A Grammatical Phenomenon

Question

Some sentences, like 'I looked up to see that another poor soul had met the fate that I'd thought was reserved for only me.', show a type of relative clause where the clause (the second that-clause here) not only plays the role as a postmodifier of the antecedent, but as the object of another clause(*'I'd thought'* here). So is there any specific terminology for this? I wonder if there's any grammar book elaborating this phenomenon.
Another thing intrigues me is the feasibility of omission of relative word. In William Zinsser's article, the transaction, he remarks, 'I often find myself reading with interest about a topic I never thought would interest me.' Here it bears great resemblance to the previous example except without relative word. So I get slightly baffled for that. Are they of the same type?

GPY · Accepted Answer

???Some sentences, like 'I looked up to see that another poor soul had met the fate that I'd thought was reserved for only me.', show a type of relative clause where the clause (the second that-clause here) not only plays the role as a postmodifier of the antecedent, but as the object of another clause(*'I'd thought'* here).

I can't quite see what you are getting at. The relative clause is "that I'd thought was reserved for only me". This modifies "fate". I.e., it means "I'd thought (that) the fate was reserved for only me".

??? 'I often find myself reading with interest about a topic I never thought would interest me.'

The relative pronoun is omitted (as is allowed here). It means "a topic I that never thought would interest me", i.e. "I never thought (that) the topic would interest me".

AlpheccaStars · Answer

???

Welcome to English Forums.

English grammar allows subordinate clauses to be inside of other subordinate clauses. In these cases, the sentence
I thought (that) the fate was reserved for only me.
is used as a relative clause in a main sentence.

... the fate (noun modified) [that I'd thought [(that) (antecedent "fate") was reserved for only me.'],]

Similarly,
I never thought [(that) that topic would interest me.']

a topic (noun modified) [ (that) I never thought [ (that) would interest me.']]

CalifJim · Answer

???Some sentences, like 'I looked up to see that another poor soul had met the fate that I'd thought was reserved for only me.', show a type of relative clause where the clause (the second that-clause here) not only plays the role as a postmodifier of the antecedent, but as the object of another clause(*'I'd thought'* here). So is there any specific terminology for this?

I am not aware of any special name for it.

???I wonder if there's any grammar book elaborating this phenomenon.

You may be able to find a linguistics article on it.

???Another thing intrigues me is the feasibility of omission of relative word.

That's called a contact relative, but it is not unique to the type of clause you asked about. What's unusual here is the omission of the relative word when it's the subject of the clause. The relative word can't be omitted when it is the subject within the relative clause — except, as you see, when the relative clause is embedded as a content clause within another clause.

???'I often find myself reading with interest about a topic I never thought would interest me.' Here it bears great resemblance to the previous example except without relative word. So I get slightly baffled for that. Are they of the same type?

Yes and no, depending which features you use to classify such clauses into types. In general, I'd say yes, they are of the same type — at least until someone finds a good reason to divide them into separate types.
____________

The general idea is that you are trying to relativize a clause which starts with a secondary clause that contains a verb that takes a content clause, e.g., he said (that) ..., she believes (that) ..., it is claimed (that) ..., etc.

a fate (that) I thought ~~that~~ was reserved only for me (You have to omit the second 'that' here.)
some money (that) Helen said (that) Kyle had stolen (The second 'that' is very often omitted here.)
a few cups (that) everyone claimed ~~that~~ were valuable (as above)
the furniture (that) Sandy said (that) we wanted to sell (as above)

CJ

Jing Jiewu · Answer

Thank you so much for your clear explanation. Still, if you don't mind me asking, do who-clause or which-clause apply the same rule? For instance,
She has an adopted child (who) she says ~~that~~ was an orphan.
The speech was broadcast on Channel 1 (which) I had no idea (that) anyone watched at all.

Are these sentences grammatically correct?

Jing Jiewu · Answer

CalifJimWhat's unusual here is the omission of the relative word when it's the subject of the clause. The relative word can't be omitted when it is the subject within the relative clause — except, as you see, when the relative clause is embedded as a content clause within another clause.

This may be a bit off the point, but what you've mentioned reminds me of some other sentences. e,g, He asks for the latest book there is on the subject.
The textbook says it is a proper, standard rather than informal or colloquial usage. But here relative word is omitted on the condition that it is the subject within the relative clause and not embedded as a content clause at once. So is it one of those exceptions or something?

CalifJim · Answer

???do who-clause or which-clause apply the same rule?

She has an adopted child (who) she says ~~that~~ was an orphan.
Yes. It applies here because this, too, is a restrictive clause.

The speech was broadcast on Channel 1, which I had no idea (that) anyone watched at all.
This is a non-restrictive relative clause, so "which" is required (and a comma before it, as shown).

However,
The speech was broadcast on a channel (which) I had no idea (that) anyone watched at all.
Now it's a restrictive relative clause, and "which" is not required.

CJ

CalifJim · Answer

???The textbook says it is a proper, standard rather than informal or colloquial usage.
He asks for the latest book there is on the subject.

That's correct. It's fine for all levels of formality.

???But here relative word is omitted

Yes. That's true. There is no "that" or "which".

???on the condition that it is the subject within the relative clause

I do not follow this. You're saying that we can have a contact relative clause because the relative word (which is not even used) is the subject of the relative clause. But the subject of the relative clause is 'there', which is not a relative word. This is not making sense to me.

???and not embedded as a content clause at once.

OK. It's not embedded. But I don't see what relevance that has. It will just follow the normal rules for relative clauses.

???So is it one of those exceptions or something?

No. Not that I can see. You can have "which" or "that" or neither.

the latest book (which / that) there is [on the market]
the latest book [on the market] (which / that) there is

CJ

Jing Jiewu · Answer

I see. I know where I lost my way. Thank you so much for your kind help. Really appreciate it.

A Grammatical Phenomenon

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions