-2

Are sentences like these

  1. The man got beaten up who James saw take the train yesterday.
  2. The potato was eaten that Hayley said she wanted.

with these meanings

  1. The man who James saw take the train yesterday got beaten up.
  2. The potato that Hayley said she wanted was eaten.

acceptable in any varieties of English?

What's the name of this syntactic phenomenon, and in which varieties of English is it acceptable and in which unacceptable?

tchrist
  • 134,759
minseong
  • 3,406
  • 4
    Does this answer your question? Position of a relative clause before/after a verb Extraposition from NP. Fairly common in mainstream English for heavy relative clauses. – Edwin Ashworth Feb 12 '23 at 15:59
  • @EdwinAshworth only if you mean that the answer to my question is "all varieties of English" – minseong Feb 12 '23 at 16:04
  • 2
    I think the answer is "all varieties of English as long as they are not being corrected by a pedantic English teacher." – Peter Shor Feb 12 '23 at 16:08
  • See also ... a relative clause from 'Heart of Darkness ('A haze rested on the low shores that ran out to sea in vanishing flatness.' = 'A haze that ran out to sea in vanishing flatness rested on the low shores.') It's not all that usual in spoken English in the UK, unless the separation of the verb from the noun phrase becomes ridiculously long. Your extraposed examples, while not ungrammatical, would sound distinctly odd to a native speaker. – Edwin Ashworth Feb 12 '23 at 16:08
  • @EdwinAshworth for some reason, the wikipedia examples except maybe the first one, your excerpt from Heart of Darkness, and the sentence in Position of a relative clause before/after a verb are acceptable to me, but not the sentences in my question – minseong Feb 12 '23 at 16:20
  • I've just noticed the first example in the wikipedia page is the only one that is a subject's relative clause. Maybe I find extraposition of relative clause out of subject to be less acceptable than other types of extraposition. But why do I have no problems at all with A haze rested on the low shores that ran out to sea in vanishing flatness and All kinds of problems arise that smaller animals or plants do not have to cope with ? But find the sentences in my question basically impenetrable until I'd learnt about this phenomenon? – minseong Feb 12 '23 at 16:23
  • I'd class 'A haze rested on the low shores that ran out to sea in vanishing flatness' as literary (the whole sentence, not just the extraposition from NP) and not in a conversational register at all, but 'All kinds of problems arise that smaller animals or plants do not have to cope with' as perfectly natural. I suppose familiarity, a long familiarity with various registers, guides one's judgement here. – Edwin Ashworth Feb 12 '23 at 16:31
  • @EdwinAshworth i find both of those perfectly acceptable – minseong Feb 12 '23 at 16:32
  • 2
    So we're talking about postposed relative clauses. Providing it's clear what the antecedent is, in principle such relatives are possible. – BillJ Feb 12 '23 at 16:33
  • 2
    'A haze rested on the low shores that ran out to sea in vanishing flatness. - It is the low shores that are flat and vanish out to sea. - the low shores that ran out to sea in vanishing flatness had a haze upon them. – Greybeard Feb 12 '23 at 18:05
  • Are you sure that "eaten potatoes" are even a thing? I'm thinking not. – tchrist Feb 12 '23 at 18:13
  • 1
    I don’t think the duplicate addresses your question. The reason your “distant” relative clauses are not acceptable here is that you’re trying to use them with the passive voice. Compare the active Someone ate the potato that Hayley said she wanted with the passive ? **The potato was eaten [by someone] that Haley said she wanted.* If you want to use the passive voice, keep your relatives close: The potato that Hayley said she wanted was eaten [by someone]. – Tinfoil Hat Feb 12 '23 at 18:38
  • @TinfoilHat Good observation! I think that is something that makes it unacceptable to me. But what about The potato was green that Haley said she wanted? It's not in passive voice, but I still don't consider it acceptable – minseong Feb 12 '23 at 18:54
  • 1
    And how about — even worse — The potato was green that was old? Maybe it’s the copular. – Tinfoil Hat Feb 13 '23 at 00:08
  • @TinfoilHat that one could be unacceptable because it is so informationally light. But *The potato was green that was old and wizened beyond compare is equally unacceptable to me. I don't think The man got beaten up who took the train yesterday features a copula though right? – minseong Feb 13 '23 at 01:39
  • The man got beaten up [by someone] is a passive voice construction. – Tinfoil Hat Feb 13 '23 at 02:17

2 Answers2

1

This is not a random postposed clause. It is, like all syntax, rule-governed.
The rule in this case is called "Extraposition from N(oun) P(hrase)" in the trade.
It applies to more than relative clauses; the clause has to come from an NP.
Here's what it says on page 25 of this preliminary list of English syntactic rules:

F. EXTRAPOSITION FROM NP:

(a) For relative clauses (only restrictives can participate):
A sergeant [(that) I had never met] lurched in.
➞
A sergeant lurched in [(that) I had never met].

(b) For noun complements:
The claim [that our salaries should be tripled] was discussed.
➞
The claim was discussed [that our salaries should be tripled].

John Lawler
  • 107,887
  • 1
    I wonder why The claim was discussed that our salaries should be tripled seems passable, while The potato was eaten that Hayley said she wanted does not. – Tinfoil Hat Feb 15 '23 at 03:21
  • @Tinfoil Hat Extraposition from NP is largely a higher register device, and Hayley eating her potato (or not) doesn't really fit. John's second example sounds more felicitous than his first to my ears. – Edwin Ashworth Jan 20 '24 at 12:21
-1

In which Englishes are "distant" relative clauses acceptable?

None.

Greybeard
  • 41,737