Discussion:
Pronoun question
(too old to reply)
Tim Striker
2021-01-21 10:58:19 UTC
Permalink
Two quick questions for the grammarians here:

In the hypothetical sentence below, is it necessary or optional to put
"whom" in front of "Witness 2?"

Sentence 1: The person whom Witness 1 identified as the murderer but
whom Witness 2 identified as an innocent bystander was ultimately
convicted of the crime.

Would the same answer apply to the sentence if I wrote it this way?

Sentence 2: The person whom Witness 1 identified as the murderer, but
whom Witness 2 identified as an innocent bystander, was ultimately
convicted of the crime.

Thanks very much for your answers

Tim Striker
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
Jack
2021-01-21 12:20:33 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 05:58:19 -0500, Tim Striker
Post by Tim Striker
In the hypothetical sentence below, is it necessary or optional to put
"whom" in front of "Witness 2?"
Sentence 1: The person whom Witness 1 identified as the murderer but
whom Witness 2 identified as an innocent bystander was ultimately
convicted of the crime.
Would the same answer apply to the sentence if I wrote it this way?
Sentence 2: The person whom Witness 1 identified as the murderer, but
whom Witness 2 identified as an innocent bystander, was ultimately
convicted of the crime.
I think both "whoms" could be dropped. I think it's easier to read
with the commas.
Peter T. Daniels
2021-01-21 16:21:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 05:58:19 -0500, Tim Striker
Post by Tim Striker
In the hypothetical sentence below, is it necessary or optional to put
"whom" in front of "Witness 2?"
Sentence 1: The person whom Witness 1 identified as the murderer but
whom Witness 2 identified as an innocent bystander was ultimately
convicted of the crime.
Would the same answer apply to the sentence if I wrote it this way?
Sentence 2: The person whom Witness 1 identified as the murderer, but
whom Witness 2 identified as an innocent bystander, was ultimately
convicted of the crime.
I think both "whoms" could be dropped. I think it's easier to read
with the commas.
Omitting both "whom"s is decidedly British. As for omitting the second
"whom," it depends on the level of formality of your document. Since
you're already using "whom" and not "who," you probably want to keep it.

Sentence 2, curiously, could do without the first "whom" but needs
the second.
Bebercito
2021-01-22 20:02:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Jack
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 05:58:19 -0500, Tim Striker
Post by Tim Striker
In the hypothetical sentence below, is it necessary or optional to put
"whom" in front of "Witness 2?"
Sentence 1: The person whom Witness 1 identified as the murderer but
whom Witness 2 identified as an innocent bystander was ultimately
convicted of the crime.
Would the same answer apply to the sentence if I wrote it this way?
Sentence 2: The person whom Witness 1 identified as the murderer, but
whom Witness 2 identified as an innocent bystander, was ultimately
convicted of the crime.
I think both "whoms" could be dropped. I think it's easier to read
with the commas.
Omitting both "whom"s is decidedly British. As for omitting the second
"whom," it depends on the level of formality of your document. Since
you're already using "whom" and not "who," you probably want to keep it.
Sentence 2, curiously, could do without the first "whom" but needs
the second.
Not so curious, because the first "whom" is restrictive while the second
is nonrestrictive.
Peter T. Daniels
2021-01-22 21:58:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Jack
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 05:58:19 -0500, Tim Striker
Post by Tim Striker
In the hypothetical sentence below, is it necessary or optional to put
"whom" in front of "Witness 2?"
Sentence 1: The person whom Witness 1 identified as the murderer but
whom Witness 2 identified as an innocent bystander was ultimately
convicted of the crime.
Would the same answer apply to the sentence if I wrote it this way?
Sentence 2: The person whom Witness 1 identified as the murderer, but
whom Witness 2 identified as an innocent bystander, was ultimately
convicted of the crime.
I think both "whoms" could be dropped. I think it's easier to read
with the commas.
Omitting both "whom"s is decidedly British. As for omitting the second
"whom," it depends on the level of formality of your document. Since
you're already using "whom" and not "who," you probably want to keep it.
Sentence 2, curiously, could do without the first "whom" but needs
the second.
Not so curious, because the first "whom" is restrictive while the second
is nonrestrictive.
Don't be ridiculous. "But" is a coordinating conjunction, joining two items
of the same syntactic value. If you don't see that, simply change "but" to
"and."

Maybe something about French made you say that.
Bebercito
2021-01-23 01:09:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Jack
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 05:58:19 -0500, Tim Striker
Post by Tim Striker
In the hypothetical sentence below, is it necessary or optional to put
"whom" in front of "Witness 2?"
Sentence 1: The person whom Witness 1 identified as the murderer but
whom Witness 2 identified as an innocent bystander was ultimately
convicted of the crime.
Would the same answer apply to the sentence if I wrote it this way?
Sentence 2: The person whom Witness 1 identified as the murderer, but
whom Witness 2 identified as an innocent bystander, was ultimately
convicted of the crime.
I think both "whoms" could be dropped. I think it's easier to read
with the commas.
Omitting both "whom"s is decidedly British. As for omitting the second
"whom," it depends on the level of formality of your document. Since
you're already using "whom" and not "who," you probably want to keep it.
Sentence 2, curiously, could do without the first "whom" but needs
the second.
Not so curious, because the first "whom" is restrictive while the second
is nonrestrictive.
Don't be ridiculous. "But" is a coordinating conjunction, joining two items
of the same syntactic value. If you don't see that, simply change "but" to
"and."
Maybe something about French made you say that.
No, the logic is that the person is first singled out of a group by a restrictive
"whom" (= "that" or a zero relative pronoun), then that particular person (and
only s/he) is referred to with an unrestrictive "whom".

Think of the sentence as:

The person Witness 1 identified as the murderer, _whom_ Witness 2 nonetheless
identified as an innocent bystander, was ultimately convicted of the crime.
Peter T. Daniels
2021-01-23 15:22:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Jack
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 05:58:19 -0500, Tim Striker
Post by Tim Striker
In the hypothetical sentence below, is it necessary or optional to put
"whom" in front of "Witness 2?"
Sentence 1: The person whom Witness 1 identified as the murderer but
whom Witness 2 identified as an innocent bystander was ultimately
convicted of the crime.
Would the same answer apply to the sentence if I wrote it this way?
Sentence 2: The person whom Witness 1 identified as the murderer, but
whom Witness 2 identified as an innocent bystander, was ultimately
convicted of the crime.
I think both "whoms" could be dropped. I think it's easier to read
with the commas.
Omitting both "whom"s is decidedly British. As for omitting the second
"whom," it depends on the level of formality of your document. Since
you're already using "whom" and not "who," you probably want to keep it.
Sentence 2, curiously, could do without the first "whom" but needs
the second.
Not so curious, because the first "whom" is restrictive while the second
is nonrestrictive.
Don't be ridiculous. "But" is a coordinating conjunction, joining two items
of the same syntactic value. If you don't see that, simply change "but" to
"and."
Maybe something about French made you say that.
No, the logic is that the person is first singled out of a group by a restrictive
"whom" (= "that" or a zero relative pronoun), then that particular person (and
only s/he) is referred to with an unrestrictive "whom".
The person Witness 1 identified as the murderer, _whom_ Witness 2 nonetheless
identified as an innocent bystander, was ultimately convicted of the crime.
No, that is not a possible interpretation of that sentence.

PSTNSHTSTL.
Bebercito
2021-01-23 15:31:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Jack
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 05:58:19 -0500, Tim Striker
Post by Tim Striker
In the hypothetical sentence below, is it necessary or optional to put
"whom" in front of "Witness 2?"
Sentence 1: The person whom Witness 1 identified as the murderer but
whom Witness 2 identified as an innocent bystander was ultimately
convicted of the crime.
Would the same answer apply to the sentence if I wrote it this way?
Sentence 2: The person whom Witness 1 identified as the murderer, but
whom Witness 2 identified as an innocent bystander, was ultimately
convicted of the crime.
I think both "whoms" could be dropped. I think it's easier to read
with the commas.
Omitting both "whom"s is decidedly British. As for omitting the second
"whom," it depends on the level of formality of your document. Since
you're already using "whom" and not "who," you probably want to keep it.
Sentence 2, curiously, could do without the first "whom" but needs
the second.
Not so curious, because the first "whom" is restrictive while the second
is nonrestrictive.
Don't be ridiculous. "But" is a coordinating conjunction, joining two items
of the same syntactic value. If you don't see that, simply change "but" to
"and."
Maybe something about French made you say that.
No, the logic is that the person is first singled out of a group by a restrictive
"whom" (= "that" or a zero relative pronoun), then that particular person (and
only s/he) is referred to with an unrestrictive "whom".
The person Witness 1 identified as the murderer, _whom_ Witness 2 nonetheless
identified as an innocent bystander, was ultimately convicted of the crime.
No, that is not a possible interpretation of that sentence.
PSTNSHTSTL.
This has nothing to do with being a native speaker. You haven't said what's
wrong with that interpretation.
Peter T. Daniels
2021-01-23 16:26:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Jack
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 05:58:19 -0500, Tim Striker
Post by Tim Striker
In the hypothetical sentence below, is it necessary or optional to put
"whom" in front of "Witness 2?"
Sentence 1: The person whom Witness 1 identified as the murderer but
whom Witness 2 identified as an innocent bystander was ultimately
convicted of the crime.
Would the same answer apply to the sentence if I wrote it this way?
Sentence 2: The person whom Witness 1 identified as the murderer, but
whom Witness 2 identified as an innocent bystander, was ultimately
convicted of the crime.
I think both "whoms" could be dropped. I think it's easier to read
with the commas.
Omitting both "whom"s is decidedly British. As for omitting the second
"whom," it depends on the level of formality of your document. Since
you're already using "whom" and not "who," you probably want to keep it.
Sentence 2, curiously, could do without the first "whom" but needs
the second.
Not so curious, because the first "whom" is restrictive while the second
is nonrestrictive.
Don't be ridiculous. "But" is a coordinating conjunction, joining two items
of the same syntactic value. If you don't see that, simply change "but" to
"and."
Maybe something about French made you say that.
No, the logic is that the person is first singled out of a group by a restrictive
"whom" (= "that" or a zero relative pronoun), then that particular person (and
only s/he) is referred to with an unrestrictive "whom".
The person Witness 1 identified as the murderer, _whom_ Witness 2 nonetheless
identified as an innocent bystander, was ultimately convicted of the crime.
No, that is not a possible interpretation of that sentence.
PSTNSHTSTL.
This has nothing to do with being a native speaker. You haven't said what's
wrong with that interpretation.
Native speakers know that it does not have the interpretation
that you forced upon it.

To discover _why_ would require an investigation of the syntax and
semantics of coordination, which I am sure has been done, and
probably in great detail by numerous scholars, going back at least
to Otto Jespersen's mammoth multi-volume grammar of English,
but that is not my field and the question does not interest me.
Bebercito
2021-01-25 17:46:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Jack
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 05:58:19 -0500, Tim Striker
Post by Tim Striker
In the hypothetical sentence below, is it necessary or optional to put
"whom" in front of "Witness 2?"
Sentence 1: The person whom Witness 1 identified as the murderer but
whom Witness 2 identified as an innocent bystander was ultimately
convicted of the crime.
Would the same answer apply to the sentence if I wrote it this way?
Sentence 2: The person whom Witness 1 identified as the murderer, but
whom Witness 2 identified as an innocent bystander, was ultimately
convicted of the crime.
I think both "whoms" could be dropped. I think it's easier to read
with the commas.
Omitting both "whom"s is decidedly British. As for omitting the second
"whom," it depends on the level of formality of your document. Since
you're already using "whom" and not "who," you probably want to keep it.
Sentence 2, curiously, could do without the first "whom" but needs
the second.
Not so curious, because the first "whom" is restrictive while the second
is nonrestrictive.
Don't be ridiculous. "But" is a coordinating conjunction, joining two items
of the same syntactic value. If you don't see that, simply change "but" to
"and."
Maybe something about French made you say that.
No, the logic is that the person is first singled out of a group by a restrictive
"whom" (= "that" or a zero relative pronoun), then that particular person (and
only s/he) is referred to with an unrestrictive "whom".
The person Witness 1 identified as the murderer, _whom_ Witness 2 nonetheless
identified as an innocent bystander, was ultimately convicted of the crime.
No, that is not a possible interpretation of that sentence.
PSTNSHTSTL.
This has nothing to do with being a native speaker. You haven't said what's
wrong with that interpretation.
Native speakers know that it does not have the interpretation
that you forced upon it.
To discover _why_ would require an investigation of the syntax and
semantics of coordination, which I am sure has been done, and
probably in great detail by numerous scholars, going back at least
to Otto Jespersen's mammoth multi-volume grammar of English,
but that is not my field and the question does not interest me.
The issue can be boiled down to the following: can an appositive relative
clause begin with a conjunction (but, and...)?

Consider the following two sentences:

- The film (that) I saw yesterday, which I didn't like much, takes place
during WW2.

I suppose you agree with the pattern of "(that)" followed by "which" in this
case.

Now, if I just want to stress that I didn't like the film much, can't I just add
a "but", while keeping the relative clause appositive?

- The film (that) I saw yesterday, but which I didn't like much, takes place
during WW2.

I can't make up my mind on this, and I'd truly like to have the opinion of native
speakers. FWIW, I think the clause beginning with "but" ("mais") would be
considered appositive in French (making the relative pronoun
nonrestrictive).
Peter T. Daniels
2021-01-25 18:29:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Jack
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 05:58:19 -0500, Tim Striker
Post by Tim Striker
In the hypothetical sentence below, is it necessary or optional to put
"whom" in front of "Witness 2?"
Sentence 1: The person whom Witness 1 identified as the murderer but
whom Witness 2 identified as an innocent bystander was ultimately
convicted of the crime.
Would the same answer apply to the sentence if I wrote it this way?
Sentence 2: The person whom Witness 1 identified as the murderer, but
whom Witness 2 identified as an innocent bystander, was ultimately
convicted of the crime.
I think both "whoms" could be dropped. I think it's easier to read
with the commas.
Omitting both "whom"s is decidedly British. As for omitting the second
"whom," it depends on the level of formality of your document. Since
you're already using "whom" and not "who," you probably want to keep it.
Sentence 2, curiously, could do without the first "whom" but needs
the second.
Not so curious, because the first "whom" is restrictive while the second
is nonrestrictive.
Don't be ridiculous. "But" is a coordinating conjunction, joining two items
of the same syntactic value. If you don't see that, simply change "but" to
"and."
Maybe something about French made you say that.
No, the logic is that the person is first singled out of a group by a restrictive
"whom" (= "that" or a zero relative pronoun), then that particular person (and
only s/he) is referred to with an unrestrictive "whom".
The person Witness 1 identified as the murderer, _whom_ Witness 2 nonetheless
identified as an innocent bystander, was ultimately convicted of the crime.
No, that is not a possible interpretation of that sentence.
PSTNSHTSTL.
This has nothing to do with being a native speaker. You haven't said what's
wrong with that interpretation.
Native speakers know that it does not have the interpretation
that you forced upon it.
To discover _why_ would require an investigation of the syntax and
semantics of coordination, which I am sure has been done, and
probably in great detail by numerous scholars, going back at least
to Otto Jespersen's mammoth multi-volume grammar of English,
but that is not my field and the question does not interest me.
The issue can be boiled down to the following: can an appositive relative
clause begin with a conjunction (but, and...)?
- The film (that) I saw yesterday, which I didn't like much, takes place
during WW2.
I suppose you agree with the pattern of "(that)" followed by "which" in this
case.
Now, if I just want to stress that I didn't like the film much, can't I just add
a "but", while keeping the relative clause appositive?
- The film (that) I saw yesterday, but which I didn't like much, takes place
during WW2.
I can't make up my mind on this, and I'd truly like to have the opinion of native
speakers. FWIW, I think the clause beginning with "but" ("mais") would be
considered appositive in French (making the relative pronoun
nonrestrictive).
You can't just throw in words ("appositive") with no regard for their meaning.

Nonrestrictive relative clauses are not appositives.

"And which" and "but which" are frowned upon by English-teachers.
Bebercito
2021-01-25 18:47:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Jack
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 05:58:19 -0500, Tim Striker
Post by Tim Striker
In the hypothetical sentence below, is it necessary or optional to put
"whom" in front of "Witness 2?"
Sentence 1: The person whom Witness 1 identified as the murderer but
whom Witness 2 identified as an innocent bystander was ultimately
convicted of the crime.
Would the same answer apply to the sentence if I wrote it this way?
Sentence 2: The person whom Witness 1 identified as the murderer, but
whom Witness 2 identified as an innocent bystander, was ultimately
convicted of the crime.
I think both "whoms" could be dropped. I think it's easier to read
with the commas.
Omitting both "whom"s is decidedly British. As for omitting the second
"whom," it depends on the level of formality of your document. Since
you're already using "whom" and not "who," you probably want to keep it.
Sentence 2, curiously, could do without the first "whom" but needs
the second.
Not so curious, because the first "whom" is restrictive while the second
is nonrestrictive.
Don't be ridiculous. "But" is a coordinating conjunction, joining two items
of the same syntactic value. If you don't see that, simply change "but" to
"and."
Maybe something about French made you say that.
No, the logic is that the person is first singled out of a group by a restrictive
"whom" (= "that" or a zero relative pronoun), then that particular person (and
only s/he) is referred to with an unrestrictive "whom".
The person Witness 1 identified as the murderer, _whom_ Witness 2 nonetheless
identified as an innocent bystander, was ultimately convicted of the crime.
No, that is not a possible interpretation of that sentence.
PSTNSHTSTL.
This has nothing to do with being a native speaker. You haven't said what's
wrong with that interpretation.
Native speakers know that it does not have the interpretation
that you forced upon it.
To discover _why_ would require an investigation of the syntax and
semantics of coordination, which I am sure has been done, and
probably in great detail by numerous scholars, going back at least
to Otto Jespersen's mammoth multi-volume grammar of English,
but that is not my field and the question does not interest me.
The issue can be boiled down to the following: can an appositive relative
clause begin with a conjunction (but, and...)?
- The film (that) I saw yesterday, which I didn't like much, takes place
during WW2.
I suppose you agree with the pattern of "(that)" followed by "which" in this
case.
Now, if I just want to stress that I didn't like the film much, can't I just add
a "but", while keeping the relative clause appositive?
- The film (that) I saw yesterday, but which I didn't like much, takes place
during WW2.
I can't make up my mind on this, and I'd truly like to have the opinion of native
speakers. FWIW, I think the clause beginning with "but" ("mais") would be
considered appositive in French (making the relative pronoun
nonrestrictive).
You can't just throw in words ("appositive") with no regard for their meaning.
I don't, "appositive" does make sense here.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Nonrestrictive relative clauses are not appositives.
? Your terminology may vary, but many sources say they
are, e.g.

----
Appositive relative clause

The term appositive relative clause is sometimes used in the same sense as
nonrestrictive relative clause.

Example
English My only brother Pedro, who is a Catholic priest, lives in Lima. (Contrasting
with a restrictive relative clause, e.g. The woman who wants to become an Anglican
priest is my cousin.)

http://www.glottopedia.org/index.php/Appositive_relative_clause
---
Post by Peter T. Daniels
"And which" and "but which" are frowned upon by English-teachers.
That's precisely what I'm unclear on.
Peter T. Daniels
2021-01-25 22:28:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
The issue can be boiled down to the following: can an appositive relative
clause begin with a conjunction (but, and...)?
- The film (that) I saw yesterday, which I didn't like much, takes place
during WW2.
I suppose you agree with the pattern of "(that)" followed by "which" in this
case.
Now, if I just want to stress that I didn't like the film much, can't I just add
a "but", while keeping the relative clause appositive?
- The film (that) I saw yesterday, but which I didn't like much, takes place
during WW2.
I can't make up my mind on this, and I'd truly like to have the opinion of native
speakers. FWIW, I think the clause beginning with "but" ("mais") would be
considered appositive in French (making the relative pronoun
nonrestrictive).
You can't just throw in words ("appositive") with no regard for their meaning.
I don't, "appositive" does make sense here.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Nonrestrictive relative clauses are not appositives.
? Your terminology may vary, but many sources say they
are, e.g.
many?
Post by Bebercito
----
Appositive relative clause
The term appositive relative clause is sometimes used in the same sense as
nonrestrictive relative clause.
"sometimes"?
Post by Bebercito
Example
English My only brother Pedro, who is a Catholic priest, lives in Lima. (Contrasting
with a restrictive relative clause, e.g. The woman who wants to become an Anglican
priest is my cousin.)
That is not data. That is a made-up use of a little or not used expression.
Post by Bebercito
http://www.glottopedia.org/index.php/Appositive_relative_clause
---
Post by Peter T. Daniels
"And which" and "but which" are frowned upon by English-teachers.
That's precisely what I'm unclear on.
Well, it's true.
Bebercito
2021-01-26 04:20:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
The issue can be boiled down to the following: can an appositive relative
clause begin with a conjunction (but, and...)?
- The film (that) I saw yesterday, which I didn't like much, takes place
during WW2.
I suppose you agree with the pattern of "(that)" followed by "which" in this
case.
Now, if I just want to stress that I didn't like the film much, can't I just add
a "but", while keeping the relative clause appositive?
- The film (that) I saw yesterday, but which I didn't like much, takes place
during WW2.
I can't make up my mind on this, and I'd truly like to have the opinion of native
speakers. FWIW, I think the clause beginning with "but" ("mais") would be
considered appositive in French (making the relative pronoun
nonrestrictive).
You can't just throw in words ("appositive") with no regard for their meaning.
I don't, "appositive" does make sense here.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Nonrestrictive relative clauses are not appositives.
? Your terminology may vary, but many sources say they
are, e.g.
many?
Yes, just google it.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
----
Appositive relative clause
The term appositive relative clause is sometimes used in the same sense as
nonrestrictive relative clause.
"sometimes"?
Post by Bebercito
Example
English My only brother Pedro, who is a Catholic priest, lives in Lima. (Contrasting
with a restrictive relative clause, e.g. The woman who wants to become an Anglican
priest is my cousin.)
That is not data. That is a made-up use of a little or not used expression.
Hmmm. Apparently, several linguistics articles or books have studied it, for instance:

---
Journal of Pragmatics
Volume 39, Issue 2, February 2007, Pages 336-362
Journal of Pragmatics
Appositive relative clauses and their functions in discourse
Author links open overlay panelRudyLoock
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.02.007Get rights and content
Abstract
Previous studies on relative clauses have mostly dealt with the restrictive/non-restrictive dichotomy, focusing on the differences from a syntactic point of view. In particular, non-restrictive relative clauses have traditionally been defined negatively, i.e. with reference only to functions they do not have. In this article, evidence is provided for a positive definition of this type of relative clause, which will be labelled here ‘appositive relative clause’ (ARC). A taxonomy is suggested, obtained through the study of a 450-utterance, contextualised corpus. The taxonomy is based on syntactic, semantic, and above all, pragmatic criteria, following Prince's (1981, 1992) definitions of given/new information and Sperber and Wilson's relevance theory (1986). Findings of a survey also show that ARCs are not systematically suppressible and that the differences in suppressibility can be accounted for by the different functions fulfilled by the ARC in discourse.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378216606000506
----

or

---
Appositive Relative Clauses in English: Discourse Functions and Competing Structures
Rudy Loock 1
1 STL - Savoirs, Textes, Langage (STL) - UMR 8163
Abstract : This book sheds new light on Appositive Relative Clauses (ARCs), a structure that is generally studied from a merely syntactic point of view, in opposition to Determinative (or Restrictive) Relative Clauses (DRCs). In this volume, ARCs are examined from a discourse/pragmatic point of view, independently of DRCs, in order to provide a positive definition of the structure. After a presentation of the morphosyntactic, semantic and pragmatic characteristics of ARCs, a taxonomy of their functions in discourse is established for both written and spoken English based on the results of a corpus-based investigation. Constraints are then defined within an information-packaging approach to syntactic structures to show why speakers choose ARCs over other competing allostructures, i.e. syntactic structures that fulfil similar discourse functions (e.g. nominal appositives, independent clauses, adverbials, noun premodifiers, topicalization). The end result is a deeper understanding of the richness of ARCs in their natural contexts of use. Détails disponibles sur : http://www.benjamins.com/cgi-bin/t_bookview.cgi?bookid=SiDaG%2022

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378216606000506
---

or

---
The Syntax of Appositive Relativization: On Specifying Coordination, False Free Relatives, and Promotion
Mark de Vries
Linguistic Inquiry
Vol. 37, No. 2 (Spring, 2006), pp. 229-270 (42 pages)
Published By: The MIT Press
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4179362

Abstract
Appositive relative clauses differ in some essential respects from restrictive relative clauses. I argue that appositive relatives and appositions can be put together as a third class of coordination denoting specification. Thus, an appositive relative is a specifying conjunct to the visible antecedent. It is a semifree relative with a pronominal head that is normally empty. Therefore, its internal syntax is equivalent to that of restrictive relatives; hence, there is one syntax for both types of relative clauses. In essence, it is the context of specifying coordination that accounts for the different behavior of appositive relatives. In the light of this analysis, the properties of appositive relatives (as opposed to restrictive relatives) are systematically reviewed.

Journal Information
Linguistic Inquiry remains one of the most prominent journals in linguistics and consistently is ranked in the top 10 of all linguistics journals by Thomson ISI. Linguistic Inquiry captures the excitement of contemporary debate in the field by publishing full-scale articles as well as shorter contributions and more extensive commentary. Edited by Samuel Jay Keyser, Linguistic Inquiry has featured many of the most important scholars in the discipline and continues to occupy a central position in linguistics research.

Publisher Information
Among the largest university presses in the world, The MIT Press publishes over 200 new books each year along with 30 journals in the arts and humanities, economics, international affairs, history, political science, science and technology along with other disciplines. We were among the first university presses to offer titles electronically and we continue to adopt technologies that allow us to better support the scholarly mission and disseminate our content widely. The Press's enthusiasm for innovation is reflected in our continuing exploration of this frontier. Since the late 1960s, we have experimented with generation after generation of electronic publishing tools. Through our commitment to new products—whether digital journals or entirely new forms of communication—we have continued to look for the most efficient and effective means to serve our readership. Our readers have come to expect excellence from our products, and they can count on us to maintain a commitment to producing rigorous and innovative information products in whatever forms the future of publishing may bring.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4179362?seq=1
---
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
http://www.glottopedia.org/index.php/Appositive_relative_clause
---
Post by Peter T. Daniels
"And which" and "but which" are frowned upon by English-teachers.
That's precisely what I'm unclear on.
Well, it's true.
Except that nothing seems to confirm it.
Peter T. Daniels
2021-01-26 15:22:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
The issue can be boiled down to the following: can an appositive relative
clause begin with a conjunction (but, and...)?
- The film (that) I saw yesterday, which I didn't like much, takes place
during WW2.
I suppose you agree with the pattern of "(that)" followed by "which" in this
case.
Now, if I just want to stress that I didn't like the film much, can't I just add
a "but", while keeping the relative clause appositive?
- The film (that) I saw yesterday, but which I didn't like much, takes place
during WW2.
I can't make up my mind on this, and I'd truly like to have the opinion of native
speakers. FWIW, I think the clause beginning with "but" ("mais") would be
considered appositive in French (making the relative pronoun
nonrestrictive).
You can't just throw in words ("appositive") with no regard for their meaning.
I don't, "appositive" does make sense here.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Nonrestrictive relative clauses are not appositives.
? Your terminology may vary, but many sources say they
are, e.g.
many?
Yes, just google it.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
----
Appositive relative clause
The term appositive relative clause is sometimes used in the same sense as
nonrestrictive relative clause.
"sometimes"?
Post by Bebercito
Example
English My only brother Pedro, who is a Catholic priest, lives in Lima. (Contrasting
with a restrictive relative clause, e.g. The woman who wants to become an Anglican
priest is my cousin.)
That is not data. That is a made-up use of a little or not used expression.
Maybe you didn't actually _read_ any of those abstracts. They claim to
have found a THIRD sort of relative clause, not to have renamed the
non-restrictive relative clause.

If you've never heard of *Linguistic Inquiry*, such that you felt the need
to append its bona fides, then you have no business commenting on
modern linguistics at all. It has for exactly 50 years now been the principal
outlet for Chomskyist linguistics.
Post by Bebercito
---
Journal of Pragmatics
Volume 39, Issue 2, February 2007, Pages 336-362
Journal of Pragmatics
Appositive relative clauses and their functions in discourse
Author links open overlay panelRudyLoock
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.02.007Get rights and content
Abstract
Previous studies on relative clauses have mostly dealt with the restrictive/non-restrictive dichotomy, focusing on the differences from a syntactic point of view. In particular, non-restrictive relative clauses have traditionally been defined negatively, i.e. with reference only to functions they do not have. In this article, evidence is provided for a positive definition of this type of relative clause, which will be labelled here ‘appositive relative clause’ (ARC). A taxonomy is suggested, obtained through the study of a 450-utterance, contextualised corpus. The taxonomy is based on syntactic, semantic, and above all, pragmatic criteria, following Prince's (1981, 1992) definitions of given/new information and Sperber and Wilson's relevance theory (1986). Findings of a survey also show that ARCs are not systematically suppressible and that the differences in suppressibility can be accounted for by the different functions fulfilled by the ARC in discourse.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378216606000506
----
or
---
Appositive Relative Clauses in English: Discourse Functions and Competing Structures
Rudy Loock 1
1 STL - Savoirs, Textes, Langage (STL) - UMR 8163
Abstract : This book sheds new light on Appositive Relative Clauses (ARCs), a structure that is generally studied from a merely syntactic point of view, in opposition to Determinative (or Restrictive) Relative Clauses (DRCs). In this volume, ARCs are examined from a discourse/pragmatic point of view, independently of DRCs, in order to provide a positive definition of the structure. After a presentation of the morphosyntactic, semantic and pragmatic characteristics of ARCs, a taxonomy of their functions in discourse is established for both written and spoken English based on the results of a corpus-based investigation. Constraints are then defined within an information-packaging approach to syntactic structures to show why speakers choose ARCs over other competing allostructures, i.e. syntactic structures that fulfil similar discourse functions (e.g. nominal appositives, independent clauses, adverbials, noun premodifiers, topicalization). The end result is a deeper understanding of the richness of ARCs in their natural contexts of use. Détails disponibles sur : http://www.benjamins.com/cgi-bin/t_bookview.cgi?bookid=SiDaG%2022
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378216606000506
---
or
---
The Syntax of Appositive Relativization: On Specifying Coordination, False Free Relatives, and Promotion
Mark de Vries
Linguistic Inquiry
Vol. 37, No. 2 (Spring, 2006), pp. 229-270 (42 pages)
Published By: The MIT Press
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4179362
Abstract
Appositive relative clauses differ in some essential respects from restrictive relative clauses. I argue that appositive relatives and appositions can be put together as a third class of coordination denoting specification. Thus, an appositive relative is a specifying conjunct to the visible antecedent. It is a semifree relative with a pronominal head that is normally empty. Therefore, its internal syntax is equivalent to that of restrictive relatives; hence, there is one syntax for both types of relative clauses. In essence, it is the context of specifying coordination that accounts for the different behavior of appositive relatives. In the light of this analysis, the properties of appositive relatives (as opposed to restrictive relatives) are systematically reviewed.
Journal Information
Linguistic Inquiry remains one of the most prominent journals in linguistics and consistently is ranked in the top 10 of all linguistics journals by Thomson ISI. Linguistic Inquiry captures the excitement of contemporary debate in the field by publishing full-scale articles as well as shorter contributions and more extensive commentary. Edited by Samuel Jay Keyser, Linguistic Inquiry has featured many of the most important scholars in the discipline and continues to occupy a central position in linguistics research.
Publisher Information
Among the largest university presses in the world, The MIT Press publishes over 200 new books each year along with 30 journals in the arts and humanities, economics, international affairs, history, political science, science and technology along with other disciplines. We were among the first university presses to offer titles electronically and we continue to adopt technologies that allow us to better support the scholarly mission and disseminate our content widely. The Press's enthusiasm for innovation is reflected in our continuing exploration of this frontier. Since the late 1960s, we have experimented with generation after generation of electronic publishing tools. Through our commitment to new products—whether digital journals or entirely new forms of communication—we have continued to look for the most efficient and effective means to serve our readership. Our readers have come to expect excellence from our products, and they can count on us to maintain a commitment to producing rigorous and innovative information products in whatever forms the future of publishing may bring.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4179362?seq=1
---
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
http://www.glottopedia.org/index.php/Appositive_relative_clause
---
Post by Peter T. Daniels
"And which" and "but which" are frowned upon by English-teachers.
That's precisely what I'm unclear on.
Well, it's true.
Except that nothing seems to confirm it.
Bebercito
2021-01-26 16:44:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
The issue can be boiled down to the following: can an appositive relative
clause begin with a conjunction (but, and...)?
- The film (that) I saw yesterday, which I didn't like much, takes place
during WW2.
I suppose you agree with the pattern of "(that)" followed by "which" in this
case.
Now, if I just want to stress that I didn't like the film much, can't I just add
a "but", while keeping the relative clause appositive?
- The film (that) I saw yesterday, but which I didn't like much, takes place
during WW2.
I can't make up my mind on this, and I'd truly like to have the opinion of native
speakers. FWIW, I think the clause beginning with "but" ("mais") would be
considered appositive in French (making the relative pronoun
nonrestrictive).
You can't just throw in words ("appositive") with no regard for their meaning.
I don't, "appositive" does make sense here.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Nonrestrictive relative clauses are not appositives.
? Your terminology may vary, but many sources say they
are, e.g.
many?
Yes, just google it.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
----
Appositive relative clause
The term appositive relative clause is sometimes used in the same sense as
nonrestrictive relative clause.
"sometimes"?
Post by Bebercito
Example
English My only brother Pedro, who is a Catholic priest, lives in Lima. (Contrasting
with a restrictive relative clause, e.g. The woman who wants to become an Anglican
priest is my cousin.)
That is not data. That is a made-up use of a little or not used expression.
Maybe you didn't actually _read_ any of those abstracts. They claim to
have found a THIRD sort of relative clause, not to have renamed the
non-restrictive relative clause.
But they mention appositive relative clauses as being non-restrictive
relative clauses, whereas you peremptorily declared "Nonrestrictive
relative clauses are not appositives" (see above).
Post by Peter T. Daniels
If you've never heard of *Linguistic Inquiry*, such that you felt the need
to append its bona fides, then you have no business commenting on
modern linguistics at all. It has for exactly 50 years now been the principal
outlet for Chomskyist linguistics.
I deliberately left their credentials from the original web page in case
you'd find fault with my sources, as is your wont. You can never be too
careful.

Besides, I was not "commenting on modern linguistics", but only
looking for instances of a term (hence a concept) I'd used you
claimed didn't make sense - and I've found several in (by you own
admission) very authoritative sources .
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
---
Journal of Pragmatics
Volume 39, Issue 2, February 2007, Pages 336-362
Journal of Pragmatics
Appositive relative clauses and their functions in discourse
Author links open overlay panelRudyLoock
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.02.007Get rights and content
Abstract
Previous studies on relative clauses have mostly dealt with the restrictive/non-restrictive dichotomy, focusing on the differences from a syntactic point of view. In particular, non-restrictive relative clauses have traditionally been defined negatively, i.e. with reference only to functions they do not have. In this article, evidence is provided for a positive definition of this type of relative clause, which will be labelled here ‘appositive relative clause’ (ARC). A taxonomy is suggested, obtained through the study of a 450-utterance, contextualised corpus. The taxonomy is based on syntactic, semantic, and above all, pragmatic criteria, following Prince's (1981, 1992) definitions of given/new information and Sperber and Wilson's relevance theory (1986). Findings of a survey also show that ARCs are not systematically suppressible and that the differences in suppressibility can be accounted for by the different functions fulfilled by the ARC in discourse.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378216606000506
----
or
---
Appositive Relative Clauses in English: Discourse Functions and Competing Structures
Rudy Loock 1
1 STL - Savoirs, Textes, Langage (STL) - UMR 8163
Abstract : This book sheds new light on Appositive Relative Clauses (ARCs), a structure that is generally studied from a merely syntactic point of view, in opposition to Determinative (or Restrictive) Relative Clauses (DRCs). In this volume, ARCs are examined from a discourse/pragmatic point of view, independently of DRCs, in order to provide a positive definition of the structure. After a presentation of the morphosyntactic, semantic and pragmatic characteristics of ARCs, a taxonomy of their functions in discourse is established for both written and spoken English based on the results of a corpus-based investigation. Constraints are then defined within an information-packaging approach to syntactic structures to show why speakers choose ARCs over other competing allostructures, i.e. syntactic structures that fulfil similar discourse functions (e.g. nominal appositives, independent clauses, adverbials, noun premodifiers, topicalization). The end result is a deeper understanding of the richness of ARCs in their natural contexts of use. Détails disponibles sur : http://www.benjamins.com/cgi-bin/t_bookview.cgi?bookid=SiDaG%2022
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378216606000506
---
or
---
The Syntax of Appositive Relativization: On Specifying Coordination, False Free Relatives, and Promotion
Mark de Vries
Linguistic Inquiry
Vol. 37, No. 2 (Spring, 2006), pp. 229-270 (42 pages)
Published By: The MIT Press
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4179362
Abstract
Appositive relative clauses differ in some essential respects from restrictive relative clauses. I argue that appositive relatives and appositions can be put together as a third class of coordination denoting specification. Thus, an appositive relative is a specifying conjunct to the visible antecedent. It is a semifree relative with a pronominal head that is normally empty. Therefore, its internal syntax is equivalent to that of restrictive relatives; hence, there is one syntax for both types of relative clauses. In essence, it is the context of specifying coordination that accounts for the different behavior of appositive relatives. In the light of this analysis, the properties of appositive relatives (as opposed to restrictive relatives) are systematically reviewed.
Journal Information
Linguistic Inquiry remains one of the most prominent journals in linguistics and consistently is ranked in the top 10 of all linguistics journals by Thomson ISI. Linguistic Inquiry captures the excitement of contemporary debate in the field by publishing full-scale articles as well as shorter contributions and more extensive commentary. Edited by Samuel Jay Keyser, Linguistic Inquiry has featured many of the most important scholars in the discipline and continues to occupy a central position in linguistics research.
Publisher Information
Among the largest university presses in the world, The MIT Press publishes over 200 new books each year along with 30 journals in the arts and humanities, economics, international affairs, history, political science, science and technology along with other disciplines. We were among the first university presses to offer titles electronically and we continue to adopt technologies that allow us to better support the scholarly mission and disseminate our content widely. The Press's enthusiasm for innovation is reflected in our continuing exploration of this frontier. Since the late 1960s, we have experimented with generation after generation of electronic publishing tools. Through our commitment to new products—whether digital journals or entirely new forms of communication—we have continued to look for the most efficient and effective means to serve our readership. Our readers have come to expect excellence from our products, and they can count on us to maintain a commitment to producing rigorous and innovative information products in whatever forms the future of publishing may bring.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4179362?seq=1
---
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
http://www.glottopedia.org/index.php/Appositive_relative_clause
---
Post by Peter T. Daniels
"And which" and "but which" are frowned upon by English-teachers.
That's precisely what I'm unclear on.
Well, it's true.
Except that nothing seems to confirm it.
Peter T. Daniels
2021-01-26 18:44:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
The issue can be boiled down to the following: can an appositive relative
clause begin with a conjunction (but, and...)?
- The film (that) I saw yesterday, which I didn't like much, takes place
during WW2.
I suppose you agree with the pattern of "(that)" followed by "which" in this
case.
Now, if I just want to stress that I didn't like the film much, can't I just add
a "but", while keeping the relative clause appositive?
- The film (that) I saw yesterday, but which I didn't like much, takes place
during WW2.
I can't make up my mind on this, and I'd truly like to have the opinion of native
speakers. FWIW, I think the clause beginning with "but" ("mais") would be
considered appositive in French (making the relative pronoun
nonrestrictive).
You can't just throw in words ("appositive") with no regard for their meaning.
I don't, "appositive" does make sense here.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Nonrestrictive relative clauses are not appositives.
? Your terminology may vary, but many sources say they
are, e.g.
many?
Yes, just google it.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
----
Appositive relative clause
The term appositive relative clause is sometimes used in the same sense as
nonrestrictive relative clause.
"sometimes"?
Post by Bebercito
Example
English My only brother Pedro, who is a Catholic priest, lives in Lima. (Contrasting
with a restrictive relative clause, e.g. The woman who wants to become an Anglican
priest is my cousin.)
That is not data. That is a made-up use of a little or not used expression.
Maybe you didn't actually _read_ any of those abstracts. They claim to
have found a THIRD sort of relative clause, not to have renamed the
non-restrictive relative clause.
But they mention appositive relative clauses as being non-restrictive
relative clauses, whereas you peremptorily declared "Nonrestrictive
relative clauses are not appositives" (see above).
And now you've committed the most basic sin of logic
there is:

Me: nonrestrictives are not appositives
You: appositives are nonrestrictives

You go from Some A are X, to therefore All A are X, to try to deny
that All X are not A.
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
If you've never heard of *Linguistic Inquiry*, such that you felt the need
to append its bona fides, then you have no business commenting on
modern linguistics at all. It has for exactly 50 years now been the principal
outlet for Chomskyist linguistics.
I deliberately left their credentials from the original web page in case
you'd find fault with my sources, as is your wont. You can never be too
careful.
Besides, I was not "commenting on modern linguistics", but only
looking for instances of a term (hence a concept) I'd used you
claimed didn't make sense - and I've found several in (by you own
admission) very authoritative sources .
"a term (hence a concept)" ???
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
Journal of Pragmatics
Volume 39, Issue 2, February 2007, Pages 336-362
Journal of Pragmatics
Appositive relative clauses and their functions in discourse
Author links open overlay panelRudyLoock
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.02.007Get rights and content
Abstract
Previous studies on relative clauses have mostly dealt with the restrictive/non-restrictive dichotomy, focusing on the differences from a syntactic point of view. In particular, non-restrictive relative clauses have traditionally been defined negatively, i.e. with reference only to functions they do not have. In this article, evidence is provided for a positive definition of this type of relative clause, which will be labelled here ‘appositive relative clause’ (ARC). A taxonomy is suggested, obtained through the study of a 450-utterance, contextualised corpus. The taxonomy is based on syntactic, semantic, and above all, pragmatic criteria, following Prince's (1981, 1992) definitions of given/new information and Sperber and Wilson's relevance theory (1986). Findings of a survey also show that ARCs are not systematically suppressible and that the differences in suppressibility can be accounted for by the different functions fulfilled by the ARC in discourse.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378216606000506
----
or
---
Appositive Relative Clauses in English: Discourse Functions and Competing Structures
Rudy Loock 1
1 STL - Savoirs, Textes, Langage (STL) - UMR 8163
Abstract : This book sheds new light on Appositive Relative Clauses (ARCs), a structure that is generally studied from a merely syntactic point of view, in opposition to Determinative (or Restrictive) Relative Clauses (DRCs). In this volume, ARCs are examined from a discourse/pragmatic point of view, independently of DRCs, in order to provide a positive definition of the structure. After a presentation of the morphosyntactic, semantic and pragmatic characteristics of ARCs, a taxonomy of their functions in discourse is established for both written and spoken English based on the results of a corpus-based investigation. Constraints are then defined within an information-packaging approach to syntactic structures to show why speakers choose ARCs over other competing allostructures, i.e. syntactic structures that fulfil similar discourse functions (e.g. nominal appositives, independent clauses, adverbials, noun premodifiers, topicalization). The end result is a deeper understanding of the richness of ARCs in their natural contexts of use. Détails disponibles sur : http://www.benjamins.com/cgi-bin/t_bookview.cgi?bookid=SiDaG%2022
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378216606000506
---
or
---
The Syntax of Appositive Relativization: On Specifying Coordination, False Free Relatives, and Promotion
Mark de Vries
Linguistic Inquiry
Vol. 37, No. 2 (Spring, 2006), pp. 229-270 (42 pages)
Published By: The MIT Press
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4179362
Abstract
Appositive relative clauses differ in some essential respects from restrictive relative clauses. I argue that appositive relatives and appositions can be put together as a third class of coordination denoting specification. Thus, an appositive relative is a specifying conjunct to the visible antecedent. It is a semifree relative with a pronominal head that is normally empty. Therefore, its internal syntax is equivalent to that of restrictive relatives; hence, there is one syntax for both types of relative clauses. In essence, it is the context of specifying coordination that accounts for the different behavior of appositive relatives. In the light of this analysis, the properties of appositive relatives (as opposed to restrictive relatives) are systematically reviewed.
Journal Information
Linguistic Inquiry remains one of the most prominent journals in linguistics and consistently is ranked in the top 10 of all linguistics journals by Thomson ISI. Linguistic Inquiry captures the excitement of contemporary debate in the field by publishing full-scale articles as well as shorter contributions and more extensive commentary. Edited by Samuel Jay Keyser, Linguistic Inquiry has featured many of the most important scholars in the discipline and continues to occupy a central position in linguistics research.
Publisher Information
Among the largest university presses in the world, The MIT Press publishes over 200 new books each year along with 30 journals in the arts and humanities, economics, international affairs, history, political science, science and technology along with other disciplines. We were among the first university presses to offer titles electronically and we continue to adopt technologies that allow us to better support the scholarly mission and disseminate our content widely. The Press's enthusiasm for innovation is reflected in our continuing exploration of this frontier. Since the late 1960s, we have experimented with generation after generation of electronic publishing tools. Through our commitment to new products—whether digital journals or entirely new forms of communication—we have continued to look for the most efficient and effective means to serve our readership. Our readers have come to expect excellence from our products, and they can count on us to maintain a commitment to producing rigorous and innovative information products in whatever forms the future of publishing may bring.
Bebercito
2021-01-26 23:20:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
The issue can be boiled down to the following: can an appositive relative
clause begin with a conjunction (but, and...)?
- The film (that) I saw yesterday, which I didn't like much, takes place
during WW2.
I suppose you agree with the pattern of "(that)" followed by "which" in this
case.
Now, if I just want to stress that I didn't like the film much, can't I just add
a "but", while keeping the relative clause appositive?
- The film (that) I saw yesterday, but which I didn't like much, takes place
during WW2.
I can't make up my mind on this, and I'd truly like to have the opinion of native
speakers. FWIW, I think the clause beginning with "but" ("mais") would be
considered appositive in French (making the relative pronoun
nonrestrictive).
You can't just throw in words ("appositive") with no regard for their meaning.
I don't, "appositive" does make sense here.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Nonrestrictive relative clauses are not appositives.
? Your terminology may vary, but many sources say they
are, e.g.
many?
Yes, just google it.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
----
Appositive relative clause
The term appositive relative clause is sometimes used in the same sense as
nonrestrictive relative clause.
"sometimes"?
Post by Bebercito
Example
English My only brother Pedro, who is a Catholic priest, lives in Lima. (Contrasting
with a restrictive relative clause, e.g. The woman who wants to become an Anglican
priest is my cousin.)
That is not data. That is a made-up use of a little or not used expression.
Maybe you didn't actually _read_ any of those abstracts. They claim to
have found a THIRD sort of relative clause, not to have renamed the
non-restrictive relative clause.
But they mention appositive relative clauses as being non-restrictive
relative clauses, whereas you peremptorily declared "Nonrestrictive
relative clauses are not appositives" (see above).
And now you've committed the most basic sin of logic
Me: nonrestrictives are not appositives
You: appositives are nonrestrictives
You go from Some A are X, to therefore All A are X, to try to deny
that All X are not A.
Then you should have said "not all nonrestrictives are appositives",
as "nonrestrictives are not appositives" is normally understood as
"nonrestrictives can't be appositives".

The underlying issue is that you didn't seem to think a relative
clause could be appositive at all, as evidenced by your other
groundless eructation 'You can't just throw in words ("appositive")
with no regard for their meaning'.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
If you've never heard of *Linguistic Inquiry*, such that you felt the need
to append its bona fides, then you have no business commenting on
modern linguistics at all. It has for exactly 50 years now been the principal
outlet for Chomskyist linguistics.
I deliberately left their credentials from the original web page in case
you'd find fault with my sources, as is your wont. You can never be too
careful.
Besides, I was not "commenting on modern linguistics", but only
looking for instances of a term (hence a concept) I'd used you
claimed didn't make sense - and I've found several in (by you own
admission) very authoritative sources .
"a term (hence a concept)" ???
Yes.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
Journal of Pragmatics
Volume 39, Issue 2, February 2007, Pages 336-362
Journal of Pragmatics
Appositive relative clauses and their functions in discourse
Author links open overlay panelRudyLoock
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.02.007Get rights and content
Abstract
Previous studies on relative clauses have mostly dealt with the restrictive/non-restrictive dichotomy, focusing on the differences from a syntactic point of view. In particular, non-restrictive relative clauses have traditionally been defined negatively, i.e. with reference only to functions they do not have. In this article, evidence is provided for a positive definition of this type of relative clause, which will be labelled here ‘appositive relative clause’ (ARC). A taxonomy is suggested, obtained through the study of a 450-utterance, contextualised corpus. The taxonomy is based on syntactic, semantic, and above all, pragmatic criteria, following Prince's (1981, 1992) definitions of given/new information and Sperber and Wilson's relevance theory (1986). Findings of a survey also show that ARCs are not systematically suppressible and that the differences in suppressibility can be accounted for by the different functions fulfilled by the ARC in discourse.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378216606000506
----
or
---
Appositive Relative Clauses in English: Discourse Functions and Competing Structures
Rudy Loock 1
1 STL - Savoirs, Textes, Langage (STL) - UMR 8163
Abstract : This book sheds new light on Appositive Relative Clauses (ARCs), a structure that is generally studied from a merely syntactic point of view, in opposition to Determinative (or Restrictive) Relative Clauses (DRCs). In this volume, ARCs are examined from a discourse/pragmatic point of view, independently of DRCs, in order to provide a positive definition of the structure. After a presentation of the morphosyntactic, semantic and pragmatic characteristics of ARCs, a taxonomy of their functions in discourse is established for both written and spoken English based on the results of a corpus-based investigation. Constraints are then defined within an information-packaging approach to syntactic structures to show why speakers choose ARCs over other competing allostructures, i.e. syntactic structures that fulfil similar discourse functions (e.g. nominal appositives, independent clauses, adverbials, noun premodifiers, topicalization). The end result is a deeper understanding of the richness of ARCs in their natural contexts of use. Détails disponibles sur : http://www.benjamins.com/cgi-bin/t_bookview.cgi?bookid=SiDaG%2022
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378216606000506
---
or
---
The Syntax of Appositive Relativization: On Specifying Coordination, False Free Relatives, and Promotion
Mark de Vries
Linguistic Inquiry
Vol. 37, No. 2 (Spring, 2006), pp. 229-270 (42 pages)
Published By: The MIT Press
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4179362
Abstract
Appositive relative clauses differ in some essential respects from restrictive relative clauses. I argue that appositive relatives and appositions can be put together as a third class of coordination denoting specification. Thus, an appositive relative is a specifying conjunct to the visible antecedent. It is a semifree relative with a pronominal head that is normally empty. Therefore, its internal syntax is equivalent to that of restrictive relatives; hence, there is one syntax for both types of relative clauses. In essence, it is the context of specifying coordination that accounts for the different behavior of appositive relatives. In the light of this analysis, the properties of appositive relatives (as opposed to restrictive relatives) are systematically reviewed.
Journal Information
Linguistic Inquiry remains one of the most prominent journals in linguistics and consistently is ranked in the top 10 of all linguistics journals by Thomson ISI. Linguistic Inquiry captures the excitement of contemporary debate in the field by publishing full-scale articles as well as shorter contributions and more extensive commentary. Edited by Samuel Jay Keyser, Linguistic Inquiry has featured many of the most important scholars in the discipline and continues to occupy a central position in linguistics research.
Publisher Information
Among the largest university presses in the world, The MIT Press publishes over 200 new books each year along with 30 journals in the arts and humanities, economics, international affairs, history, political science, science and technology along with other disciplines. We were among the first university presses to offer titles electronically and we continue to adopt technologies that allow us to better support the scholarly mission and disseminate our content widely. The Press's enthusiasm for innovation is reflected in our continuing exploration of this frontier. Since the late 1960s, we have experimented with generation after generation of electronic publishing tools. Through our commitment to new products—whether digital journals or entirely new forms of communication—we have continued to look for the most efficient and effective means to serve our readership. Our readers have come to expect excellence from our products, and they can count on us to maintain a commitment to producing rigorous and innovative information products in whatever forms the future of publishing may bring.
Peter T. Daniels
2021-01-27 00:51:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Maybe you didn't actually _read_ any of those abstracts. They claim to
have found a THIRD sort of relative clause, not to have renamed the
non-restrictive relative clause.
But they mention appositive relative clauses as being non-restrictive
relative clauses, whereas you peremptorily declared "Nonrestrictive
relative clauses are not appositives" (see above).
And now you've committed the most basic sin of logic
Me: nonrestrictives are not appositives
You: appositives are nonrestrictives
You go from Some A are X, to therefore All A are X, to try to deny
that All X are not A.
Then you should have said "not all nonrestrictives are appositives",
as "nonrestrictives are not appositives" is normally understood as
"nonrestrictives can't be appositives".
Never before have I encountered the notion that nonrestrictives
can be labeled "appositives." You abstracts aren't exactly convincing.
Post by Bebercito
The underlying issue is that you didn't seem to think a relative
clause could be appositive at all, as evidenced by your other
groundless eructation 'You can't just throw in words ("appositive")
with no regard for their meaning'.
That's correct.
Bebercito
2021-01-27 07:18:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Maybe you didn't actually _read_ any of those abstracts. They claim to
have found a THIRD sort of relative clause, not to have renamed the
non-restrictive relative clause.
But they mention appositive relative clauses as being non-restrictive
relative clauses, whereas you peremptorily declared "Nonrestrictive
relative clauses are not appositives" (see above).
And now you've committed the most basic sin of logic
Me: nonrestrictives are not appositives
You: appositives are nonrestrictives
You go from Some A are X, to therefore All A are X, to try to deny
that All X are not A.
Then you should have said "not all nonrestrictives are appositives",
as "nonrestrictives are not appositives" is normally understood as
"nonrestrictives can't be appositives".
Never before have I encountered the notion that nonrestrictives
can be labeled "appositives."
To me, it's rather intuitive, as a "regular" NP apposition can be thought
of as a nonrestrictive relative clause with the relative pronoun and
copula elided, e.g. "This car, (which is) a black sedan, is Helen's.
Based on that, I used the term "nonrestrictive relative clause" not
knowing whether it actually existed, and unsurprisingly (to me), it
turns out it does.
Post by Bebercito
You abstracts aren't exactly convincing.
The underlying issue is that you didn't seem to think a relative
clause could be appositive at all, as evidenced by your other
groundless eructation 'You can't just throw in words ("appositive")
with no regard for their meaning'.
That's correct.
Lewis
2021-01-21 12:23:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Striker
In the hypothetical sentence below, is it necessary or optional to put
"whom" in front of "Witness 2?"
Sentence 1: The person whom Witness 1 identified as the murderer but
whom Witness 2 identified as an innocent bystander was ultimately
convicted of the crime.
It is not necessary before Witness 1. It is clearer with it before
Witness 2, but I would but I'd put commas after murderer and bystander.

Well, ok, that's not true, I would rewrite it entirely.

The person identified as the murderer by Witness 1 but as an innocent
bystander by Witness 2 was ultimately convicted.

Doesn't even need commas!

I would say the identification is more important than Witness 1 or
Witness 2, so the sentence conveys its information more clearly by
emphasizing that identification is the main idea here.

('the crime' adds nothing, as we've already established 'murderer').
Post by Tim Striker
Would the same answer apply to the sentence if I wrote it this way?
Sentence 2: The person whom Witness 1 identified as the murderer, but
whom Witness 2 identified as an innocent bystander, was ultimately
convicted of the crime.
If forced to keep the original word order I would still remove the first
whom. It makes the whole thing sound stilted. It's not WRONG to leave
it, but you are likely to lose a healthy percentage of readers at that
point, and you're only three words in.
--
History has a habit of changing the people who think they are changing it.
Loading...