whose death she lost the motivation to paint after/the hotel I am staying at

[Vladv1]

Why the sentence "He is a man after whose death she lost the motivation to paint" can't be reworded using a stranded presposition as "He is a man whose death she lost the motivation to paint AFTER?
Why the sentence "The hotel in which I am staying at" works fine as "The hotel I am staying AT"? Is there some guideline? The examples are mine.

 

[jutfrank]

Let's start here:

Why the sentence "The hotel in which I am staying at" works fine

That's wrong. You've got two prepositions there. Choose one.

Why the sentence "He is a man after whose death she lost the motivation to paint" can't be reworded using a stranded presposition as "He is a man whose death she lost the motivation to paint AFTER?

First, can I ask you why you think it can't? Did AI tell you this?

 

[Vladv1]

Let's start here:



That's wrong. You've got two prepositions there. Choose one.



First, can I ask you why you think it can't? Did AI tell you this?

Sorry, I meant "The hotel I am staying at". As for the "He is a man whose death she lost the motivation to paint AFTER", a native american speaker pal of mine told me that is sounds awkward.

 

[jutfrank]

Sorry, I meant "The hotel I am staying at".

Okay. This phrase is perfectly fine now.

As for the "He is a man whose death she lost the motivation to paint AFTER", a native american speaker pal of mine told me that is sounds awkward.

And you want to know why it's awkward? It's because the preposition is stranded so far away.

 

[emsr2d2]

Why can't the sentence "He is a man after whose death she lost the motivation to paint" can't be reworded, using a stranded presposition preposition, as to "He is a man whose death she lost the motivation to paint AFTER"?

Note my corrections above, especially the correct word order for a question.

Why does the sentence "The hotel in which I am staying at" works work fine as "The hotel I am staying AT"?

Again, note the correct word order for a question.

Is there some guideline grammatical rule?

See above.

The examples are mine.

That's OK but it's more natural to say "I made up/wrote these examples myself".

 

[Annabel Lee]

Why the sentence "He is a man after whose death she lost the motivation to paint" can't be reworded using a stranded presposition as "He is a man whose death she lost the motivation to paint AFTER?
Why the sentence "The hotel in which I am staying at" works fine as "The hotel I am staying AT"? Is there some guideline? The examples are mine.

I suspect that the difference has to do with the fact that in the second example, the prepositional-phrase adjunct as a whole is the relativized element of the relative clause (the entire prepositional phrase "at the hotel" answers the question "Where are you staying?"), whereas, in the first, the relativized element of the relative clause is adjunct-internal.

Although the prepositional phrase "after his death" answers the question "When did she lose the motivation to paint?," "his death" relates to the decidedly more awkward (if not subtly ungrammatical) question "What (event) did she lose her motivation to paint after?" But fronting helps the construction become more acceptable. The same goes for the relative clause.

After what did she lose the motivation to paint?​

After what event did she lose the motivation to paint?​

After whose death did she lose the motivation to paint?​

 

[jutfrank]

I suspect that the difference has to do with the fact that in the second example, the prepositional-phrase adjunct as a whole is the relativized element of the relative clause (the entire prepositional phrase "at the hotel" answers the question "Where are you staying?"), whereas, in the first, the relativized element of the relative clause is adjunct-internal.

Do you think it could (also) be related particularly to the fact that we've got a 'whose'-phrase?

 

[Annabel Lee]

Do you think it could (also) be related particularly to the fact that we've got a 'whose'-phrase?

Well, it's possible, but "whose" by itself can work fine in a related relative clause:

He is the man whose death caused her to lose the motivation to paint.​

Also, when a prepositional phrase containing a "whose"-phrase is a complement within the relative clause (consider relative clauses with "put," which takes a prepositional-phrase complement), there is no problem:

a) She is the woman in whose purse I put my book.​

b) She is the woman whose purse I put my book in.​

So, I tend to think the bad apples here have to do with the "whose"-phrase being nested in an adjunct (i.e., an only peripherally modifying) prepositional phrase within a relative clause in which the preposition is stranded:

c) She is the woman in whose house a dog has been barking.​

d) ?? She is the woman whose house a dog has been barking in.​

 

[Vladv1]

Well, it's possible, but "whose" by itself can work fine in a related relative clause:

He is the man whose death caused her to lose the motivation to paint.​

Also, when a prepositional phrase containing a "whose"-phrase is a complement within the relative clause (consider relative clauses with "put," which takes a prepositional-phrase complement), there is no problem:

a) She is the woman in whose purse I put my book.​

b) She is the woman whose purse I put my book in.​

So, I tend to think the bad apples here have to do with the "whose"-phrase being nested in an adjunct (i.e., an only peripherally modifying) prepositional phrase within a relative clause in which the preposition is stranded:

c) She is the woman in whose house a dog has been barking.​

d) ?? She is the woman whose house a dog has been barking in.​

Could you please give more examples like those?

 

[Annabel Lee]

Could you please give more examples like those?

He is the man in front of whose house we used to play basketball.
He is the man whose house we used to play basketball in front of.

[Edit: Please note that I have had second thoughts about my grammatical judgments here. I now realize that I find both OK.]

 

[5jj]

He is the man in front of whose house we used to play basketball.
He is the man whose house we used to play basketball in front of.

I find the second of those sentences more natural than the first.

 

[Vladv1]

He is the man in front of whose house we used to play basketball.
He is the man whose house we used to play basketball in front of.

Could you please give examples of sentences with relative clause where stranding is not possible, but the relative pronoun is other than "whose"?

 

[Annabel Lee]

I find the second of those sentences more natural than the first.

It seems my recipe turned out wrong. It can be such an unnatural enterprise to construct ungrammatical sentences of a highly specific type! Nevertheless, I shall try again, striving for strong peripherality. Perhaps the easiest way to butcher a relative clause in the way Vladv1 desires is to relativize the object of prepositional phrase modifying a noun.

We can say: I walked across a meadow near a lake. ["Near a lake" modifies the noun "meadow."]
But it seems undeniably ungrammatical to say: This is the lake that I walked across a meadow near.
However, the relative clause does seem somewhat acceptable with fronting (Pied Piping):

This is the lake near which I walked across a meadow.

Yet the meaning of that sentence seems slightly different, too, in a way that has bearing on how it should be parsed syntactically. "Near which I walked across a meadow" seems to me to relate to (presuppose) "Near a lake, I walked acoss a meadow" rather than "I walked across [a meadow near a lake]."

 

[5jj]

This is the lake near which I walked across a meadow.

Yet the meaning of that sentence seems slightly different, too, in a way that has bearing on how it should be parsed syntactically. "Near which I walked across a meadow" seems to me to relate to (presuppose) "Near a lake, I walked acoss a meadow" rather than "I walked across [a meadow near a lake]."

I don't agree.

 

[jutfrank]

We seem to have different ideas about how acceptable these preposition strandings are. I'm trying to make up a sentence that I think is indisputably wrong. This is what I've got:

I talked to a man about his dog.

a) He's the man I talked to about his dog.
b) He's the man about whose dog I talked to.
c) He's the man whose dog I talked about to.

I think a) is okay, but b) and c) aren't. I wonder what others think.

 

[5jj]

I talked to a man about his dog.

a) He's the man I talked to about his dog.
b) He's the man about whose dog I talked to.
c) He's the man whose dog I talked about to.

I think a) is okay, but b) and c) aren't. I wonder what others think.

I am going to have to take a break after this - I am no longer sure what I find acceptable.

Initial thoughts:

a) Fine.
b) No way.
c) No - I think!

 

[Annabel Lee]

I don't agree.

I assume you mean that you don't agree with my explanation of why This is the lake near which I walked across a meadow is not ungrammatical. I presume that you do agree with my judgement that it is grammatical and with my judgement that *This is the lake that I walked across a meadow near is not. Can we at least agree about the ungrammaticality of the latter?

 

[jutfrank]

If I can chime in ...

This is the lake near which I walked across a meadow is not ungrammatical.

I agree with that.

This is the lake that I walked across a meadow near is not.

You know, I don't think this sounds all that bad. I mean, it's certainly very awkward but I don't think I'm as sold as you, Annabel, on its ungrammaticality. Perhaps I'm particularly tolerant to this kind of stranding.

(I'd understood that 5jj was saying he disagreed that the meaning seems slightly different.)

 

[Annabel Lee]

We seem to have different ideas about how acceptable these preposition strandings are. I'm trying to make up a sentence that I think is indisputably wrong. This is what I've got:

I talked to a man about his dog.

a) He's the man I talked to about his dog.
b) He's the man about whose dog I talked to.
c) He's the man whose dog I talked about to.

I think a) is okay, but b) and c) aren't. I wonder what others think.

I think that, with (b) and (c), you've successfully butchered the relative clause, Jutfrank, rendering it, not just slightly ungrammatical but abominably so. However, I think the ungrammaticality stems less from improper stranding than it does from the fact that (b) and (c) have a zero relative clause plus a "whose"-relative clause all in one: two relativizations.

That is, in (b) and (c), there are both a possessive relative pronoun ("whose") and a silent accusative relative pronoun ("whom"/"that"). We can make this fact more apparent by making an even greater grammatical abomination than (b) and (c) offer, one with Pied Piping twice over, which is utterly impossible:

d) He's the man to whom about whose dog I talked.

 

[jutfrank]

I think that, with (b) and (c), you've successfully butchered the relative clause, Jutfrank, rendering it, not just slightly ungrammatical but abominably so.

Thank you. That's very kind.

However, I think the ungrammaticality stems less from improper stranding than it does from the fact that (b) and (c) have a zero relative clause plus a "whose"-relative clause all in one: two relativizations.

Okay, I'll think about this some more. Yes, I do feel that the fact that we've got a 'whose'-clause is playing some part.

d) He's the man to whom about whose dog I talked.

That's one of the worst sentences I've heard for a long time! Congratulations!