0
Kjoon2257 Posted 11 years ago
Grammar
Relative pronoun and Apposition
1. They wanted freedom of speech, which most dictators wouldn't countenance.
2. They wanted freedom of speech, what most dictators wouldn't countenance.
As far as I understand, #1 sounds grammatically correct, but when I read a New York Times article today, I found a sentence similar to #2, in which "what' is used instead of "which."
I think "which" in #1 is a relative pronoun that indicates "freedom of speech" and that "what" in #2 could possibly be in apposition to "the whole sentence before it(They wanted freedom of speech)." Am I correct?
Remembering what I learned at school about relative pronouns, I'm not sure if "what" in #2 is correct or not.
2. They wanted freedom of speech, what most dictators wouldn't countenance.
As far as I understand, #1 sounds grammatically correct, but when I read a New York Times article today, I found a sentence similar to #2, in which "what' is used instead of "which."
I think "which" in #1 is a relative pronoun that indicates "freedom of speech" and that "what" in #2 could possibly be in apposition to "the whole sentence before it(They wanted freedom of speech)." Am I correct?
Remembering what I learned at school about relative pronouns, I'm not sure if "what" in #2 is correct or not.
Top answer
I think 2. is arguably grammatical: what most dictators wouldn’t countenance could be seen as a fused relative in apposition to the preceding NP (not the main clause), but it’s completely unidiomatic to my ear. More natural would be something that most dictators wouldn’t countenance.
- I think 2.
- is arguably grammatical: what most dictators wouldn’t countenance could be seen as a fused relative in apposition to the preceding NP (not the main clause), but it’s completely unidiomatic to my ear.
- More natural would be something that most dictators wouldn’t countenance.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
2 Answers
0
I think 2. is arguably grammatical: what most dictators wouldn’t countenance could be seen as a fused relative in apposition to the preceding NP (not the main clause), but it’s completely unidiomatic to my ear. More natural would be something that most dictators wouldn’t countenance.
00
Related Questions