, I would note an exception to a
>>>> claim you make. You say
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> * It is deletable, like the subordinator "that" and unlike
>>>> pronouns.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But the wh-pronouns are deletable in adjective clauses, when the
>>>> pronoun fills the direct object role in the dependent clause, as in
>>>>
>>>> The woman whom you met this morning is an old friend of mine.
>>>> The woman _____ you met this morning is an old friend of mine.
>>>>
>>>> Am I missing something in what you said?
>>>>
>>>> Happy end-of-semester--
>>>> Seth
>>>>
>>>> Dr. Seth Katz
>>>> Assistant Professor
>>>> Department of English
>>>> Bradley University
>>>>
>>>> Faculty Advisor
>>>> Bradley University Hillel
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>>
>>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of
>>>> Stahlke, Herbert F.W.
>>>> Sent: Fri 12/17/2010 12:45 PM
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: Re: Noun clauses
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> John,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We've had some extensive discussion in past years on the status of
>>>> "that"
>>>> in clauses like these. There has not been complete agreement on all
>>>> of it, but here's the position I've taken, which is also the
>>>> position of Otto Jespersen in his A Modern English Grammar on
>>>> Historical Principles and Huddleston& Pullum in their rather more
>>>> recent Cambridge Grammar of the English Language.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are two function words "that" in English. One is the distal
>>>> demonstrative "that" with its plural "these," and the other is the
>>>> subordinator "that" as found in the clauses you have provided.
>>>> When "that" is used to introduce a relative clause, it is simply a
>>>> subordinator, not a relative pronoun. The relative pronouns are
>>>> the
>>>> wh- words. This analysis implies that there is a gap in the
>>>> relative clause corresponding to the head noun, so in "The pitches
>>>> that Casey missed..."
>>>> the gap is in direct object position where "pitches" would be if
>>>> the relative clause were a main clause instead. If it's the
>>>> subject that is zero, most speakers require "that" to avoid
>>>> processing problems that arise when a second finite verb occurs in
>>>> a sentence without any overt marking that it is in a subordinate
>>>> clause, so in "The ball that got past Casey was a strike" the dropping=
of "that"
>>>> would leave "The ball got past Casey was a strike" which some
>>>> speakers will use but writers will avoid.
>>>> The
>>>> fact that "that" is required there for clarity is not evidence that
>>>> it's a relative pronoun but simply a restriction on bare or
>>>> asyndetic relative clauses.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are several reasons for calling "that" a subordinator in all
>>>> of its non-demonstrative uses.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> * It's always unstressed, as is the subordinator "that."
>>>> Pronominal and determiner "that" are rarely unstressed.
>>>>
>>>> * If it were a pronoun in relative clauses, then we would
>>>> expect
>>>> it to have a plural "those" in "*The pitches those Casey missed...."
>>>>
>>>> * There is no possessive form, although there is for wh-
>>>> relatives, so we can't say "*The ball that's casing came off...."
>>>>
>>>> * It is deletable, like the subordinator "that" and unlike
>>>> pronouns.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are more argument, and I recommend the treatment in
>>>> Huddleston& Pullum. There is also a very thorough critique of this
>>>> analysis by Johan van der Auwera in Journal of Linguistics 21
>>>> (1985), 149-179 titled "Relative that - a centennial dispute. It's
>>>> a fascinating, thoughtful, and incisive critique.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Herb
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Chorazy
>>>> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 12:21 PM
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: Noun clauses
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hello to all... I've been talking with students (11th grade) about
>>>> clauses and have collected some questions that the list might have
>>>> some thoughts on.
>>>>
>>>> The use of "that" as the head of a noun clause (and subject): "That
>>>> the healthcare system needs fixing is obvious."
>>>>
>>>> "That" used in an adjective phrase: "Unlike the cat that slept all
>>>> day, the dog ran around and barked."
>>>>
>>>> And if we can get some insight to the following use of "that":
>>>> "Lynn Margulis' theory that evolution is a process rather than a
>>>> competition differs dramatically from the theories of most
>>>> biologists."
>>>>
>>>> Are the last two simply restrictive clauses using the relative
>>>> pronoun?
>>>>
>>>> Also (a bit different) - anyone care to parse the following?
>>>> "Should you have any trouble identifying the house, just remember
>>>> that it has a big brass knocker on the door." Students see the implied=
"you"
>>>> as the subject and its verb remember, but not what's going on up
>>>> front.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you very much!
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> John Chorazy
>>>> English III Academy, Honors, and Academic Pequannock Township High
>>>> School
>>>>
>>>> Nulla dies sine linea. 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/
>>>>
>>> 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/
>>
>
> 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/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 20:27:54 -0800
From: Bruce Despain <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Barron's Master the Basics
<DIV style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif; font-size:10pt;"><DIV>It is
easy to make up such examples, Brad, but since you speak a different
English, one that does not allow it, the attempt would be
fruitless. Forming the auxiliary phrase in English had been being
regularized over the centuries when Chomsky, who was a student in
1957, described the construction with a nifty statement on his way
to developing
the generative-transformational model. Another
student of that period, however, saw how futile the whole
endeavor was and chose rather to deny the existence of any such
construction in anyone's brain. He felt that shifting the point of
view into the past should be minimized by corrective actions, so that
the shift that we had inherited from the learned Latin scholars and had
gotten well used to in formal writing must even now be counted as
illogical, indirect, or completely unnecessar
y.</DIV>
<DIV><BR>--- [log in to unmask] wrote:<BR><BR>From: Brad Johnston
<[log in to unmask]><BR>To: [log in to unmask]<BR>Subject:
Barron's Master the Basics<BR>Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 08:49:49
-0800<BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 14pt">
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #000000;
FONT-SIZE: 10pt">
<DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT color="#c00000">As is often the case, this will work
better if you are set for <EM>html</EM>, color and graphics, by whatever
name.</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT color="#c00000"><FONT
size="3"></FONT></FONT></STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size="3"><FONT color="#000000">Barron's Master the Basics
- English</FONT></FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT color="#000000"><EM><FONT
size="3"> &
nbsp;  
; </FONT></
EM> <FONT face="">by Jean Yates, Northern Virginia Community
College.</FONT></FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG></STRONG><FONT color="#000000"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT color="#000000">#9.3 Present Perfect
Tense</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT color="#c00000"></FONT></STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT color="#c00000">This section starts with an inadequate
definition but gives pretty good examples until ...</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT color="#000000"></FONT></STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT color="#000000">(f) to indicate that an action happened a
very short time ago, use just or finally.</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG></STRONG><FONT color="#000000"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT color="#000000">Pattern: have +
just + past participle</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT
color="#000000">
have + finally + past
participle</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT color="#c00000"></FONT></STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color="#000000"><STRONG><FONT
color="#c00000"><</FONT>Have<FONT color="#c00000">></FONT> <FONT
color="#c00000"><U>Did</U></FONT> they arrive<FONT
color="#c00000"><</FONT>d<FONT color="#c00000">></FONT>
yet? Yes they <FONT color="#c00000"><</FONT>have<FONT
color="#c00000">> <U>did</U></FONT>. They <FONT
color="#c00000"><</FONT>have<FONT color="#c00000">></FONT> just
arrived.</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT color="#000000">What <FONT
color="#c00000"><</FONT>has<FONT color="#c00000">></FONT>
happened? &
nbsp; The president <FONT
color="#c00000"><</FONT>has<FONT color="#c00000">></FONT> just
left.</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT
color="#000000">
&nbs
p; &n
bsp;
Our team <FONT color="#c00000"><</FONT>has>
just won the tournament.</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT
color="#000000">
&nbs
p; &n
bsp;
We <FONT color="#c00000"><</FONT>have<FONT
color="#c00000">></FONT> finally finished.</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT color="#c00000"></FONT></STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT color="#c00000"><FONT color="#000000">#9.4
Past Perfect Progressive Tense</FONT> </FONT><FONT color="#c00000">has
similar problems. </FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT color="#c00000"></FONT></STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT color="#000000">What had you been doing before you
started to work? I had been studying for five years.</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT color="#c00000"></FONT></STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT color="#c00000">Nonsense. What did you do before you
started to work? I studied for five
years. </FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG></STRONG><FONT color="#c00000"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT color="#000000">Where had she been living before she
bought this house? She had been living in an apartment for a long
time.</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT color="#c00000"></FONT></STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT color="#c00000">Nonsense. Where did she live before she
bought this house? She lived in an apartment for a long
time.</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT color="#c00000"></FONT></STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT color="#c00000">Challenge. It is written that there is no
such thing as a correct (i.e., reasonable) past perfect progressive. I
challenge you to find one. I have only ever seen one that seemed to make
sense but I cannot now find it. I challenge any and all to put one
forth, or even make one up. I'll bet you can't do it.</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG></STRONG><FONT color="#c00000"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color="#c00000"><STRONG>Let's agree, ya wanna, that if no one can
either find or create a reasonable example of the "past perfect
progressive", we'll (a) not teach it and (b) do our best to get it
eliminated from grammar texts.</STRONG></FONT><FONT color="#000000"
size="3">*</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT color="#c00000"></FONT></STRONG><STRONG><FONT
color="#c00000"></FONT></STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT
color="#c00000">.brad.20dec10. </FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG></STRONG><FONT color="#c00000"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color="#c00000"><FONT color="#000000" size="3">*</FONT><STRONG>
Note 'texts'. Online grammar sites are hopeless. They're so screwed up
they will likely never be unscrewed. They are an embarrassment to the
English
Language.</STRONG></FONT></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV><BR
>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"
<DIV>Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/</DIV></DIV>
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"
<p>
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
------------------------------
End of ATEG Digest - 19 Dec 2010 to 20 Dec 2010 (#2010-227)
***********************************************************
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/
|
