[Grammar] Why shouldn't "what" introduce relative clauses?

[enthink]

[FONT=&quot]If you want to show that you are interested in what she is saying, nod.

What type of a clause is the part in bold?

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]In this case "what" could be replaced by "that which" (a relative clause). So [/FONT][FONT=&quot]why do some grammar books claim that "what" cannot introduce relative clauses (unlike "which" and "that")?
[/FONT]

 

[lauralie2]

I'll answer your first question.

It's a noun clause. We know that because it is introduced by a preposition (in). We know that 'what' is a noun because it replaces the verb's object (she is saying <something/what>, and we know it's a clause because it has a verb (is saying).

 

[enthink]

I'll answer your first question.

It's a noun clause. We know that because it is introduced by a preposition (in). We know that 'what' is a noun because it replaces the verb's object (she is saying <something/what>, and we know it's a clause because it has a verb (is saying).

The only thing I agree with is that it is a clause (and I knew this already, if you read my post).

The fact that a clause begins with a preposition can hardly make it a noun clause.

Also, what is not a noun. The word class of what can only be pronoun or determiner. The fact that a word is an object of a transitive verb does not mean that the word is automatically a noun (it is not).

 

[5jj]

The only thing I agree with is that it is a clause (and I knew it, if you read my post).

The fact that a clause begins with a preposition can hardly make it a noun clause.

That sort of response to someone who has tried to help you is hardly going to encourage others to bother,

 

[enthink]

That sort of response to someone who has tried to help you is hardly going to encourage others to bother,

If the answer misleads instead of helping, it should be clearly stated (to prevent others from being misled). I did so, and do not expect anyone to thank me for that.

In other words, if you post nonsense in an advice-oriented forum, be prepared to get a corresponding answer.

 

[Barb_D]

And if you post insulting responses to the people trying to help you, be prepared for no answer at all in the future.

It IS introduced by a preposition; the preposition is not part of the noun clause.

"What" stands in for the noun.

 

[corum]

If the answer misleads instead of helping, it should be clearly stated (to prevent others from being misled).

You can clearly state something in many different ways. You can be polite and you can be obnoxious. You are very much the latter.

I did so, and do not expect anyone to thank me for that.

Do not expect your question to be answered either!

In other words, if you post nonsense in an advice-oriented forum, be prepared to get a corresponding answer.

This is

!
Barbara devoted her time to try to sort out your problem. She was nice to you even if you think she was not "helpful". What does she get in return from you? Harsh criticism. Is this correct thus? I wish I could explain this to you in person.

 

[corum]

What type of a clause is the part in bold?

Nominal relative clause.

In other words, if you post nonsense in an advice-oriented forum, be prepared to get a corresponding answer.

I am prepared for a corresponding answer.

 

[Barb_D]

As delighted as I am to be mistaken for lauralie, she gets the credit, not me.

 

[corum]

As delighted as I am to be mistaken for lauralie, she gets the credit, not me.

Indeed, sorry!

 

[Pokemon]

In other words, if you post nonsense in an advice-oriented forum, be prepared to get a corresponding answer.

I love it!

 

[Pokemon]

And if you post insulting responses to the people trying to help you, be prepared for no answer at all in the future.

It IS introduced by a preposition; the preposition is not part of the noun clause.

"What" stands in for the noun.

Bravo! I knew sooner or later somebody was going to get confused by your not distignguishing between language units and speech units which you propagate blindly following Chomsky's theory. Of course, it's not a noun. What a stupid idea! How can a sentence constituent be called a noun? "... what she is saying..." is an object clause. Interested in what? In what she is saying. The identifying question "what?" shows that we deal with an object clause.

 

[5jj]

Bravo! I knew sooner or later somebody was going to get confused by your not distignguishing between language units and speech units which you propagate blindly following Chomsky's theory. Of course, it's not a noun. What a stupid idea! How can a sentence constituent be called a noun? "... what she is saying..." is an object clause. Interested in what? In what she is saying. The identifying question "what?" shows that we deal with an object clause.

Sorry, could you try that again, please?

 

[Pokemon]

Sorry, could you try that again, please?

Sorry, could YOU try that again, please?

 

[Pedroski]

Well, we are all very touchy today! I find it strange to hear corum pleading for decorum!
It's a simple sentence.

If you want to show that you are interested in what she is saying, nod.

'what she is saying' was correctly identified as an object of 'in' by Pokemon. I wouldn't call it a clause, as it can't stand alone: *What she is saying. It is a compound noun. Take away any bits, and you get a bad sentence:

1) *If you want to show that you are interested in she is saying, nod.
2) *If you want to show that you are interested in what, nod.

If 'what' were a noun, 2) would be ok, cf:

If you want to show that you are interested in football, nod.

 

[corum]

I love it!

It seems there are plenty more where they come from. Your comment feels like a Monday morning to me. :down:

 

[corum]

Sorry, could YOU try that again, please?

You are shallow and pathetic. Disgraceful!

 

[corum]

If you want to show that you are interested in what she is saying, nod.

want to = catenative
show = main verb

that = expletive
that you are interested in what she is saying = object of 'show'
that = subordinator in function and belongs to the word class of pronouns

interested in = prepositional verb, a phrasal verb
what she is saying = object of the preposition 'in'; of course it is a nominal relative clause, and also a subordinate clause
the thing which he is saying
what = nominal relative pronoun, a connector, a linking word

nod = main clause
If you want to show that you are interested in what she is saying = subordinate clause

And here is the sentence structure represented in RK:

 

[Pokemon]

'what she is saying' was correctly identified as an object of 'in' by Pokemon. I wouldn't call it a clause, as it can't stand alone: *What she is saying. It is a compound noun. Take away any bits, and you get a bad sentence:

If a sentence fragment has a subject-predicate unit, it's a clause. "... what she is saying..." meets this requirement, so it's a clause, where the subject is 'she', the predicate - 'is playing', and the object 'what'.

Corum, I know that 'a barking dog does not bite'. Keep posting. :lol:

 

[corum]

Keep posting. :lol:

Please you do not! :-D