1

Can anyone tell me the correct order of post modifier?

For example:

  1. I don't want the kind of relationship with you that you have with grandmother.

  2. I don't want the kind of relationship that you have with grandmother with you.

Thank you.

deadrat
  • 44,678
user140988
  • 21

1 Answers1

3

Both are grammatical, but 2) is awkward and difficult to understand, so 1) is preferable.

Though 1) seems grammatically odd at first sight, it is allowed by extraposition.

Colin Fine
  • 77,173
  • If this is grammatical extraposition, it is by the skin of its teeth. The attraction of "with you" for grandmother (as in "take grandmother with you") makes the sentence almost unreadable. Perhaps it's saved by the spoken version, which would require a vocal emphasis on "I" and a significant pause before the final prepositional phrase. – deadrat Jan 09 '16 at 15:51
  • @deadrat, I don't understand what you are saying. You seem to be agreeing with me that 1) is preferable and 2) is difficult. I'm arguing that 1) would be anomalous but for extraposition. What am I missing? – Colin Fine Jan 09 '16 at 16:11
  • I keep going back and forth on whether 2) is acceptable at all. – deadrat Jan 09 '16 at 16:26
  • @Colin Fine I can't see any extraposition in either example (extraposition has dummy "it" as subject). In 1. the with phrase is in its 'normal' position next to the noun it modifies, and putting the 'heavy' material, i.e. the that clause, at the end of the sentence makes it easy to process. But 2. looks like an example of postposing where the with phrase has been (unnecessarily) shunted to the end. So the result is more difficult to process. – BillJ Jan 09 '16 at 17:19
  • @BillJ: the Wikipedia article I linked to begins "Extraposition is a mechanism of syntax that alters word order in such a manner that a relatively "heavy" constituent appears to the right of its canonical position". Terminology varies!. But I think your point depends on whether you regard with you as a complement or an adjunct to relationship. I took it as an adjunct, in which case the restrictive relative clause binds closer to the head and would normally precede the adjunct. But I can see that you might regard it as a complement, in which case it would precede the relative clause. – Colin Fine Jan 09 '16 at 18:46
  • @Colin Fine If you scroll down in Wiki, you'll come to the section on it extraposition, the kind I consider to be the central case. But Wiki has no entry for 'postposing'' so I suspect they consider them to be part of the same thing (which I definitely don't!). Since adjuncts modify verbs and VPs, not nouns, you seem to be saying that the PP with you is modifying don't want (the kind of relationship). – BillJ Jan 09 '16 at 19:51
  • @BIllJ. Well, I wasn't talking about it-extrapostion ;-). And in X' theory, any X' can contain a complement and any X'' (or XP) can contain an adjunct, not just VP's. I'm talking about NP containing "relationship". It might be NP[N'[relationship with you] that ...] or NP[N'[relationship [that ... ][with you]]. – Colin Fine Jan 09 '16 at 19:52
  • @Colin Fine I don't subscribe to that kind of grammar at all. I maintain that adjuncts can ONLY modify verbs or VPs – BillJ Jan 09 '16 at 19:55
  • 1
    This is an example of the rule called Extraposition from NP, which moves a relative clause to the end of a sentence, away from its antecedent. In this case it was moved to allow the prepositional phrase to you to be close to its head noun relationship. Perfectly normal behavior when you have two competing modifiers. – John Lawler Dec 27 '21 at 17:02