LINGUIST List 10.1043

Wed Jul 7 1999

Disc: Corpora: Query/Discussion: Prep+relative who

Editor for this issue: Scott Fults <scottlinguistlist.org>

Directory

1. Pieter de Haan, Corpora: Query/Discussion: Prep+relative who
2. Kenneth W. Church, Corpora: Query/Discussion: Prep+relative who
3. James L. Fidelholtz, Corpora: Query/Discussion: Prep+relative who
4. Peter T. Daniels, Corpora: Query/Disc: Prep+relative who

Dear James,

I'm not a native speaker, so any "intuition" I might have on this one
has been acquired more or less artificially, but I would be inclined
to agree with you that

>I think this construction is in an advanced state of near-death

and that most speakers would prefer the construction with the
postposed preposition. However, there are also constructions, notably
Carsten's # 6:

>(6) Instead, the sites are used by local residents, of who some 25
per or so come by foot and use the sites like an urban park, primarily
to take a walk (Harrison, 1981). (FR2: 453)

where the alternative construction with the postposed preposition does
not exist - which must have something to do with the fact that in
these cases the PP in which the relative pronoun functions is itself
part of an NP, rather than an adverbial on the level of the relative
clause.

I still teach my (Dutch-speaking) students to use WHOM rather than WHO
when it is immediately preceded by a preposition, irrespective of
whether this occurs in a relative clause or in an interrogative
sentence (To whom were you talking just now?), but would you (and
other native speakers) say that perhaps I'd better not pay any
attention to it? Or should I teach them to avoid the construction with
the initial preposition as much as possible anyway? Are native
speakers beginning to regard this as an awkward or perhaps even
unnatural construction?

Pieter



 Dr Pieter de Haan
 Department of English
 University of Nijmegen
 P.O. Box 9103
 NL-6500 HD Nijmegen
 The Netherlands
 Phone: + 31 24 3 61 58 80
 Fax: + 31 24 3 61 18 82
. . . . . . . . . E-mail: P.deHaanlet.kun.nl
 http://www.kun.nl/engdept/haan.htm

Yes, I would take this a bit further. There are a few constructions
like this can distinguish someone a native speaker of American English
from someone who is very good with language, but learned the language
in a class. I remember my first trip to what was then the Soviet
Union. We were escorted everywhere by a few English teachers whose
English was perfect in nearly every respect. I was surprised that
their English was so good considering that they had never spoken to a
native speaker of the language until we arrived. But there were a few
things like this that reminded us that their English wasn't quite
perfect, and that they had learned the language from text books that
were left over from before the war.

Dear Pieter:
	Certainly most grammarians, pseudo or not, would agree with what
you teach (although I don't speak that way, but that's just because of
avoiding the construction altogether). It's of course also how I was
taught as a kid. On the other hand, before making recommendations, you
should check with some Brits, who are known (by us Americans) to speak
weird (and vice versa), to see whether the same sort of 'avoidance'
strategy which, yes, I would suggest from the point of view of this side
of the Atlantic, is also appropriate for European English. From your
earlier comments, I gather that the situation is similar in Britain,
however.
	By the way, in the example (6) above I would probably use 'of
which', which avoids the problem altogether, and still gives me some
pretense of being among the linguistically elite.

	Jim

James L. Fidelholtz			e-mail: jfidelsiu.buap.mx
Maestr�a en Ciencias del Lenguaje
Instituto de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades
Benem�rita Universidad Aut�noma de Puebla, M�XICO

I did not see these data before, but it's clear from the content/context
of virtually all of them that they are British, not American usage.

And to me they sound universally impossible -- PREP + who is not an
option.

-
Peter T. Daniels grammatimworldnet.att.net