"Surprisingly few modern grammarians discuss what has become an increasingly common problem: the separation of the relative pronoun (that, which, who) from its antecedent. For example, in the sentence “The files sitting in the office that I was talking about yesterday are in disarray,” the word that—technically—modifies office, not files. But many writers today would intend to have it modify files. They would loosely employ a 'remote relative.'” (Source: Remote Relatives: Information from Answers.com)
Would getting rid of "that" solve the problem in the sentence "The files sitting in the office that I was talking about yesterday are in disarray"? Probably not, but the sentence does sound better to me without "that."
How would one rewrite the sentence to solve the "remote relative" problem?
Thanks!
I don't see it as so much of a problem. Like dangling participles, the intended meaning is normally clear enough. You could say The files that are sitting in the office and that I was talking about /about which I was talking yesterday are in disarray, but it doesn't sound like much of an improvement to me. You could also lose sitting and move in the office to the end, but again I prefer the original.
How about this? Would that be too far from the original?
The files I was telling you about yesterday are (still) sitting in the office in disarray
How about "I was talking yesterday about (some) files sitting in the office. They are in disarray" ?
I've made a poll on the question:
Poll: The files sitting in the office that I was talking about yesterday are in disarray - Language Polls - UsingEnglish.com