English Language & Usage: Multi-Layered Discourse Room

Færd

12:05 AM

@Mitch It's just that I'm noticing it more and more and can't just impassively pass it by.

@M.A.R. Thought I'd never see you until after It. Have a nice last week.

Cerberus

1:13 AM

@Mitch I find capitals and (full) stops nice in chat. They show people that you care.

Færd

1:56 AM

> 1. I am going to make a suggestion which I do not know how wildly outrageous is going to sound.

> 2. I am going to make a suggestion which I do not know how wildly outrageous it is going to sound.

1 must be the correct one (right?), but aren't you annoyed by the conspicuous absence of the subject?

Cerberus

> 1. I am going to make a suggestion which I do not know how sounds.
2. I am going to make a suggestion which I do not know how it sounds.

As you can see, both are wrong. I've removed the irrelevant / red-herring bits wildly outrageous and is going to, which made the relevant construction harder to see.

As to 1, I don't think you can remove a relative pronoun from a subordinate clause and stick it into a higher clause, which is what happened here.

The subordinate clause is *how which sounds.

And by clause I mean a real clause, with a finite verb—not what some recent school of linguistics calls a clause. So I don't mean infinitival phrases, participles, and the like.

> 3. I am going to make a suggestion of which I do not know how it sounds.

This would probably be acceptable because it's properly structured. But it's still far from elegant.

Færd

2:19 AM

Thanks.

@Cerberus Is that the subordinate clause? I don't think so. The sentence seems to have three layers: the main clause (I am going to make a suggestion), the first subordinate caluse (which I don't know), and another subordinate clause embedded in that as the object of the verb know (how [it] sounds).

Now in the absence of the third layer, the pronoun it would be easily deleted from the subordinate clause:

> I am going to make a suggestion which you won't accept it.

But what happens if the pronoun goes into the third layer? That's my question.

Oddly enough, if it weren't the subject, omitting it would be totally OK:

> I am going to make a suggestion which I know you won't accept it.

But things are different when the linking pronoun is the subject of the last subordinate clause:

> 4. I am going to make a suggestion which it won't appeal to you.

> 5. (?) I am going to make a suggestion which I know it won't appeal to you.

> 6. (?) I am going to make a suggestion which I don't know if it will appeal to you.

(5 maybe OK)

@Cerberus I can't parse or understand that one! Where does of come from?

Cerberus

@Færd As you say, there is an attempt at two subordinate clauses. I was talking about the how subordinate clause.

@Færd 5 is fine.

You're right: you can remove a constituent from a subordinate clause and turn it into a relative pronoun outside the subordinate clause, under certain circumstances.

I suppose (omitted) that is an exception: you can remove etc. a constituent from a that clause.

@Færd I did not know this of you.

I did not know of you that you were trustworthy.

It's that of.

Færd

2:41 AM

> A. This is the fella of whom I don't know the name.
> B. This is the fella of whom I don't know his name.

Cerberus

That way, you give know a constituent (of which), so that you "free" which from the how clause, and you can add it to complete the how clause. Otherwise, you couldn't add it, because then which would hang in the air, for which could then not be a constituent of the know clause.

Færd

I get it now.

Cerberus

OK.

Færd

Do you think B is right though? Your sentence is like B.

@Cerberus Just the of sentence. I'd have to think more about the rest.

Cerberus

@Færd It sounds pleonastic to me.

Of whom and his overlap too much in meaning, so his is redundant and should be replaced with the.

@Færd OK.

Færd

2:45 AM

@Cerberus Then so is it in your #3.

Cerberus

Ponder this statement: you can't move a constituent out of a subordinate clause* and still have it be part of that same clause.
*) Unless it's a 'that' clause.

Færd

OK.

Cerberus

@Færd I don't think so: I don't know about him how he sounds.

You can't replace he with something that doesn't add the extra reference to this same person, in which case it doesn't "count" as pleonasm.

(It also doesn't count if the extra reference is necessary against ambiguity—but that isn't the case here.)

Færd

Hmm.

@Cerberus We have a that clause in both 5 and 6, right?

Cerberus

In 5.

I don't see it in 6?

Færd

2:51 AM

@Cerberus Which clause do you mean exactly?

Cerberus

5. (?) I am going to make a suggestion which I know that won't appeal to you.

Færd

Oh, know (that).

Cerberus

I know that it won't appeal to you.

Yes.

Færd

Yeah, right.

I guess I'm getting it now.

Cerberus

OK.

Færd

2:52 AM

OK :)

Cerberus

Yay.

If you happened to find an example of a constituent that is removed from a non-that subordinate clause, that would be most interesting.

Færd

Yeah.

Can there be a two-layered sentence whose subordinate clause is not a that caluse?

I want to see how the omission (of the pronoun etc) works in a sentence like that.

Well, yeah, there can:

2 mins ago, by Færd

Can there be a two-layered sentence whose subordinate clause is not a that caluse?

And there's no pronoun to be omitted. Never mind.

Cerberus

I see only one subordinate clause?

Færd

Yes. Which is not a that clause.

Cerberus

But, yes, you can have an infinite number of levels of subordination, with various conjunctions or relative pronouns.

Færd

3:00 AM

What is the linking element that gets deleted called?

Cerberus

(I thought you meant a subordinate clause nested within a subordinate clause.)

I'm not sure what you mean.

Færd

> I saw the man. He was mad. --> I saw the man that he was mad.

Or it in my original example.

@Cerberus Oh, no.

Cerberus

I don't have a name for that. It's just that the same constituent is now expressed by a different word.

Færd

It is deleted in Farsi too. Not in Arabic though.

And it has a special name there.

@Cerberus that?

Cerberus

3:32 AM

@Færd What do you mean?

@Færd Interesting.

Færd

9:50 AM

@Cerberus what about this?

> I'm going to make him an offer I'm not sure if he can refuse it.

@Cerberus I mean is the different word that? (in I saw the man that he was mad)

Sayros

Hello All

M.A.R.

Hello

Transcript for

English Language & Usage: Multi-Layer…