What he was saying about

Question

Talking to a group of reporters in the hallway, he was asked to clarify what he was saying about Romney.From fraze.it website.Is the form of what he was saying about Romney ambiguous? Is it a NP or an interrogative subordinate clause?I take what he was saying about Romney as a noun phrase, not as a subordinate interrogative clause in the cited sentence.Am I correct?

Persian Learner · Accepted Answer

anonymouss it an NP or an interrogative subordinate clause?

The latter, an interrogative content clause.

anonymous take what he was saying about Romney as a noun phrase

Could I know your reasons for that?

What were you exactly saying about Romany?

I was saying X.

X is not the head of the above clause; nor is 'what' in that clause.

CalifJim · Answer

anonymousIs the form of what he was saying about Romney ambiguous?

It is to me. This question comes up a lot.

Is it a fused relative construction (NP) or is it an open interrogative content clause?

The resolution of this mystery is supposedly achieved by a paraphrase with "the answer to the question". If such a paraphrase works, it seems to be standard practice to say that it's the interrogative content clause; otherwise, it fails, and it's said to be a fused relative construction ('what' being the fusion of 'that' and 'which').

The catch is that there may still be disagreement about whether the paraphrase works or fails.

So what do you think? Does that sentence mean

Talking to a group of reporters in the hallway, he was asked to clarify the answer to the question "What was he saying about Romney?".

If so, you're dealing with an interrogative content clause.

Otherwise, you have

Talking to a group of reporters in the hallway, he was asked to clarify that which he was saying about Romney. (Presumably "that" refers to "the words" or "the remarks" (said about Romney).)

In other words, you have the fused relative construction (an NP).

At this point I'm inclined to think it's nothing more than a contest of the wills between two parties with differing opinions as to what label is "correct". It seems to hinge, at least in part, in this specific sentence, on the semantics of the verb "clarify".

Personally, I don't think there exists any question "What was he saying about Romney?" in this scenario. Who asked this question? Where does it say, or even imply, that this question was asked? And then, supposedly there was not only this question, but also an answer to it, and the paraphrase says that whatever this answer was, somebody was asked to clarify the answer to a question which was never asked. I don't buy it.

In short, I'd call what he was saying about Romney in this sentence a fused relative construction (an NP).

anonymousAm I correct?

I'd say so, but it really depends on who you ask.

CJ

What he was saying about

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions