Herb,

Thanks for your informative note. My reasoning for not identifying these
as relatives is that  the "that" of "the suspicion that he is faking" is
not the relative pronoun/subordinator, but the complementizer (pure
subordinator) 'that'--as your note about the absence of a gap confirms
(that is to say, there is no grammatical  role for the 'that' in the "he
is faking" clause). This is the same as with clausal subjects and direct
objects: "That he is faking is obvious" and "I know that he is faking".

How does traditional grammar analyze these?

Isn't it true that only NPs function as appositives (and I mean NPs, not
nominals)? Restrictive appositives (e.g., "the short story  A small,
good thing'...  ") are very noun-complement-like, so I can see how one
might see the complement clauses as appositive, at least in function.


***************************************************
Johanna Rubba, Associate Professor, Linguistics
English Department, Cal Poly State University
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
Tel. 805-756-2184 ~ Dept. phone 805-756-2596
Dept. fax: 805-756-6374 ~  E-mail: [log in to unmask]
URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
***************************************************

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/