Neal Whitman nwhitman at AMERITECH.NET
Thu Dec 9 21:05:02 UTC 2010

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.


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

More information about the Ads-l mailing list