Is "why" a fusible/free relative adverb?

[Mori]

There are relative adverbs where, when, and why.

• The house where I used to live has been knocked down.
• Do you remember the time when we all went to a night club?
• The reason why we can sell so cheaply is because we buy in bulk.

We can use where and when without a noun.

• Where I used to live has been knocked down.
  (= The place where I used to live ...)
• Do you remember when we all went to a nightclub?
  (= ... the time when we all went to a nightclub?)

Oxford Learner's Grammar - Grammar Finder, entry 271: relative adverbs

Aren't they basically the same as why? Why can't we use why as a free relative adverb? Is it incorrect, for example, to say, "That was why he resigned."?

 

[5jj]

Why can't we use why as a free relative adverb?

We can.

Is it incorrect, for example, to say, "That was why he resigned."?

No.

 

[Mori]

We can.

Can it even come at the beginning of the sentence?
Why we can sell so cheaply is because we buy in bulk.

 

[5jj]

Can it even come at the beginning of the sentence?

Yes. Why he did that is a mystery to me.

Why we can sell so cheaply is because we buy in bulk.

I don't like that. It seems unnecessary to have both 'why' and 'because'. I'd just say: We can sell so cheaply because we buy in bulk.

 

[Mori]

Why he did that is a mystery to me.

Thanks for the example, but as far as I know, why he did that is a subordinate interrogative clause, not a relative clause, so why here is not a relative adverb.

 

[5jj]

The labelling of word classes (parts of speech) is something few grammarians agree on. No matter what label you put on why, Why he did that is a mystery to me is a perfectly grammatical sentence.

 

[PaulMatthews]

Thanks for the example, but as far as I know, why he did that is a subordinate interrogative clause, not a relative clause, so why here is not a relative adverb.

Why he did that is a mystery to me.

I'm inclined to agree with you that the underlined expression is a subordinate interrogative clause (embedded question). It means:

"The answer to the question 'Why did he do that?' is a mystery to me".

 

[PaulMatthews]

There are relative adverbs where, when, and why.

• The house where I used to live has been knocked down.
• Do you remember the time when we all went to a night club?
• The reason why we can sell so cheaply is because we buy in bulk.

I take "why" to be an adverb, and "where" and "when" to be prepositions. "Where" and when" occur in fused relative constructions, while "why" occurs in basic (non-fused) integrated relatives.

We can use where and when without a noun.

• Where I used to live has been knocked down.
  (= The place where I used to live ...)
• Do you remember when we all went to a nightclub?
  (= ... the time when we all went to a nightclub?)

Oxford Learner's Grammar - Grammar Finder, entry 271: relative adverbs

Aren't they basically the same as why? Why can't we use why as a free relative adverb? Is it incorrect, for example, to say, "That was why he resigned."?

[Where I used to live] has been knocked down.

In other words, is the bracketed element a noun phrase in a fused relative construction? The answer is no: "where I live" is not an ordinary noun phrase, at least not in Present-day English. If "where" is classified as a preposition, then Where I used to live is a preposition phrase, which makes no sense. You need the integrated "The place where I used to live ..."

Do you remember when we all went to a nightclub?

No: if "when" is a preposition, then "when we all went to a nightclub" is a preposition phrase, but that makes no sense. You need the integrated relative "Do you remember the occasion when we all went to a nightclub?

 

[5jj]

You need the integrated "The place where I used to live ..."

How about the following?

Where I lived was as far off as many a region viewed nightly by astronomers.
Henry David Thoreau; Walden; or, Life in the Woods.

Where I lived was in the landing path, ...
Alexandar Hemon: Landing.

Where I lived was not on television, ...
Thaddeus Rutkowski: Nowhere Boy.

I lost my driving licence due to my stroke and where I used to live was two and a half miles out of town ...
Debbie Matthews: Debbie's Story.

 

[Mori]

I take "why" to be an adverb, and "where" and "when" to be prepositions.

I think I get your point and I also agree with John Eastwood in Oxford Learner's Grammar that where, when, and why are adverbs. They modify verbs in relative structures. This is how I would analyze it:

• That was the place. + We ate in that place. = That was (the place) where we ate. "In that place" (= there) is a prepositional phrase that functions as an adverb giving information about where it happened.
• That was the time. + We met at that time. = That was (the time) when we met. "At that time" (= then) is a prepositional phrase that functions as an adverb giving information about when it happened.
• That was the reason. + He got angry for that reason. = That was (the reason) why he got angry. "For that reason" (= therefore) is a prepositional phrase that functions as an adverb giving information about why it happened.

On the other hand, many grammarians, e.g. Michael Swan in Practical English Usage, classify who, whom, which, that, whose, where, when, and why as relative pronouns. I guess that's because they have nominal antecedents, i.e. a person, thing, place, time, or reason. Your own comment about whose:

Note that relative pronouns relate to a noun or nominal, not to a noun phrase. In your example the antecedent is not the noun phrase "the man", but just the nominal "man".

is the bracketed element a noun phrase

Yes: Where I used to live is the place where I used to live, which is a noun phrase with place as the head.

Now, are my three bulleted examples grammatical without antecedents?

 

[5jj]

That was where we ate.
That was when we met.
That was why he got angry.

Those are correct.

 

[PaulMatthews]

I think I get your point and I also agree with John Eastwood in Oxford Learner's Grammar that where, when, and why are adverbs. They modify verbs in relative structures. This is how I would analyze it:

• That was the place. + We ate in that place. = That was (the place) where we ate. "In that place" (= there) is a prepositional phrase that functions as an adverb giving information about where it happened.
• That was the time. + We met at that time. = That was (the time) when we met. "At that time" (= then) is a prepositional phrase that functions as an adverb giving information about when it happened.
• That was the reason. + He got angry for that reason. = That was (the reason) why he got angry. "For that reason" (= therefore) is a prepositional phrase that functions as an adverb giving information about why it happened.

On the other hand, many grammarians, e.g. Michael Swan in Practical English Usage, classify who, whom, which, that, whose, where, when, and why as relative pronouns. I guess that's because they have nominal antecedents, i.e. a person, thing, place, time, or reason.

I reject what Eastwood and Swan say, I take "where" and "when" to be prepositions because of their locative and temporal meanings.

Your own comment about whose:

I don't see the relevance of my comment in that thread.

Yes: Where I used to live is the place where I used to live, which is a noun phrase with place as the head.

Now, are my three bulleted examples grammatical without antecedents?

Only if they are considered to be ordinary noun phrases.

 

[5jj]

Only if they are considered to be ordinary noun phrases.

They are correct however you consider them.

 

[PaulMatthews]

Consider:

The place where I live amazes visitors by its friendly informality.

??Where I live amazes visitors by its friendly informality.

The pollution is turning the place where I live into a hell-hole.

??The pollution is turning where I live into a hell-hole.

Lots of people believe the place where I live to be some sort of paradise.

??Lots of people believe where I live to be some sort of paradise.

If the queried examples sound perfect to you, and if corpus work eventually reveals that they widely occur in unimpeachable native speaker prose, and if it is impossible to treat them as interrogative clauses (as in “Where I live doesn't matter”), then perhaps it is true that an analysis of “where I live” as an ordinary noun phrase has to be provided somehow.

 

[Mori]

If the queried examples sound perfect to you, and if corpus work eventually reveals that they widely occur in unimpeachable native speaker prose, and if it is impossible to treat them as interrogative clauses (as in “Where I live doesn't matter”), then perhaps it is true that an analysis of “where I live” as an ordinary noun phrase has to be provided somehow.

It's common enough to appear in English learner's dictionaries. See, for example, the third sense of the following entries in the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary.

• where: We then moved to Paris, where we lived for six years.
• when: The last time I went to Scotland was in May, when the weather was beautiful.
• why: That's why I left so early.

 

[PaulMatthews]

It's common enough to appear in English learner's dictionaries. See, for example, the third sense of these entries in the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary:

• where: We then moved to Paris, where we lived for six years.
• when: The last time I went to Scotland was in May, when the weather was beautiful.
• why: That's why I left so early.

Did you read and manage to understand my last answer?

Dictionaries are fine for meanings, but not for grammar!

The relative adverb "why" occurs in integrated (defining) relatives with "reason" as antecedent: That's the reason why I left so early. Relative "why" does not occur in fused relatives.

In your example That's [why I left so early] the bracketed element is a subordinate interrogative clause (embedded question).

The same applies to your original example, That was why he resigned : a subordinate interrogative clause (embedded question). The meaning is "That is the answer to the question 'Why did he resign?'"

 

[Mori]

In your example That's [why I left so early] the bracketed element is a subordinate interrogative clause

In a subordinate interrogative clause, why means for what reason; in a subordinate relative clause, it means (the reason) for which.



Oxford Languages

relative "why" does not normally occur in fused relatives

What is probably not that common is using why at the beginning of the sentence.

the place where…; the day when…; the reason why…​

We can use these expressions to emphasize a place, time or reason.
- Jake spent Tuesday IN LONDON.
London was the place where Jake spent Tuesday.
The place where Jake spent Tuesday was London.
- Jake went to London ON TUESDAY.
Tuesday was the day when/that Jake went to London.
The day when Jake went to London was Tuesday.
- Jake went to London TO SEE TOM.
To see Tom was the reason why Jake went to London.
The reason why Jake went to London was to see Tom.
The place, the day or the reason can be dropped in an informal style, especially in the middle of a sentence.
Spain's where we're going this year.
Why I'm here is to talk about my plans. (More formal: The reason why I’m here is…)

Michael Swan, Practical English Usage fourth edition, entry 274.2

 

[5jj]

Dictionaries are fine for meanings, but not for grammar!

Example sentences in dictionaries are taken from real life sources.

That was why he resigned : a subordinate interrogative clause (embedded question). The meaning is "That is the answer to the question 'Why did he resign?'"

The meaning could also be taken to be "That was the reason he resigned".

 

[PaulMatthews]

Why can't we use why as a free relative adverb? Is it incorrect, for example, to say, "That was why he resigned."?

Listen up Mori. You originally asked the above question.

The answer is we can't. Relative "why" is an adverb. It occurs in integrated (defining) relatives with "reason" as antecedent:

That's the reason why he resigned. Here, the adverb "why" is the relativised element functioning as an adjunct of reason within the relative clause.

It does not occur in fused relatives.

In your example "why he resigned" is a subordinate interrogative clause (embedded question), where the meaning is;

"That was the answer to the question 'Why did he resign?'"

Please don't keep repeating the same questions and examples.

 

[5jj]

Listen up Mori.

Please treat fellow members with respect.

Please don't keep repeating the same questions and examples.

Mori may be pursuing this because they feel they haven't received a satisfactory response yet.