relative pro...

[nautes20]

Hi,

That is the house in that the man lives.(incorrect)

Why can't "prepositions" be placed before a relative pronoun "that"?


Best regards...

[Casiopea]

That is the house in that the man lives. (incorrect)
Why can't "prepositions" be placed before a relative pronoun "that"?

Pronoun has the word 'noun' in it. A pronoun cannot modify a preposition. It modifies a noun. A relative pronoun needs to be next to its noun:

That is the house that the man lives in. (OK)
That is the house in that the man lives. (Not OK)

[nautes20]

But "This is the house in which the president lives." is ok...

[Casiopea]

But "This is the house in which the president lives." is ok...

'in which' is a two-word combination.

EX: This is the house in which she lives.

There's also by whom, for whom, from whom.

[nautes20]

Hi, Casiopea...


You said :Pronoun has the word 'noun' in it. A pronoun cannot modify a preposition. It modifies a noun. A relative pronoun needs to be next to its noun:

That is the house that the man lives in. (OK)
That is the house in that the man lives. (Not OK)


But I think "that" is a relative pronoun, too.

That, a relative pronoun, needs to be next to its noun.

And I don't know the difference between "in that" and "in which" in tems of "two word combination".

[Casiopea]

"that" is a relative pronoun, whereas "in that" is not a relative pronoun. For example,

The house that he lives in is over there.

that introduces the clause he lives in. that is often omitted when it introduces a clause:

The house he lives in is over there.

It's possible to omit that because it's not part of the underlined clause. Notice, though, that in is part of the underlined clause. If we omit in from the clause or move in out of the clause, the result is ungrammatical (*):

Omit in from the clause: *The house that he lives is over there.
Moved in out of the clause: *The house in that he lives is over there.

in is part of the underlined clause, so it shouldn't be omitted or moved out of its clause. That's the reason in that is not a two-word combination. in and that do not belong to the same clause.

Now let's look at in which:

The house, which he lives in, is over there.

Both which and in are part of the same underlined clause, so if in is moved, the sentence remains grammatical:

The house, in which he lives, is over there.

in which is a two-word combination: in and which belong to the same clause, whereas in that is not a two-word combination: in and that do not belong to the same clause.

In sum,

The house that he lives in is over there. (clause)
The house, in which he lives, is over there. (clause)

Here's another examples:

Max, for whom this book was written, is a great editor.

for whom is a relative pronoun: It refers back to 'Max'.

=> This book was written for Max.
=> Max, for whom this book was written,...

for whom is also part of the underlined clause:

Max, for whom this book was written, is a great editor.
=> this book was written for whom

We could also separate the preposition for from its object, like this,

Max, whom this book was written for, is a great editor.

The same holds true for other two-word combinations:

The house, which he lives in, is over there.

When a two-word combination is separated in that way, the relative pronoun which sounds as if it's not part of the underlined clause. For example,

The house that he lives in is over there.
The house which he lives in is over there.

So in order to show that which is part of the underlined clause, and therefore different from that, commas are added:

The house that he lives in is over there.
The house, which he lives in, is over there.

In sum, that is a relative pronoun, but it is not part of the clause it introduces, so in cannot be moved.

The house that he lives in...
*The house in that he lives...

By placing in before that, we render the sentence ungrammatical because we in has been moved out of its clause.

which is a relative pronoun, and it is part of the clause it introduces, so in can be moved.

The house which he lives in...
The house in which he lives...

If we place in before which, the sentence remains grammatical because both in and which are part of the same clause.

[nautes20]

Hi, Casiopea...

I read your explanations...

But I still have a question.

You said "that" is not a part of an underlined sentence.

The house is over there. + He lives in it. -> The house that he lives in is over there.

Here, I think "that" functions as "conjunction+it(He lives in it.)"

So I guess "that" is a part of "He lives in it."

Best regards...

[Casiopea]

The house is over there + He lives in it.
=> The house that he lives in is over there.

Here, I think "that" functions as "conjunction...", so I guess "that" is a part of "He lives in it."

You're right about "that" functioning as a conjunction, but it's not part of a phrase. Conjunctions are joining words, which means they are not part of a phrase. For example,

apples and bananas
=> 'and' joins two nouns; 'and' is not part of 'apples' or 'bananas'.

The house that he lives in...
=> 'that' joins a noun 'house' with it's modification 'he lives in'; 'that' is not part of 'The house' or 'he lives in'. We know it's not part of either because it can be deleted: The house he lives in...

'that' is a conjunction. It's by itself.

[nautes20]

Hi, Casiopea...

Thanks for your deep explanations...
I have read your explanations many times.
But I haven't read the explanations like yours in other grammar books before.
So, recommend the helpful sites about 'relative pronoun' for me

Greatfully yours...