Relative pronoun

Question

There is no domestic animal which has so rapidly altered its whole way of living, indeed its whole sphere of interests, that has become domestic in so true a sense as the dogIs it safe to say that the second relative pronoun 'that' is grammatically the same double restrictive as this 'who' below?He is the only person that I know who is suited for the job.

Avangi · Accepted Answer

I'm not really into "double restrictives," Taka, but I'll venture to say that the answer is "no."

TakaThere is no domestic animal which has so rapidly altered its whole way of living, indeed its whole sphere of interests, that has become domestic in so true a sense as the dog

I read this as three parallel phrasings of the same idea:
There is no domestic animal ---
(1) which has so rapidly altered its whole way of living, ---
(2) indeed, [which has so rapidly altered] its whole sphere of interests, ---
(3) that/which has become domestic in so true a sense ---
--- as the dog.

#3 is almost like an appositive.

There is no animal which is so cute, indeed so beautiful, that is so extremely charming as the dog.

TakaHe is the only person that I know who is suited for the job.

In this one, you allow that there may be others who are suited for the job, but you don't know them.

In order for your original example to be similar in its use of "that,"
you would have to allow that there are other domestic animals which have become as truly domestic as the dog, but they have not as rapidly altered their whole way of living and sphere of interests. (or vice versa)
(Actually, it would have to be the "which" that we're considering for status as double restrictive, right?
But it's not.

Then there's an aside. It can be argued that the sentence should read, "There is no other domestic animal which etc."
You can't really say things like, "There is no animal which can run as fast as the cougar." The cougar is, after all, an animal too. (Not everyone finds this objectionable.)

Taka · Answer

Thanks for the detailed explanation, Avangi.

Just one thing.

Avangi"you would have to allow that there are other domestic animals which have become as truly domestic as the dog, but they have not as rapidly altered their whole way of living and sphere of interests.

Isn't it possible that there are some species that have become as domestic as the dog, but it took a longer time to tame them than it did to domesticate the dog?

BillJ · Answer

TakaThere is no domestic animal which has so rapidly altered its whole way of living, indeed its whole sphere of interests, that has become domestic in so true a sense as the dog Is it safe to say that the second relative pronoun 'that' is grammatically the same double restrictive as this 'who' below?He is the only person that I know who is suited for the job.

The simple answer is yes, though 'double restrictive' is not standard terminology in English grammar. I think Avangi makes some good points. From a strictly analytical point of view there are, as you're clearly aware, two relative clauses involved here:

There is no domestic animal [which has so rapidly altered its whole way of living, indeed its whole sphere of interests], [that has become domestic in so true a sense as the dog].

The first one (in black brackets) modifies the noun phrase "no domestic animal", and combines with it to form the larger NP (underlined). The whole of that NP then becomes the antecedent for the relative word "that" in the second relative clause (in blue brackets). The second relative clause then combines with the underlined NP to form an even larger NP, in bold, that functions as predicative complement of "be"

He is the only person [that I know] [who is suited for the job].

Same analysis. The first relative clause (in black brackets) modifies the NP "the only person", and combines with it to form the larger NP (underlined). The whole of that NP then becomes the antecedent for the relative word "who" in the second relative clauses (in blue brackets). Once again, the second relative clause modifies, and combines with, the underlined NP to form the even larger NP (in bold) that functions as predicative complement of "be".

BillJ

Avangi · Answer

TakaIsn't it possible that there are some species that have become as domestic as the dog, but it took a longer time to tame them than it did to domesticate the dog?

Yes. This is a logical option, but I don't read it that way.

As Bill points out, both examples have a main clause and two relative clauses.
My position is that in the dog example one relative clause is in apposition to the other. I don't think Bill agrees with that.
It's the semantic rather than the syntactical material which leads me in that direction.

He is the only person (main clause)
that I know (relative clause) restrictive
who is suited (relative clause)

There is no domestic animal (main clause)
which has altered (relative clause)
that has become (relative clause)

I understand this to be the message:
No other domestic animal has become so truly domestic as the dog. By that I mean he has very rapidly altered his whole way of living and his whole sphere of interests.

In the dog example, the two relative clauses could be reversed without changing the meaning. I read them as parallel statements leading to the same conclusion.

Taka · Answer

Avangi.In the dog example, the two relative clauses could be reversed without changing the meaning. I read them as parallel statements leading to the same conclusion.

So the relative pronoun clauses are put side by side and in that sense they are in apposition, but they are not really appositive, because what is described in those relative pronoun clauses are a bit different in content. Adding 'and' as this wouldn't change the meaning of the sentence, right?

There is no domestic animal which has so rapidly altered its whole way of living, indeed its whole sphere of interests, and that has become domestic in so true a sense as the dog

Avangi · Answer

TakaSo the relative pronoun clauses are put side by side and in that sense they are in apposition, but they not really appositive, because what is described in those relative pronoun clauses are a bit different in content. Adding 'and' as this wouldn't change the meaning of the sentence, right?

I'm not prepared to agree with you on this. Appositives frequently add new information.
I don't know how to read your last sentence. Could you phrase it differently?

Thanks. A.

Taka · Answer

Here is the definition of 'apposition':

apposition - definition

NOUN [UNCOUNTABLE] LINGUISTICS /?æp?'z??(?)n/
the relationship between two noun phrases that are used in the same way and refer to the same person or thing. For example in "My best friend, Jane, likes swimming", "my best friend" and "Jane" are in apposition.

www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/apposition#apposition_3

A construction in which a noun or noun phrase is placed with another as an explanatory equivalent, both having the same syntactic relation to the other elements in the sentence.

education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/apposition

My understanding is that if it's apposition, things described afterwards after a comma are the same as the things in front and are put to clarify them.

I know there are many cases in which new information is added after a comma, but strictly speaking, some of them are additional information but not apposition.

By the last sentence, what I meant to say was that even if 'and' was added to the sentence in question as this below, it wouldn't change the meaning, because, as you say, the two relative clauses could be reversed without changing the meaning.

There is no domestic animal which has so rapidly altered its whole way of living, indeed its whole sphere of interests, and that has become domestic in so true a sense as the dog.

There is no domestic animal that has become domestic in so true a sense and which has so rapidly altered its whole way of living, indeed its whole sphere of interests as the dog.

Avangi · Answer

"My best friend, Jane" is a very limited example of an appositive.

My best friend, Jane, is a dog.
My best friend, a dog, is named Jane.

Need we argue about which appositive adds new information and which one doesn't?

TakaI know there are many cases in which new information is added after a comma, but strictly speaking, some of them are additional information but not apposition.

This statement is open to interpretation.
Are you saying that strictly speaking if an appositive adds new information it is not an appositive?
Or are you saying that if an appositive adds new information, that portion of the appositive should be discounted?

Takaas an explanatory equivalent,

Are you suggesting that "equivalent" means no new information?
How can you "explain" something without adding information?

TakaMy understanding is that if it's apposition, things described afterwards after a comma are the same as the things in front and are put to clarify them.

This is a very slippery slope. Not all appositives are as simple as "My best friend, Jane." How much (if any) new material are we allowed to introduce in order to "clarify" a very complicated idea? May we use comparisons? May we decide that our first statement misses the mark, and therefore make another stab at it? In my opinion, many appositives do just that.

I think the idea your author wants to convey is that for a species to become domesticated requires a lot of change and adaptation; that some species have accomplished this to a greater extent than others; and that the dog has been the most successful species in this respect. This is a fairly complex idea, but I think it all hangs together.

I accept your idea of combining the two statements with "and" and then reversing them. You could do the same thing with "or." I think you've successfully proved that neither clause is restrictive.

Taka · Answer

Avangi.This statement is open to interpretation.Are you saying that strictly speaking if an appositive adds new information it is not an appositive?Or are you saying that if an appositive adds new information, that portion of the appositive should be discounted?Takaas an explanatory equivalent,Are you suggesting that "equivalent" means no new information? How can you "explain" something without adding information?

Here we learn in school that when X and Y are in appositive, Y can be translated as 'that is (to say), Y' or the like in our language because Y is a restatement of X. So when it comes to translation, equivalency does matter.

I think at least we agree that 'which has so rapidly altered its whole way of living' and 'that has become domestic in so true a sense' are not exactly the same, don't we?

Avangi · Answer

Takawhen it comes to translation, equivalency does matter.

Yes.

<< Here we learn in school that when X and Y are in ~~appositive~~ apposition, Y can be translated as 'that is (to say), Y'>>
I'd rewrite that to say, When Y follows X, and Y can be translated as "that is (to say), Y", then X and Y are in apposition.
(You've described a "sufficient" but not a "necessary" condition, as they say in logic.)

TakaI think at least we agree that 'which has so rapidly altered its whole way of living' and 'that has become domestic in so true a sense' are not exactly the same, don't we?

We do.

Are you still inclined to call one of the relative clauses in the dog example restrictive? If so, which one?

Bill agreed with you, so there's no need to be sad because I don't.

Best wishes, - A.

Relative pronoun

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions