ESL General English Grammar Questions

Re: Pronoun

nona the brit — Sat, 08 Jan 2005 10:51:00 GMT

I was being ironic!

Re: Pronoun

Casi — Fri, 07 Jan 2005 17:52:15 GMT

Agreed, and yet, maybe it's the other way around: a false impression of a proper noun? At any rate, let's look back at the sentence taken from the New York Times:

"In a world with a million things coming at you and especially in the United States where there's no aristocratic class, . . . ."

Sans a comma is OK, but the comma is optional in that context. Place names are specifically located, and so they don't need to be redefined with restrictive information. Speakers known intuitively that if 'where' modifies a place name of the proper noun type, its function is that of a complement, be there a comma or not. Otherwise, if we assume 'where' sans a comma is an integral part of the noun phrase (i.e., restrictive), then we'd be redefining the already defined. The comma is left out because it's redundant. The proper noun says it all--no comma required. The meaning expressed by the comma is already housed inside the semantic structure of the place name.

About OneStopEnglish's observation, thank goodness we've decided not to reword it, because we'd have to send the same "memo" to Oxford Dictionary of Current English, a pocket-sized paperback, worth all of $15 US, but nevertheless states the same 'observation' as OneStopEnglish provides.

In short, I believe the observation is fine as is. On closer look, the apparent exceptions to the 'rule' don't appear to be exceptions at all, but rather related to our interpretations concerning a) punctuation, and b) what consititutes a count noun and a proper noun.

OneStopEnglish states something like, 'where' does not function as a relative adverb if the noun it modifies is a proper noun, and given our apparent exceptions:

A) . . . Boston where. . .
B) . . .the United States where. . .
C) . . .the Manchester where . . .

'where' is non-defining/non-restrictive in A) and B), the commas are left out because they are redundant, and in C), 'where' functions as an relative adverb, and rightly so. 'the' restricts 'Manchester', defining it as one of many Manchesters.

That's my take on it, and since being proven wrong is better than being proven right, I leave it to you to find the exceptions.

All the best,

Re: Pronoun

MrPedantic — Fri, 07 Jan 2005 14:04:12 GMT

I wonder whether 'the United States where there's no aristocratic class' sounds more natural than e.g. 'Morocco where there's no etc' simply because the integral 'the' gives a ?false impression of restrictedness.

Perhaps the 'count noun' idea would allow us to rephrase OneStopEnglish's 'observation' as a 'rule again.

MrP

Re: Pronoun

Casi — Fri, 07 Jan 2005 10:24:05 GMT

As a conjunction, we expect a comma after 'where':

EX: Pat is working in Boston, where his mother lives.

As a relative adverb, though, we wouldn't expect a comma after 'where'. (Note below that, "the . . . where" is a defining structure).

EX: That's the Manchester where your grandfather was born, isn't it?
EX: *That's the Manchester, where you grandfather was born, isn't it?

EX: Isn't that the Manchester where your grandfather was born?
EX: *Isn't that the Manchester, where you grandfather was born?

Moreover, proper nouns come with an article (e.g., the United States) or they don't come with an article (e.g., Manchester), and yet there's both Manchester and the Manchester. That distribution nicely demonstrates 'the Manchester' functions as a count noun, and not as a proper noun, which means, 'where' above does in fact function as a relative adverb. No comma required, and it modifies a count noun.

Re: Pronoun

MrPedantic — Fri, 07 Jan 2005 01:36:47 GMT

In Chaucer, I don't recall 'wherein' for 'where'; though often 'there' is used where we would use 'where'. Malory seems to use 'where'.

On the other hand, I haven't found any examples where 'where' follows a place name in those authors. It's an interesting thought.

MrP

Re: Pronoun

Casi — Thu, 06 Jan 2005 15:19:08 GMT

I believe. . . in that context, and others sans the comma, 'where' is short for formal 'wherein', a conjunction.

. . . the United Stated where(in) . . .

Re: Pronoun

Guest — Thu, 06 Jan 2005 11:06:26 GMT

Nona,

I was born in Essex, where all the best people come from

What do you mean by "the best people"?

Re: Pronoun

CalifJim — Sun, 02 Jan 2005 06:03:17 GMT

You shall, or no one shall!

Re: Pronoun

MrPedantic — Sun, 02 Jan 2005 00:45:36 GMT

Fair enough...

So perhaps OneStopEnglish should rephrase the original 'rule' thus:

'"Where" is only occasionally used after a place name to introduce a restrictive relative clause.'

Though then I suppose it's less of a rule, and more of a mildly interesting observation.

Will you tell them, or shall I?

MrP

Re: Pronoun

CalifJim — Sat, 01 Jan 2005 04:40:25 GMT

Mr. P: Your "Paris" example is both relevant and amusing. There's one in every crowd (who can - shall I say 'is determined to' - find the exception that proves the rule)!
Now seriously, though, how often is the same proper noun a possible reference to a plurality of referents? (Purely rhetorical - I'm not asking for the 100 hilarious examples you can undoubtedly produce!)

Re: Pronoun

MrPedantic — Sat, 01 Jan 2005 02:54:58 GMT

Hello H2K

The comma in #1 shows that 'So' is being used as an interjection, to attract attention.

The 'now' in #2, on the other hand, carries meaning: 'at this time'.

Note that 'now' followed by a comma would have a similar function to the 'so' in #1:

'So, what's for lunch?' ~ 'Now, what's for lunch?'

MrP

Re: Pronoun

anon1 — Sat, 01 Jan 2005 02:47:52 GMT

Jandi and CalifJim,

To be honest, my little bean is having difficulty keeping up with the arguments.

With respect to the United States example, I still think no comma is the correct answer.

In a world with a million things coming at you and especially in the United States where there's no aristocratic class, the tastemaker sitting at your side telling you 'Yes, do that. No, not that way,' can be a very powerful person.''

If you were to put a comma after United States, then it would seem to me to complete lessen the importance of "there's no arsitocractic class". It is because there is no aristocratic class in the United States that the US is even mentioned. In other words, you couldn't lift the portion, "where there's no aristocratic class," out of the sentence and still have it make sense. It is restrictive and thus cannot be set off with a pair of commas. Or at least that is how I see it.

I am not even sure what the focal point of the discussion is anymore.

But I think there are plenty of examples in well respected publications where "where" follows proper nouns, both in a non- and restrictive senses. Thus, I am leery of any rule that say "where" cannot follow a proper noun.

I will continue to monitor this thread for further discussion, but I suspect that I haven't got much, if any, more to offer at this point.

MountainHiker

Re: Pronoun

MrPedantic — Sat, 01 Jan 2005 02:38:57 GMT

If we compare

1. '...the room where my grandfather was born'

with

2. '...Manchester, where my grandfather was born'

we presumably have something analogous to 'that vs which' (i.e. #1 defines, whereas #2 expands).

But:

3. 'Is that the Paris where your grandfather was born? Or Paris, Texas?'

MrP

Re: Pronoun

Jandi — Sat, 01 Jan 2005 02:13:26 GMT

Oh! I didn't see Jim's answer!
Sorry!

Re: Pronoun

Jandi — Sat, 01 Jan 2005 02:10:47 GMT

Hi again, MH!

1) I would say "hospital" or "same hospital in Boston"...it is a very specific hospital, no?
- I live in the same building [? as]/that/where Mary lives.
Here the building is specified by "that/where Mary lives." I'd say they have the same logic.

2) I would definitely say the United States. Surely there is an aristocratic class in the world somewhere, someplace. (Say, maybe the Monarchy in England?) There is just not an aristocratic class (at least not officiallly) in the United States. I believe it is the US.
I'd say that if the antecedent is 'the United States,' there have to be 'a United States,' which there is an aristocratic class, and there have to be 'a or some United States,' which there is/are no aristocratic class(es).
I think the meaning is like this: In a world with a million things coming at you where there's no aristocratic class, for example the United States, the tastemaker ........

Regards.