relative "that" again

Sat Feb 21 16:17:56 UTC 2009

Interesting. I can certainly see how both "that"s mentioned could be
called subordinating conjunctions. I quickly point out that my study
of grammar is from the pedagogical grammars.
I                   learned of two types of subordinating
conjunctions--a simple subordinating conjunction and a functional
connective. I quote from the grammar book I studied in the mid 1950s:
"A simple coordinating conjunction has as its sole function the
joining of a subordinate clause to the element on which it depends."
The example given is "I will donate five dollars if you will." The
functional connective type of subordinating conjunction "joins a
subordinate clause to the element on which it depends but at the same
time functions grammatically in its own clause as a substantive, an
adjective, or an adverb," as in "I will donate five dollars when you
do," with "when" a functional subordinating connective--connecting
the two clauses and serving as an adverbial modifier of "do (donate)."

To repeat, then, my grammar would say "I know that you met the guy"
contains a simple subordinate conjunction whose only purpose is to
introduce the subordinate clause, whereas the "that" in  "The guy
that you met" is a functional connective (it introduces the
subordinate clause and also serves as a relative pronoun in its own clause).

Thanks much,
Gerald
>---------------------- Information from the mail header
>-----------------------
>Sender:      American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>Poster:      Herb Stahlke <hfwstahlke at GMAIL.COM>
>Subject:     Re: relative "that" again
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>This is what is generally taught in pedagogical grammars and is widely
>believed among writing teachers. Reference grammars and grammatical
>studies have found for about a century that the two thats are the
>same, both of them subordinating conjunctions. Convincing people of
>this, including some linguists, is not easy. In fact, Johan van der
>Auwera, whose 1984 paper was cited by Neal Whitman earlier in this
>thread, makes the interesting argument that relative that represents a
>historical conflation of two Old English forms, the conjunction Te and
>the demonstrative Taet (where T stands for Old English thorn), and
>that its modern behavior represents that combination in being
>partially pronominal. He claims that modern relative that has not yet
>fully taken on pronominal behavior but that it does have some
>pronominal traits. He addresses, in part, the question I raised as to
>whether native speaker perception could change grammatical description
>and answers it with a tentative yes.
>
>Herb
>
>On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 12:15 AM, Gerald Walton <gww at olemiss.edu> wrote:
> > ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> > Sender:      American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> > Poster:      Gerald Walton <gww at OLEMISS.EDU>
> > Subject:     Re: relative "that" again
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > What I learned is that the "that" in "The guy that you met" is a
> > relative pronoun, meeting three criteria for relative pronouns, and
> > that "that" in "I know that you met the guy" is a simple
> > subordinating conjunction, whose only purpose is to introduce the
> > noun clause, which is the direct object of the verb "know."
> > Gerald
> >
> >
> >>Several weeks ago we had a lengthy discussion on the ATEG list
> >>(Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar, a group within NCTE) on
> >>whether "that" in relative clauses like
> >>
> >>The guy that you met at the airport...
> >>
> >>is a pronoun or simply the same subordinating conjunction as in a
> >>content clause
> >>
> >>I know that you met the guy at the airport.
> >>
> >>I argued, drawing on Jespersen, my own Language paper (1976), and a
> >>more thorough discussion in Huddleston&Pullum, that it's simply a
> >>subordinator, and I think the case is overwhelming, with almost no
> >>evidence to the contrary. However, there are two troublesome kinds of
> >>data for my claim.
> >>
> >>First there is the non-standard form "that's" as in
> >>
> >>The guy that's sister married your cousin...
> >>
> >>Several on the list argue that the fact that "that" takes a genitive
> >>clitic in non-standard usage makes it a pronoun at least in those
> >>varieties of English. This claim is weakened by the fact that
> >>demonstrative "that" never takes genitive -'s. I raised the
> >>possibility that relative "that" cliticizes to the head NP of the
> >>relative clause and that the -'s then cliticizes to that noun-headed
> >>construction, an analysis, that I admittedly have no evidence for.
> >>
> >>The second problem usage with relative "that" came to my attention in
> >>a peculiar way, and I'm borrowing from my posting to the ATEG list.
> >>Last Wednesday evening I was directing my church choir in a rehearsal
> >>of Millard Walker's setting of Psalm 121 (Brodt Music Company 1966).
> >>The text is the metrical version of the psalm from the Bay Psalm Book
> >>(1640). The Bay Psalm text is
> >>
> >>1 I to the hills lift up mine eyes,
> >>       from whence shall come mine aid.
> >>  2 Mine help doth from Jehovah come,
> >>       which heav'n and earth hath made.
> >>  3 He will not let thy foot be moved,
> >>       nor slumber; that thee keeps.
> >>  4 Lo he that keepth Israel,
> >>       he slumbreth not, nor sleeps.
> >>  5 The Lord thy keeper is, the Lord
> >>       on thy right hand the shade.
> >>  6 The sun by day, nor moon by night,
> >>       shall thee by stroke invade.
> >>  7 The Lord will keep thee from all ill:
> >>       thy soul he keeps alway,
> >>  8 Thy going out, and thy in come
> >>       the Lord keeps now and aye.
> >>
> >>
> >>http://www.cgmusic.com/workshop/baypsalm_frame.htm
> >>
> >>It has been observed that the Puritan translators and versifiers of
> >>the Psalter did not include poetry among their virtues, sacrificing
> >>grammar and sometimes sense on the altar of meter and rhyme. What
> >>struck me, though, was verse 3.
> >>
> >>3 He will not let thy foot be moved,
> >>       nor slumber; that thee keeps.
> >>
> >>I have and still do maintain firmly that there is no grammatical
> >>evidence to support the claim that "that" used at the beginning of a
> >>relative clause is a pronoun and not simply a subordinating
> >>conjunction. Combine a grammarian with a choir director, however, and
> >>the thought interrupts maintaining the beat that this instance of
> >>relative "that" feels very pronominal, and not just in the
> >>impressionistic sense that others have expressed. This is the only
> >>instance of relative "that" I have encountered where "that" must be
> >>stressed. We rarely stress "that" as a subordinating conjunction,
> >>whether in a relative or a content clause. Here, however, the meter,
> >>so slavishly followed by the writers, requires us to stress "that."
> >>It's an iambic line, and "that" bears the ictus of the second foot.
> >>This also appears to be a case of a headless relative clause, as in
> >>"Who laughs last laughs best," and headless relatives must begin with
> >>pronouns, usually wh-words. Of course, if "that" is a pronoun in this
> >>case, and it does look like one, it violates the prescriptive notion
> >>that "that" refers only to non-humans. But then "which" in v. 2
> >>refers to Jehovah, not a human, but still a person. Early Modern
> >>English did allow such a use of "which" Anyone familiar with older
> >>editions of the King James Version remember "Our Father which art in
> >>heaven" as the opening of the Lord's Prayer.
> >>
> >>So there are two strong, grammatical reasons for considering this
> >>instance of relative "that" to be a pronoun. It's stressed (the
> >>subordinator "that" never is), and it introduces a headless relative,
> >>which only pronouns can do. Now, is this a quirk of bad Puritan
> >>poetry? Even if so, the construction had to feel possible or even
> >>these violators of grammar and sense wouldn't have used it. This
> >>instance demonstrates that there is a case in a strange bit of bad
> >>mid-17th c. verse of relative "that" used in a way that can only be
> >>considered a pronoun. The evidence in Late Modern English remains
> >>overwhelming that we no longer do so, if English speakers ever
> >>actually did.
> >>
> >>I admit I don't know quite what to make of the Puritan pronominal
> >>relative "that."
> >>
> >>Herb
> >>
> >>------------------------------------------------------------
> >>The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> >
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org