Bill, et al.,
   I hope I'm not muddying the waters by presenting my own current
thoughts on the issue. Consider the following sentences.

(1) "I believe that the car goes fast." Here, "that" is clearly a
subordinating element and not a subject. The whole structure is noun
clause or content clause, a direct object complement of "believe."

(2) "My belief that the car goes fast was mistaken." Here, too, "that" is
subordinator and not subject.

(3) "I bought a car that goes fast."  This is the kind of sentence that
seems to most of us to have "that" in pronoun role. I would add my vote to
that view.

(4) *"I bought a car that it goes fast." In this case, isn't the
awkwardness with "it" caused by the fact that "that" is already in the
subject role? Otherwise, why would (2) seem fine, but (4) not?

My own tentative conclusion is that (3) is a true relative clause, but
that (2) is a noun clause or content clause, a complement rather than a
modifier.

Craig

 Herb, Dick, et al.:
>
> Like Dick, I feel I instinctively resist Herb's analysis on this one,
> although it's a perfectly logical analysis. We've had part of this
> conversation on the list before, I know, but I've lost track of which
> comments I've already made, so apologies for any duplication. I've been
> trying to pin down *why* I'm having this reaction. In addition to the
> "But...but....I learned it different!" motivation, I think I've
> identified two more (I'd like to emphasize at this point that, while I'm
> going to argue with the analysis, there's no sense in which I could
> claim it's "wrong"; instead, I'm tossing out a contrary argument partly
> to see where the flaws in my own reasoning might be):
>
> (1) I'm nervous about multiplying zero elements. While it's true we have
> relative clauses with no relativizer at all, I don't even want to say
> there's really a zero in those (I'd prefer to say that the occurrence of
> an element like an NP in an otherwise-ungrammatical position cues the
> hearer that an embedded clause is beginning). If I follow Herb's
> analysis correctly, I have no way of ruling out an additional step in
> which I could claim that the "no relativizer" clauses actually have TWO
> zeroes -- the usual one that stands in for the missing element, and an
> initial one that's the zero-allomorph of conjunctive 'that'. Then I
> start seeing zero elements everywhere.
>
> (2) This is one that *badly* needs corroboration, but....I've heard
> people slip up and use a possessive marker on 'that' when it's standing
> where a 'whose' would normally go ("We took the car that's door lock is
> busted"). If I'm right about that, it would be evidence that at least
> some speakers are processing 'that' as if it's a nominal element.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Bill Spruiell
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Veit, Richard
> Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 11:55 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Pedants that or who?
>
> Herb,
>
>
>
> I understand that "that" has a different origin from the wh-relative
> pronouns, and I understand that there are restrictions on "that" which
> are not placed on wh-relative pronouns (e.g., "that" doesn't occur after
> prepositions, and "that" occurs only in restrictive relatives).
> Nevertheless, it's hard for me to get around my intuition that "that" is
> acting as a pronoun. For me, in "the dog who barked" and "the dog that
> barked," "who" and "that" don't feel different, and both seem to
> function as the verb's subject.
>
>
>
> Also, if "that" is a conjunction and cannot fill a subject or object
> slot, and if "who" is a pronoun and can fill those slots, why are "that"
> and "who" mutually exclusive in a relative clause? Why can't we get "the
> dog that who barked"? Are there any other instances in the grammar where
> words of different grammatical categories and functions occur mutually
> exclusively in the same position?
>
>
>
> Finally, don't lots of children say things like "the boy that's mother
> drove him"?
>
>
>
> Dick
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of STAHLKE, HERBERT F
> [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 1:56 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Pedants that or who?
>
> Dick,
>
> I'm saying that the verb has a zero subject.  Many speakers find such
> sentences acceptable in speech, as in "There's the guy met me at the
> airport."  Whether one accepts such a spoken sentence or not, it does
> have a zero subject.  So in that-relatives, the co-indexed noun in the
> RC deletes.  In those cases where deletion is prevented by other
> factors, as with possessives or fronted PPs that-relatives aren't
> allowed and wh-rels get used.  For many speakers those positions that
> don't allow deletion show up with resumptive pronouns, as in "The guy
> that I talked to his brother yesterday lives in Indianapolis."
>
> Herb
>
> Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
> Emeritus Professor of English
> Ball State University
> Muncie, IN  47306
> [log in to unmask]
> ________________________________________
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Veit, Richard [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: January 18, 2009 10:50 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Pedants that or who?
>
> Herb,
>
> I know you have made this case, but I'd like to hear more. In "the dog
> who barked," who is a pronoun and the subject of the relative clause.
> Are you saying that, in "the dog that barked," the verb barked has no
> subject? Or are you saying that a conjunction can be the subject? Or
> something else entirely?
>
>
>
> Dick
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of STAHLKE, HERBERT F
> [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2009 4:11 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Pedants that or who?
>
> We've discussed that vs. who at great length on this list, and I've made
> the argument, based on grammarians like Jespersen and Huddleston&Pullum,
> that the claim of a distinction of humanness is false.  Relative-that is
> not a pronoun; it's a subordinating conjunction, the same as it is with
> noun clauses.  Because it isn't a pronoun, it can't agree grammatically.
> Conjunctions in English don't.  "Who," on the other hand, is a pronoun
> with human reference.  The "that" form goes back to Old English.  The
> "wh-" forms in their modern form arise in Middle English after the 13th
> c.
>
> Herb
>
> Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
> Emeritus Professor of English
> Ball State University
> Muncie, IN  47306
> [log in to unmask]
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interface at:
>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interface at:
>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interface at:
>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
> at:
>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>

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/