Dilinger's

[Neal Whitman]

But there is no relative clause, only a complement clause (whose "that" the copyeditors unwisely suppressed). However, one commenter on the blog noted that substituting "their" for "the" would have made everyone happy.

Neal

On Dec 9, 2010, at 2:35 PM, ronbutters at AOL.COM wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       ronbutters at AOL.COM
> Subject:      Dilinger's
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> it seems to me that the problem is not a matter of syntax but of punctuation. Placing a comma before and after the relative clause would identify it as nonrestrictive. No confusion would be likely. The "the" would also assist in indicating that "restaurant" was not new information.
>
> Neal wrote:
>
> The journalistic squeezing in of additional information in the wrong place
> gave me trouble in interpreting an anaphoric relation in this sentence:
>
> "Dillinger's sometimes hands out fliers at Broad and High streets reminding
> people [that] the restaurant on the 16th floor of the LeVeque Tower has a
> patio just for smokers."
>
> Dillinger's and the restaurant on the 16th floor are the same entity.
> Instead of just saying "it", the writer tried to use a more elaborate
> anaphoric device that didn't work.
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

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