Re: Corpora: Query/Discussion: Prep+relative who

James L. Fidelholtz (jfidel@siu.buap.mx)
Fri, 2 Jul 1999 15:00:07 -0500 (CDT)

On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Pieter de Haan wrote:

>Dear James,
>I'm not a native speaker, so any "intuition" I might have on this one has
>been acquired more or less artificially, but I would be inclined to agree
>with you that
>
>>I think this construction is in an advanced state of near-death
>
>and that most speakers would prefer the construction with the postposed
>preposition.
>However, there are also constructions, notably Carsten's # 6:
>
>>(6) Instead, the sites are used by local residents, of who some 25 per
>or so come by foot and use the sites like an urban park, primarily to
>take a walk (Harrison, 1981). (FR2: 453)
>
>where the alternative construction with the postposed preposition does not
>exist - which must have something to do with the fact that in these cases
>the PP in which the relative pronoun functions is itself part of an NP,
>rather than an adverbial on the level of the relative clause.
>I still teach my (Dutch-speaking) students to use WHOM rather than WHO when
>it is immediately preceded by a preposition, irrespective of whether this
>occurs in a relative clause or in an interrogative sentence (To whom were
>you talking just now?), but would you (and other native speakers) say that
>perhaps I'd better not pay any attention to it? Or should I teach them to
>avoid the construction with the initial preposition as much as possible
>anyway? Are native speakers beginning to regard this as an awkward or
>perhaps even unnatural construction?
>Pieter

Dear Pieter:
Certainly most grammarians, pseudo or not, would agree with what
you teach (although I don't speak that way, but that's just because of
avoiding the construction altogether). It's of course also how I was
taught as a kid. On the other hand, before making recommendations, you
should check with some Brits, who are known (by us Americans) to speak
weird (and vice versa), to see whether the same sort of 'avoidance'
strategy which, yes, I would suggest from the point of view of this side
of the Atlantic, is also appropriate for European English. From your
earlier comments, I gather that the situation is similar in Britain,
however.
By the way, in the example (6) above I would probably use 'of
which', which avoids the problem altogether, and still gives me some
pretense of being among the linguistically elite.
Jim

James L. Fidelholtz e-mail: jfidel@siu.buap.mx
Maestría en Ciencias del Lenguaje
Instituto de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades
Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, MÉXICO