Antecedent of relative pronoun

Question

Hi, teachers. Could you help me?May I use a verbal noun (phrase) or an infinitive (phrase) as the antecedent of a relative pronoun?For example, "My dream is studying abroad that my father opposes." and "My dream is to study abroad that my father agreed." are OK?

Avangi · Accepted Answer

"My dream is studying abroad that my father opposes."
"My dream is to study abroad that my father agreed."

Neither of your sentences works, but that doesn't necessarily make the answer to your question "No."

(Use "agreed to.")

In my opinion, if you switch your pronoun to "which," and add commas after the verbals, the sentences are okay.

My dream is studying abroad, which my father opposes.
My dream is to study abroad, which my father agrees/agreed to.

English 1b3 · Answer

Avangiif you switch your pronoun to "which," and add commas after the verbals, the sentences are okay

I was going to say that, but I was afraid Tashiro would ask me why?

Most relative clauses sound fine, whether you make it restrictive or non-restrictive. Maybe this is just a rare case which sounds right only with the right type.

Avangi · Answer

You wouldn't dare ask me why! Would you?

"My dream is studying abroad that my father opposes."
"My dream is to study abroad that my father agreed."

My dream is studying abroad, which my father opposes.
My dream is to study abroad, which my father agrees/agreed to.

To me, they have the feeling of appositivies, referring only to the non-finite phrases/clauses.

Well, maybe that's not right. It's only my studying abroad which he opposes.

BillJ · Answer

tashiro
May I use a verbal noun (phrase) or an infinitive (phrase) as the antecedent of a relative pronoun?

For example, "My dream is studying abroad that my father opposes." and "My dream is to study abroad that my father agreed." are OK?

Hi

Yes is the simple answer, but you'd be better using 'which' in a supplementary relative:

My dream is studying abroad, [which my father opposes].

My dream is to study abroad, [which my father agreed].

In an integrated relative these would be better:

It's my dream of studying abroad [that/which my father opposes].

It's my dream to study abroad [that/which my father agreed].

BillJ

Avangi · Answer

BillJ My dream is to study abroad, [which my father agreed].

It's my dream to study abroad [that/which my father agreed]. Hi, Bill,
As I suggested earlier, I'm not acquainted with this use of "agreed." Perhaps it's a regional issue.

My experience in the US is that "to oppose" and "to agree" do not quite work in the same way.
"To oppose" is mainly transitive, and "to agree" is mainly intransitive.

I think studying abroad is a great idea, and my father agrees [that it is].
I think studying abroad is a great idea, but my father is opposed [to it].

My father opposes my studying abroad.
My father agrees to my studying abroad.

Both past participles seem to work in the same way as adjective complements, however:
He is opposed.
He is agreed.

But:
He is opposed to it. (natural)
He is agreed to it. (less natural, in my opinion)

transitive:

We do not say, "My father agreed my studying abroad."
"My father approved my studying abroad" is fine.

Best wishes, - A.

BillJ · Answer

Hi Avangi

Thanks for that. I agree, though I sometimes hear people here use it transitively by just saying 'agreed' rather than 'agreed to', so it's probably a regional issue as you say. Believe it or not, I originally typed '.....agreed (to)' to cover both possibilities, but I didn't like my post and amended it, but I forgot to put the (to) bit back in again!

Well spotted A.

Best Wishes

BillJ

Avangi · Answer

BillJ I sometimes hear people here use it transitively by just saying 'agreed' rather than 'agreed to'

Hi, Bill.
I assume you're looking at these as stand-alone replies.
One never can be sure what the mind of the speaker has elipted.

The reply may be, "[It's] agreed," or "[We're] agreed." I'm not sure this would be transitive.

I don't recall if you are opposed to the notion of an adjective complement to the verb "to be." I seem to recall some such discussion, but I'm not sure.

It seems to me that it's only with the past participal as adjective that "to oppose" and "to agree" can be used in similar structures. I think in these cases the issue of transitive/intransitive becomes moot.

Of course, this is in terms of the analysis package I'm familiar with.

Rgdz, - A.

BillJ · Answer

This is getting silly now. The OP (tashiro) asked about using verbal nouns/infinitivals as antecedents. It's that topic that we should remain focussed on.

Tashiro - are you clear now about this?

BillJ

Avangi · Answer

BillJThis is getting silly now.

I guess this explanation is as valid as your earlier ones.

I'm reminded of this thread which has run to five pages with no end in sight, and to which you are the principal contributor (I wonder if you remember the name of the OP?):

1. "Here are some beverages (that) you might think help your diet, but don't." Here, "that" is optional.
2. "Here are some beverages that help your diet, but don't." If you remove "you might think", a "that" is required.
What is the difference between the two sentences that makes "that" optional/required?

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as is silliness.

Tashiro - are you clear now about this?

In my view, your answer to Tashiro, which followed mine, is incorrect, and you still haven't corrected it.

using verbal nouns/infinitivals as antecedents. It's that topic that we should remain focussed on.

Tashiro's last question was to ask if his sentences were okay.

Best wishes, - A.

BillJ · Answer

Avangi
BillJThis is getting silly now.
I guess this explanation is as valid as your earlier ones.

What exactly do you mean by that?

AvangiI'm reminded of this thread which has run to five pages with no end in sight, and to which you are the principal contributor (I wonder if you remember the name of the OP?)

The thread you're referring to has indeed run some way, to say the least. The OP raised quite complicated points of grammar, the off-shoots of which concern fundamental (and controversial, it seems) syntactic issues. By comparison, the question raised by tashiro was relatively straightforward and raised no such difficult issues, so it need not have detained us long.

AvangiIn my view, your answer to Tashiro, which followed mine, is incorrect, and you still haven't corrected it

What is there to correct? Tashiro's question asked whether it was all right to use a verbal noun (phrase) or an infinitive (phrase) as the antecedent of a relative pronoun. My response was in the affirmative and I went on to make some corrections to the examples given concerning the use of the appropriate relativisers. That was all that was needed. You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but if you think my answer was wrong then please state exactly why.

AvangiTashiro's last question was to ask if his sentences were okay.

Indeed, but it was clearly asking no more than whether the sentences reflected accurate use of a verbal noun and an infinitive as antecedents of a relative pronoun, which is what the post was about. I can't read anything else into it, can you? As I've just said, I corrected the relativisers which was an issue directly related to the core question. The minor matter of the verb 'agreed', which I suspect you're alluding to (and which I dealt with in a short post), has no relevance to certain antecedents to relatives; to perpetuate it would be counter-productive and serve only to blur the core issue.

BillJ

Antecedent of relative pronoun

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions