0

After the battle, he encountered the soldiers, many of whom had sustained severe injuries.

The doctor treated the soldiers' injuries, the worst of which was a missing leg.

While writing, I frequently use relative clauses that use the structure 'noun + of which'. I know how to use it; however, I was wondering if there is a specific grammatical descriptor for this construction.

This resource uses the terms 'genitive' and 'possessive', but these terms provide few relevant results on Google, mostly focusing on the use of the relative determiner 'whose'.

MJ Ada
  • 371
  • 1
    I would say worst and many being adjectives are merely descriptors of the prepositional objects (the pronouns whom and which). The sentences have been done somersault to: The doctor treated the soldiers' injuries, of which the worst was a missing leg would be another rendering of the same sentence. – user405662 Jan 10 '22 at 15:41
  • 1
    @Yosef Baskin Of course, it was intentional. :-) – user405662 Jan 10 '22 at 15:48
  • 1
    @user405662 Yes, have been done somersault to is an outstanding example of why to avoid "of whom" and "of which" frequently. Occasionally, sure. – Yosef Baskin Jan 10 '22 at 15:56
  • 2
    "Many of whom" and "the worst of which" are called 'relative phrases'. They form the initial part of the relative clauses "many of whom had sustained severe injuries" and "the worst of which was a missing leg", where "whom" has "the soldiers" as antecedent and "which" has "the soldiers injuries" as antecedent. Some grammars call it the 'Type II construction'. – BillJ Jan 10 '22 at 16:02
  • 3
    The technical term for the rule producing relative clauses headed by noun phrases and prepositional phrases containing the relative pronoun, like the least of which ..., many of whom ..., etc, is *Pied-Piping*. It's something one can do with certain relative clauses. The book to which he referred, with a pied-piped to, means the same as the book which he referred to, with a stranded to at the end. Both are grammatical. – John Lawler Jan 10 '22 at 16:12
  • Huddleston & Pullum avoid the term 'pied piping', preferring the term 'upward percolation', though the meaning is effectively the same. – BillJ Jan 10 '22 at 16:19
  • So what? That H&P use the term 'upward percolation' in their hugely respected award-winning grammar is simply a truth statement, and is irrespective of what Ngrams says. I suspect that H&P don't care much for non-technical 'Mickey Mouse' terminology! – BillJ Jan 10 '22 at 17:08
  • 1
    @Edwin Ashworth Pied-piping is a somewhat catchy term (upward percolation sounds distinctively 'highbrow', didn't catch on.) Nothing special there. – user405662 Jan 10 '22 at 17:13
  • 1
    @user405662 That the clever metaphor continues to be the technical term of choice (and neither term will often be found in non-academic circles) might be seen as an indicator of choice of analysis and/or respect for initial choice of term. – Edwin Ashworth Jan 10 '22 at 18:00
  • The term "upward percolation' is a general or language-wide definition, not a language-particular one. I think that's a good enough reason for preferring it. – BillJ Jan 10 '22 at 18:37
  • What's the difference between "language-wide" and "language-particular"? I would expect both to mean "present to some degree in a particular language". And the fact that H&P use particular terminology is well-known and not a sign of the ultimate correctness of their terminology. – John Lawler Jan 11 '22 at 01:10
  • It is intended to mean that it is a general term, not a language-specific one, one that characteristically expresses a meaning similar to that expressed in other languages. I recently glimpsed a German publication that uses the term. – BillJ Jan 11 '22 at 08:49

1 Answers1

0

This extract has been provided by John Lawler (source). The technical term for what we're seeing here is Pied-Piping.

This process, of moving the whole prepositional phrase instead of only its object, is what Pied-Piping means. The preposition gets piped away to the front, marking its object.

Moreover, prepositional phrases can modify nouns that are objects of other prepositional phrases, and they, too, are constituents, and can be moved as a unit. So are, and so can, the noun phrases. Again, only optionally. Which leads to such mind-numbing spectra of nonrestrictive relatives as:

The government prescribes the height of the lettering on the covers of the reports.
the reports, **which** the government prescribes the height of the lettering on the covers of
the reports, of **which** the government prescribes the height of the lettering on the covers
the reports, the covers of **which** the government prescribes the height of the lettering on
the reports, on the covers of **which** the government prescribes the height of the lettering
the reports, the lettering on the covers of **which** the government prescribes the height of
the reports, of the lettering on the covers of **which** the government prescribes the height
the reports, the height of the lettering on the covers of **which** the government prescribes
MJ Ada
  • 371
  • Please close-vote duplicates when able; do not answer. Certainly don't re-post duplicate answers from a duplicate question. – Edwin Ashworth Feb 04 '22 at 15:49
  • Wasn't thinking when I posted this (during my work break). Will take the steps you mentioned in the future. – MJ Ada Feb 04 '22 at 20:09