Mixing
Why is “He is the kind of person who, if he had lived …, people would not have been able to categorise...
Could anyone explain why this sentence is considered ungrammatical?
You often hear quite literate people saying hideously ungrammatical things such as: "He is the kind of person who, if he had lived in the 19th century, people would not have been able to categorise him."
Source: Melvyn's rules for the conversation game (article from the Independent)
grammaticality
edited Jan 10 at 0:14
J.R.♦
98.7k8127244
asked Jan 9 at 19:32
FrostC0FrostC0
33529
add a comment |
Could anyone explain why this sentence is considered ungrammatical?
You often hear quite literate people saying hideously ungrammatical things such as: "He is the kind of person who, if he had lived in the 19th century, people would not have been able to categorise him."
Source: Melvyn's rules for the conversation game (article from the Independent)
grammaticality
edited Jan 10 at 0:14
J.R.♦
98.7k8127244
asked Jan 9 at 19:32
FrostC0FrostC0
33529
Great question! It would be better if you didn’t presuppose that it actually was ungrammatical in your question, though. Leave that judgment to the answers.
– snailboat♦
Jan 28 at 4:58
add a comment |
Could anyone explain why this sentence is considered ungrammatical?
You often hear quite literate people saying hideously ungrammatical things such as: "He is the kind of person who, if he had lived in the 19th century, people would not have been able to categorise him."
Source: Melvyn's rules for the conversation game (article from the Independent)
grammaticality
edited Jan 10 at 0:14
J.R.♦
98.7k8127244
asked Jan 9 at 19:32
FrostC0FrostC0
33529
Could anyone explain why this sentence is considered ungrammatical?
You often hear quite literate people saying hideously ungrammatical things such as: "He is the kind of person who, if he had lived in the 19th century, people would not have been able to categorise him."
Source: Melvyn's rules for the conversation game (article from the Independent)
grammaticality
grammaticality
edited Jan 10 at 0:14
J.R.♦
98.7k8127244
asked Jan 9 at 19:32
FrostC0FrostC0
33529
edited Jan 10 at 0:14
J.R.♦
98.7k8127244
asked Jan 9 at 19:32
FrostC0FrostC0
33529
edited Jan 10 at 0:14
J.R.♦
98.7k8127244
edited Jan 10 at 0:14
J.R.♦
98.7k8127244
edited Jan 10 at 0:14
J.R.♦
98.7k8127244
98.7k8127244
asked Jan 9 at 19:32
FrostC0FrostC0
33529
asked Jan 9 at 19:32
FrostC0FrostC0
33529
asked Jan 9 at 19:32
FrostC0FrostC0
33529
33529
Great question! It would be better if you didn’t presuppose that it actually was ungrammatical in your question, though. Leave that judgment to the answers.
– snailboat♦
Jan 28 at 4:58
add a comment |
Great question! It would be better if you didn’t presuppose that it actually was ungrammatical in your question, though. Leave that judgment to the answers.
– snailboat♦
Jan 28 at 4:58
Great question! It would be better if you didn’t presuppose that it actually was ungrammatical in your question, though. Leave that judgment to the answers.
– snailboat♦
Jan 28 at 4:58
Great question! It would be better if you didn’t presuppose that it actually was ungrammatical in your question, though. Leave that judgment to the answers.
– snailboat♦
Jan 28 at 4:58
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
First, as others have pointed out in the comments, the sentence uses "who" when it should use "whom." Even native speakers fail to correctly distinguish between "who" and "whom". It is common for "who" to be used in all cases, but this is not recommended in formal speech or writing. I have made that correction throughout the rest of the answer. However, there is a larger issue in the sentence, which I believe is the intended focus in the original source.
I think the issue becomes clearer if you omit the nonessential clause "if he had lived in the 19th century".
He is the kind of person whom people would not have been able to categorise him.
One could write "People would not have been able to categorise him." as a complete sentence, or one could write "whom people would not have been able to categorise" as a relative clause describing "person". However, the example sentence combines the two, beginning as a relative clause and ending with another pronoun "him". In this sentence "whom" is already the object of "to categorise".
We can remove "him" and reintroduce the nonessential clause to get the correct sentence:
He is the kind of person whom, if he had lived in the 19th century, people would not have been able to categorise.
The nonessential clause interrupts the flow of the sentence, which can make it more likely to miss mistakes like this one both in reading and in writing. While the sentence is now correct, an even better sentence might be:
He is the kind of person whom people would not have been able to categorise, had he lived in the 19th century.
answered Jan 9 at 19:43
TashusTashus
6,290820
18
The odd thing is, on first read, the sentence sounds convoluted but acceptable -- but when you really look at it, it's clear where the error lies.
– Andrew
Jan 9 at 21:19
9
@Andrew Which is why "quite literate people" will say things like it. You have to do detailed analysis to see how the frame of reference changed across the parenthetical. I think the categorization as "hideously ungrammatical" is a bit of an exaggeration, too.
– Barmar
Jan 9 at 23:20
4
Resumptive pronouns (which is what him is here) are not standard English, but they are used in some other languages and (I think) in some dialects of English.
– Colin Fine
Jan 9 at 23:44
9
Removing the "him" would certainly fix the sentence, but I would additionally change the "who" for "whom."
– Carlos Arturo Serrano
Jan 10 at 1:53
4
I'm fairly certain that this sentence should also be using "whom," as evidenced by the original sentence using "him."
– jpmc26
Jan 10 at 5:58
|
show 11 more comments
As Tashus says, this breaks the general rule that resumptive pronouns are ungrammatical in English, however, if "You often hear quite literate people saying [this]" (i.e. presumably native speakers who speak a prestige dialect), then this instance is grammatical. The rule needs to adapt to encompass modern usage (I'm reminded of people becrying split infinitives).
Wikipedia goes into more depth about the contexts in which resumptive pronouns are seen as grammatical:
... in English, "relative clauses with resumptive pronouns are officially ungrammatical [...] However, they are in fact not uncommon in speech". However, their grammaticality is influenced by linear distance from the subject, embedded depth, and extractability...
In a relative clause, resumptive pronouns are generally not seen as grammatical, however their level of grammaticality improves as they get farther from the head.
In short sentences without a subordinate clause, they are clearly ungrammatical:
He's the one who people categorised *him.
The exact rules for grammaticality aren't well understood, but broadly, the further the pronoun gets from the subject (e.g. the longer the subordinate clause is), the more acceptable it sounds (at what length is dialect dependent). The following may or may not sound acceptable:
He's the one who, had he lived then, people wouldn't've categorised (*)him.
And at the other end we have the example sentence from our "even quite literate people":
He is the kind of person who, if he had lived in the 19th century, people would not have been able to categorise him.
answered Jan 10 at 2:29
ukemiukemi
2366
6
+1 I agree that this sentence is not necessarily flat-out ungrammatical. And mostly because of this answer. I think I would say it's nonstandard and would normally be edited to drop the pronoun at the end. But I don't think I'd go so far as to say it's completely unacceptable.
– Jason Bassford
Jan 10 at 4:18
3
I would consider it ungrammatical in all these cases; the distance between the pronoun and the subject does not make it less ungrammatical, it just makes it less likely that the ungrammaticality will be noticed.
– Michael Kay
Jan 10 at 10:50
4
@MichaelKay this isn't just some written 'trick', this is something native speakers actually say - if native speakers say it, it is grammatical (at least in their dialect).
– ukemi
Jan 10 at 12:09
3
@ukemi It's simply wrong to assert that if native speakers say something, it is necessarily grammatical, even in their dialect. The sentence in question is the sort of mistake that I might make (and don't doubt I have made) if I lost the thread of a sentence while speaking. But it's still ungrammatical in my dialect.
– Especially Lime
Jan 10 at 12:40
4
@EspeciallyLime true, I was being terse - what I meant was, if native speakers frequently use a construction, and think it well formed, and their audience also think it well formed, that is grammatical. Because it doesn't follow an (often outdated) set of prescriptive rules doesn't mean it's ungrammatical (e.g. who replacing whom in almost all modern dialects).
– ukemi
Jan 10 at 12:54
|
show 6 more comments
He is the kind of person who, if he had lived in the 19th century, people would not have been able to categorise him.
This is a rhetorical device known as anacoluthon. The grammatical structure of the sentence shifts as the sentence is spoken — or, you could view it as, two different sentence structures have been smushed together into a single sentence. (Did you notice, I did it there. And (arguably) again!)
The two sentence structures smushed into this one sentence are (with the primary subject/verb in bold):
He is the kind of person who would not have been categorizable by anyone in the 19th century.
If he had lived in the 19th century, people would not have been able to categorize him.
The actual sentence spoken ends up smushing the two grammatical sentences together, typically with a moment of grammatical confusion (indicated by a comma or dash) in the middle.
Wikipedia gives several examples of anacoluthon in English, including Milton's
Had ye been there – for what could that have done?
The two sentence structures smushed up here are
Had ye been there, you could have done something. (Well, actually, no, nothing— never mind.)
It's okay that you weren't there, for what could that have done?
The implication is that the speaker changes his mind halfway through the line.
In your original example, the speaker has not changed his mind about what he wants to say; he's just made a little tweak to how he wants to say it.
For an extreme example — in which the extreme disorder of the words does (well, is implied to) reflect the extreme disorder of ideas behind them — look at Fred Armisen's "Nicholas Fehn" character on Saturday Night Live.
https://twitter.com/sarahcpr/status/760657101404327936
You know, it's— it's the reason... I wake up— I wake up, like, anybody— I was taught... Every— well, most Americans, if you— Education. Any— any border, if Helsinki, if Oslo— I think— any publication, we would— isn't it integral, isn't it the most important— it's the substance, the very idea, that we can unite, that makes me feel, personally—
answered Jan 10 at 15:46
QuuxplusoneQuuxplusone
25616
3
I was going to say that that last example read a lot like something our current president would say... And then I saw that the tweet you linked said exactly that :P
– V2Blast
Jan 10 at 20:17
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "481"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fell.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f192438%2fwhy-is-he-is-the-kind-of-person-who-if-he-had-lived-people-would-not-have%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
First, as others have pointed out in the comments, the sentence uses "who" when it should use "whom." Even native speakers fail to correctly distinguish between "who" and "whom". It is common for "who" to be used in all cases, but this is not recommended in formal speech or writing. I have made that correction throughout the rest of the answer. However, there is a larger issue in the sentence, which I believe is the intended focus in the original source.
I think the issue becomes clearer if you omit the nonessential clause "if he had lived in the 19th century".
He is the kind of person whom people would not have been able to categorise him.
One could write "People would not have been able to categorise him." as a complete sentence, or one could write "whom people would not have been able to categorise" as a relative clause describing "person". However, the example sentence combines the two, beginning as a relative clause and ending with another pronoun "him". In this sentence "whom" is already the object of "to categorise".
We can remove "him" and reintroduce the nonessential clause to get the correct sentence:
He is the kind of person whom, if he had lived in the 19th century, people would not have been able to categorise.
The nonessential clause interrupts the flow of the sentence, which can make it more likely to miss mistakes like this one both in reading and in writing. While the sentence is now correct, an even better sentence might be:
He is the kind of person whom people would not have been able to categorise, had he lived in the 19th century.
answered Jan 9 at 19:43
TashusTashus
6,290820
18
The odd thing is, on first read, the sentence sounds convoluted but acceptable -- but when you really look at it, it's clear where the error lies.
– Andrew
Jan 9 at 21:19
9
@Andrew Which is why "quite literate people" will say things like it. You have to do detailed analysis to see how the frame of reference changed across the parenthetical. I think the categorization as "hideously ungrammatical" is a bit of an exaggeration, too.
– Barmar
Jan 9 at 23:20
4
Resumptive pronouns (which is what him is here) are not standard English, but they are used in some other languages and (I think) in some dialects of English.
– Colin Fine
Jan 9 at 23:44
9
Removing the "him" would certainly fix the sentence, but I would additionally change the "who" for "whom."
– Carlos Arturo Serrano
Jan 10 at 1:53
4
I'm fairly certain that this sentence should also be using "whom," as evidenced by the original sentence using "him."
– jpmc26
Jan 10 at 5:58
|
show 11 more comments
First, as others have pointed out in the comments, the sentence uses "who" when it should use "whom." Even native speakers fail to correctly distinguish between "who" and "whom". It is common for "who" to be used in all cases, but this is not recommended in formal speech or writing. I have made that correction throughout the rest of the answer. However, there is a larger issue in the sentence, which I believe is the intended focus in the original source.
I think the issue becomes clearer if you omit the nonessential clause "if he had lived in the 19th century".
He is the kind of person whom people would not have been able to categorise him.
One could write "People would not have been able to categorise him." as a complete sentence, or one could write "whom people would not have been able to categorise" as a relative clause describing "person". However, the example sentence combines the two, beginning as a relative clause and ending with another pronoun "him". In this sentence "whom" is already the object of "to categorise".
We can remove "him" and reintroduce the nonessential clause to get the correct sentence:
He is the kind of person whom, if he had lived in the 19th century, people would not have been able to categorise.
The nonessential clause interrupts the flow of the sentence, which can make it more likely to miss mistakes like this one both in reading and in writing. While the sentence is now correct, an even better sentence might be:
He is the kind of person whom people would not have been able to categorise, had he lived in the 19th century.
answered Jan 9 at 19:43
TashusTashus
6,290820
18
The odd thing is, on first read, the sentence sounds convoluted but acceptable -- but when you really look at it, it's clear where the error lies.
– Andrew
Jan 9 at 21:19
9
@Andrew Which is why "quite literate people" will say things like it. You have to do detailed analysis to see how the frame of reference changed across the parenthetical. I think the categorization as "hideously ungrammatical" is a bit of an exaggeration, too.
– Barmar
Jan 9 at 23:20
4
Resumptive pronouns (which is what him is here) are not standard English, but they are used in some other languages and (I think) in some dialects of English.
– Colin Fine
Jan 9 at 23:44
9
Removing the "him" would certainly fix the sentence, but I would additionally change the "who" for "whom."
– Carlos Arturo Serrano
Jan 10 at 1:53
4
I'm fairly certain that this sentence should also be using "whom," as evidenced by the original sentence using "him."
– jpmc26
Jan 10 at 5:58
|
show 11 more comments
First, as others have pointed out in the comments, the sentence uses "who" when it should use "whom." Even native speakers fail to correctly distinguish between "who" and "whom". It is common for "who" to be used in all cases, but this is not recommended in formal speech or writing. I have made that correction throughout the rest of the answer. However, there is a larger issue in the sentence, which I believe is the intended focus in the original source.
I think the issue becomes clearer if you omit the nonessential clause "if he had lived in the 19th century".
He is the kind of person whom people would not have been able to categorise him.
One could write "People would not have been able to categorise him." as a complete sentence, or one could write "whom people would not have been able to categorise" as a relative clause describing "person". However, the example sentence combines the two, beginning as a relative clause and ending with another pronoun "him". In this sentence "whom" is already the object of "to categorise".
We can remove "him" and reintroduce the nonessential clause to get the correct sentence:
He is the kind of person whom, if he had lived in the 19th century, people would not have been able to categorise.
The nonessential clause interrupts the flow of the sentence, which can make it more likely to miss mistakes like this one both in reading and in writing. While the sentence is now correct, an even better sentence might be:
He is the kind of person whom people would not have been able to categorise, had he lived in the 19th century.
answered Jan 9 at 19:43
TashusTashus
6,290820
First, as others have pointed out in the comments, the sentence uses "who" when it should use "whom." Even native speakers fail to correctly distinguish between "who" and "whom". It is common for "who" to be used in all cases, but this is not recommended in formal speech or writing. I have made that correction throughout the rest of the answer. However, there is a larger issue in the sentence, which I believe is the intended focus in the original source.
I think the issue becomes clearer if you omit the nonessential clause "if he had lived in the 19th century".
He is the kind of person whom people would not have been able to categorise him.
One could write "People would not have been able to categorise him." as a complete sentence, or one could write "whom people would not have been able to categorise" as a relative clause describing "person". However, the example sentence combines the two, beginning as a relative clause and ending with another pronoun "him". In this sentence "whom" is already the object of "to categorise".
We can remove "him" and reintroduce the nonessential clause to get the correct sentence:
He is the kind of person whom, if he had lived in the 19th century, people would not have been able to categorise.
The nonessential clause interrupts the flow of the sentence, which can make it more likely to miss mistakes like this one both in reading and in writing. While the sentence is now correct, an even better sentence might be:
He is the kind of person whom people would not have been able to categorise, had he lived in the 19th century.
answered Jan 9 at 19:43
TashusTashus
6,290820
edited Jan 10 at 16:43
answered Jan 9 at 19:43
TashusTashus
6,290820
answered Jan 9 at 19:43
TashusTashus
6,290820
answered Jan 9 at 19:43
TashusTashus
6,290820
6,290820
18
The odd thing is, on first read, the sentence sounds convoluted but acceptable -- but when you really look at it, it's clear where the error lies.
– Andrew
Jan 9 at 21:19
9
@Andrew Which is why "quite literate people" will say things like it. You have to do detailed analysis to see how the frame of reference changed across the parenthetical. I think the categorization as "hideously ungrammatical" is a bit of an exaggeration, too.
– Barmar
Jan 9 at 23:20
4
Resumptive pronouns (which is what him is here) are not standard English, but they are used in some other languages and (I think) in some dialects of English.
– Colin Fine
Jan 9 at 23:44
9
Removing the "him" would certainly fix the sentence, but I would additionally change the "who" for "whom."
– Carlos Arturo Serrano
Jan 10 at 1:53
4
I'm fairly certain that this sentence should also be using "whom," as evidenced by the original sentence using "him."
– jpmc26
Jan 10 at 5:58
|
show 11 more comments
18
The odd thing is, on first read, the sentence sounds convoluted but acceptable -- but when you really look at it, it's clear where the error lies.
– Andrew
Jan 9 at 21:19
9
@Andrew Which is why "quite literate people" will say things like it. You have to do detailed analysis to see how the frame of reference changed across the parenthetical. I think the categorization as "hideously ungrammatical" is a bit of an exaggeration, too.
– Barmar
Jan 9 at 23:20
4
Resumptive pronouns (which is what him is here) are not standard English, but they are used in some other languages and (I think) in some dialects of English.
– Colin Fine
Jan 9 at 23:44
9
Removing the "him" would certainly fix the sentence, but I would additionally change the "who" for "whom."
– Carlos Arturo Serrano
Jan 10 at 1:53
4
I'm fairly certain that this sentence should also be using "whom," as evidenced by the original sentence using "him."
– jpmc26
Jan 10 at 5:58
18
18
The odd thing is, on first read, the sentence sounds convoluted but acceptable -- but when you really look at it, it's clear where the error lies.
– Andrew
Jan 9 at 21:19
The odd thing is, on first read, the sentence sounds convoluted but acceptable -- but when you really look at it, it's clear where the error lies.
– Andrew
Jan 9 at 21:19
9
9
@Andrew Which is why "quite literate people" will say things like it. You have to do detailed analysis to see how the frame of reference changed across the parenthetical. I think the categorization as "hideously ungrammatical" is a bit of an exaggeration, too.
– Barmar
Jan 9 at 23:20
@Andrew Which is why "quite literate people" will say things like it. You have to do detailed analysis to see how the frame of reference changed across the parenthetical. I think the categorization as "hideously ungrammatical" is a bit of an exaggeration, too.
– Barmar
Jan 9 at 23:20
4
4
Resumptive pronouns (which is what him is here) are not standard English, but they are used in some other languages and (I think) in some dialects of English.
– Colin Fine
Jan 9 at 23:44
Resumptive pronouns (which is what him is here) are not standard English, but they are used in some other languages and (I think) in some dialects of English.
– Colin Fine
Jan 9 at 23:44
9
9
Removing the "him" would certainly fix the sentence, but I would additionally change the "who" for "whom."
– Carlos Arturo Serrano
Jan 10 at 1:53
Removing the "him" would certainly fix the sentence, but I would additionally change the "who" for "whom."
– Carlos Arturo Serrano
Jan 10 at 1:53
4
4
I'm fairly certain that this sentence should also be using "whom," as evidenced by the original sentence using "him."
– jpmc26
Jan 10 at 5:58
I'm fairly certain that this sentence should also be using "whom," as evidenced by the original sentence using "him."
– jpmc26
Jan 10 at 5:58
|
show 11 more comments
As Tashus says, this breaks the general rule that resumptive pronouns are ungrammatical in English, however, if "You often hear quite literate people saying [this]" (i.e. presumably native speakers who speak a prestige dialect), then this instance is grammatical. The rule needs to adapt to encompass modern usage (I'm reminded of people becrying split infinitives).
Wikipedia goes into more depth about the contexts in which resumptive pronouns are seen as grammatical:
... in English, "relative clauses with resumptive pronouns are officially ungrammatical [...] However, they are in fact not uncommon in speech". However, their grammaticality is influenced by linear distance from the subject, embedded depth, and extractability...
In a relative clause, resumptive pronouns are generally not seen as grammatical, however their level of grammaticality improves as they get farther from the head.
In short sentences without a subordinate clause, they are clearly ungrammatical:
He's the one who people categorised *him.
The exact rules for grammaticality aren't well understood, but broadly, the further the pronoun gets from the subject (e.g. the longer the subordinate clause is), the more acceptable it sounds (at what length is dialect dependent). The following may or may not sound acceptable:
He's the one who, had he lived then, people wouldn't've categorised (*)him.
And at the other end we have the example sentence from our "even quite literate people":
He is the kind of person who, if he had lived in the 19th century, people would not have been able to categorise him.
answered Jan 10 at 2:29
ukemiukemi
2366
6
+1 I agree that this sentence is not necessarily flat-out ungrammatical. And mostly because of this answer. I think I would say it's nonstandard and would normally be edited to drop the pronoun at the end. But I don't think I'd go so far as to say it's completely unacceptable.
– Jason Bassford
Jan 10 at 4:18
3
I would consider it ungrammatical in all these cases; the distance between the pronoun and the subject does not make it less ungrammatical, it just makes it less likely that the ungrammaticality will be noticed.
– Michael Kay
Jan 10 at 10:50
4
@MichaelKay this isn't just some written 'trick', this is something native speakers actually say - if native speakers say it, it is grammatical (at least in their dialect).
– ukemi
Jan 10 at 12:09
3
@ukemi It's simply wrong to assert that if native speakers say something, it is necessarily grammatical, even in their dialect. The sentence in question is the sort of mistake that I might make (and don't doubt I have made) if I lost the thread of a sentence while speaking. But it's still ungrammatical in my dialect.
– Especially Lime
Jan 10 at 12:40
4
@EspeciallyLime true, I was being terse - what I meant was, if native speakers frequently use a construction, and think it well formed, and their audience also think it well formed, that is grammatical. Because it doesn't follow an (often outdated) set of prescriptive rules doesn't mean it's ungrammatical (e.g. who replacing whom in almost all modern dialects).
– ukemi
Jan 10 at 12:54
|
show 6 more comments
As Tashus says, this breaks the general rule that resumptive pronouns are ungrammatical in English, however, if "You often hear quite literate people saying [this]" (i.e. presumably native speakers who speak a prestige dialect), then this instance is grammatical. The rule needs to adapt to encompass modern usage (I'm reminded of people becrying split infinitives).
Wikipedia goes into more depth about the contexts in which resumptive pronouns are seen as grammatical:
... in English, "relative clauses with resumptive pronouns are officially ungrammatical [...] However, they are in fact not uncommon in speech". However, their grammaticality is influenced by linear distance from the subject, embedded depth, and extractability...
In a relative clause, resumptive pronouns are generally not seen as grammatical, however their level of grammaticality improves as they get farther from the head.
In short sentences without a subordinate clause, they are clearly ungrammatical:
He's the one who people categorised *him.
The exact rules for grammaticality aren't well understood, but broadly, the further the pronoun gets from the subject (e.g. the longer the subordinate clause is), the more acceptable it sounds (at what length is dialect dependent). The following may or may not sound acceptable:
He's the one who, had he lived then, people wouldn't've categorised (*)him.
And at the other end we have the example sentence from our "even quite literate people":
He is the kind of person who, if he had lived in the 19th century, people would not have been able to categorise him.
answered Jan 10 at 2:29
ukemiukemi
2366
6
+1 I agree that this sentence is not necessarily flat-out ungrammatical. And mostly because of this answer. I think I would say it's nonstandard and would normally be edited to drop the pronoun at the end. But I don't think I'd go so far as to say it's completely unacceptable.
– Jason Bassford
Jan 10 at 4:18
3
I would consider it ungrammatical in all these cases; the distance between the pronoun and the subject does not make it less ungrammatical, it just makes it less likely that the ungrammaticality will be noticed.
– Michael Kay
Jan 10 at 10:50
4
@MichaelKay this isn't just some written 'trick', this is something native speakers actually say - if native speakers say it, it is grammatical (at least in their dialect).
– ukemi
Jan 10 at 12:09
3
@ukemi It's simply wrong to assert that if native speakers say something, it is necessarily grammatical, even in their dialect. The sentence in question is the sort of mistake that I might make (and don't doubt I have made) if I lost the thread of a sentence while speaking. But it's still ungrammatical in my dialect.
– Especially Lime
Jan 10 at 12:40
4
@EspeciallyLime true, I was being terse - what I meant was, if native speakers frequently use a construction, and think it well formed, and their audience also think it well formed, that is grammatical. Because it doesn't follow an (often outdated) set of prescriptive rules doesn't mean it's ungrammatical (e.g. who replacing whom in almost all modern dialects).
– ukemi
Jan 10 at 12:54
|
show 6 more comments
As Tashus says, this breaks the general rule that resumptive pronouns are ungrammatical in English, however, if "You often hear quite literate people saying [this]" (i.e. presumably native speakers who speak a prestige dialect), then this instance is grammatical. The rule needs to adapt to encompass modern usage (I'm reminded of people becrying split infinitives).
Wikipedia goes into more depth about the contexts in which resumptive pronouns are seen as grammatical:
... in English, "relative clauses with resumptive pronouns are officially ungrammatical [...] However, they are in fact not uncommon in speech". However, their grammaticality is influenced by linear distance from the subject, embedded depth, and extractability...
In a relative clause, resumptive pronouns are generally not seen as grammatical, however their level of grammaticality improves as they get farther from the head.
In short sentences without a subordinate clause, they are clearly ungrammatical:
He's the one who people categorised *him.
The exact rules for grammaticality aren't well understood, but broadly, the further the pronoun gets from the subject (e.g. the longer the subordinate clause is), the more acceptable it sounds (at what length is dialect dependent). The following may or may not sound acceptable:
He's the one who, had he lived then, people wouldn't've categorised (*)him.
And at the other end we have the example sentence from our "even quite literate people":
He is the kind of person who, if he had lived in the 19th century, people would not have been able to categorise him.
answered Jan 10 at 2:29
ukemiukemi
2366
As Tashus says, this breaks the general rule that resumptive pronouns are ungrammatical in English, however, if "You often hear quite literate people saying [this]" (i.e. presumably native speakers who speak a prestige dialect), then this instance is grammatical. The rule needs to adapt to encompass modern usage (I'm reminded of people becrying split infinitives).
Wikipedia goes into more depth about the contexts in which resumptive pronouns are seen as grammatical:
... in English, "relative clauses with resumptive pronouns are officially ungrammatical [...] However, they are in fact not uncommon in speech". However, their grammaticality is influenced by linear distance from the subject, embedded depth, and extractability...
In a relative clause, resumptive pronouns are generally not seen as grammatical, however their level of grammaticality improves as they get farther from the head.
In short sentences without a subordinate clause, they are clearly ungrammatical:
He's the one who people categorised *him.
The exact rules for grammaticality aren't well understood, but broadly, the further the pronoun gets from the subject (e.g. the longer the subordinate clause is), the more acceptable it sounds (at what length is dialect dependent). The following may or may not sound acceptable:
He's the one who, had he lived then, people wouldn't've categorised (*)him.
And at the other end we have the example sentence from our "even quite literate people":
He is the kind of person who, if he had lived in the 19th century, people would not have been able to categorise him.
answered Jan 10 at 2:29
ukemiukemi
2366
edited Jan 11 at 14:32
answered Jan 10 at 2:29
ukemiukemi
2366
answered Jan 10 at 2:29
ukemiukemi
2366
answered Jan 10 at 2:29
ukemiukemi
2366
2366
6
+1 I agree that this sentence is not necessarily flat-out ungrammatical. And mostly because of this answer. I think I would say it's nonstandard and would normally be edited to drop the pronoun at the end. But I don't think I'd go so far as to say it's completely unacceptable.
– Jason Bassford
Jan 10 at 4:18
3
I would consider it ungrammatical in all these cases; the distance between the pronoun and the subject does not make it less ungrammatical, it just makes it less likely that the ungrammaticality will be noticed.
– Michael Kay
Jan 10 at 10:50
4
@MichaelKay this isn't just some written 'trick', this is something native speakers actually say - if native speakers say it, it is grammatical (at least in their dialect).
– ukemi
Jan 10 at 12:09
3
@ukemi It's simply wrong to assert that if native speakers say something, it is necessarily grammatical, even in their dialect. The sentence in question is the sort of mistake that I might make (and don't doubt I have made) if I lost the thread of a sentence while speaking. But it's still ungrammatical in my dialect.
– Especially Lime
Jan 10 at 12:40
4
@EspeciallyLime true, I was being terse - what I meant was, if native speakers frequently use a construction, and think it well formed, and their audience also think it well formed, that is grammatical. Because it doesn't follow an (often outdated) set of prescriptive rules doesn't mean it's ungrammatical (e.g. who replacing whom in almost all modern dialects).
– ukemi
Jan 10 at 12:54
|
show 6 more comments
6
+1 I agree that this sentence is not necessarily flat-out ungrammatical. And mostly because of this answer. I think I would say it's nonstandard and would normally be edited to drop the pronoun at the end. But I don't think I'd go so far as to say it's completely unacceptable.
– Jason Bassford
Jan 10 at 4:18
3
I would consider it ungrammatical in all these cases; the distance between the pronoun and the subject does not make it less ungrammatical, it just makes it less likely that the ungrammaticality will be noticed.
– Michael Kay
Jan 10 at 10:50
4
@MichaelKay this isn't just some written 'trick', this is something native speakers actually say - if native speakers say it, it is grammatical (at least in their dialect).
– ukemi
Jan 10 at 12:09
3
@ukemi It's simply wrong to assert that if native speakers say something, it is necessarily grammatical, even in their dialect. The sentence in question is the sort of mistake that I might make (and don't doubt I have made) if I lost the thread of a sentence while speaking. But it's still ungrammatical in my dialect.
– Especially Lime
Jan 10 at 12:40
4
@EspeciallyLime true, I was being terse - what I meant was, if native speakers frequently use a construction, and think it well formed, and their audience also think it well formed, that is grammatical. Because it doesn't follow an (often outdated) set of prescriptive rules doesn't mean it's ungrammatical (e.g. who replacing whom in almost all modern dialects).
– ukemi
Jan 10 at 12:54
6
6
+1 I agree that this sentence is not necessarily flat-out ungrammatical. And mostly because of this answer. I think I would say it's nonstandard and would normally be edited to drop the pronoun at the end. But I don't think I'd go so far as to say it's completely unacceptable.
– Jason Bassford
Jan 10 at 4:18
+1 I agree that this sentence is not necessarily flat-out ungrammatical. And mostly because of this answer. I think I would say it's nonstandard and would normally be edited to drop the pronoun at the end. But I don't think I'd go so far as to say it's completely unacceptable.
– Jason Bassford
Jan 10 at 4:18
3
3
I would consider it ungrammatical in all these cases; the distance between the pronoun and the subject does not make it less ungrammatical, it just makes it less likely that the ungrammaticality will be noticed.
– Michael Kay
Jan 10 at 10:50
I would consider it ungrammatical in all these cases; the distance between the pronoun and the subject does not make it less ungrammatical, it just makes it less likely that the ungrammaticality will be noticed.
– Michael Kay
Jan 10 at 10:50
4
4
@MichaelKay this isn't just some written 'trick', this is something native speakers actually say - if native speakers say it, it is grammatical (at least in their dialect).
– ukemi
Jan 10 at 12:09
@MichaelKay this isn't just some written 'trick', this is something native speakers actually say - if native speakers say it, it is grammatical (at least in their dialect).
– ukemi
Jan 10 at 12:09
3
3
@ukemi It's simply wrong to assert that if native speakers say something, it is necessarily grammatical, even in their dialect. The sentence in question is the sort of mistake that I might make (and don't doubt I have made) if I lost the thread of a sentence while speaking. But it's still ungrammatical in my dialect.
– Especially Lime
Jan 10 at 12:40
@ukemi It's simply wrong to assert that if native speakers say something, it is necessarily grammatical, even in their dialect. The sentence in question is the sort of mistake that I might make (and don't doubt I have made) if I lost the thread of a sentence while speaking. But it's still ungrammatical in my dialect.
– Especially Lime
Jan 10 at 12:40
4
4
@EspeciallyLime true, I was being terse - what I meant was, if native speakers frequently use a construction, and think it well formed, and their audience also think it well formed, that is grammatical. Because it doesn't follow an (often outdated) set of prescriptive rules doesn't mean it's ungrammatical (e.g. who replacing whom in almost all modern dialects).
– ukemi
Jan 10 at 12:54
@EspeciallyLime true, I was being terse - what I meant was, if native speakers frequently use a construction, and think it well formed, and their audience also think it well formed, that is grammatical. Because it doesn't follow an (often outdated) set of prescriptive rules doesn't mean it's ungrammatical (e.g. who replacing whom in almost all modern dialects).
– ukemi
Jan 10 at 12:54
|
show 6 more comments
He is the kind of person who, if he had lived in the 19th century, people would not have been able to categorise him.
This is a rhetorical device known as anacoluthon. The grammatical structure of the sentence shifts as the sentence is spoken — or, you could view it as, two different sentence structures have been smushed together into a single sentence. (Did you notice, I did it there. And (arguably) again!)
The two sentence structures smushed into this one sentence are (with the primary subject/verb in bold):
He is the kind of person who would not have been categorizable by anyone in the 19th century.
If he had lived in the 19th century, people would not have been able to categorize him.
The actual sentence spoken ends up smushing the two grammatical sentences together, typically with a moment of grammatical confusion (indicated by a comma or dash) in the middle.
Wikipedia gives several examples of anacoluthon in English, including Milton's
Had ye been there – for what could that have done?
The two sentence structures smushed up here are
Had ye been there, you could have done something. (Well, actually, no, nothing— never mind.)
It's okay that you weren't there, for what could that have done?
The implication is that the speaker changes his mind halfway through the line.
In your original example, the speaker has not changed his mind about what he wants to say; he's just made a little tweak to how he wants to say it.
For an extreme example — in which the extreme disorder of the words does (well, is implied to) reflect the extreme disorder of ideas behind them — look at Fred Armisen's "Nicholas Fehn" character on Saturday Night Live.
https://twitter.com/sarahcpr/status/760657101404327936
You know, it's— it's the reason... I wake up— I wake up, like, anybody— I was taught... Every— well, most Americans, if you— Education. Any— any border, if Helsinki, if Oslo— I think— any publication, we would— isn't it integral, isn't it the most important— it's the substance, the very idea, that we can unite, that makes me feel, personally—
answered Jan 10 at 15:46
QuuxplusoneQuuxplusone
25616
3
I was going to say that that last example read a lot like something our current president would say... And then I saw that the tweet you linked said exactly that :P
– V2Blast
Jan 10 at 20:17
add a comment |
He is the kind of person who, if he had lived in the 19th century, people would not have been able to categorise him.
This is a rhetorical device known as anacoluthon. The grammatical structure of the sentence shifts as the sentence is spoken — or, you could view it as, two different sentence structures have been smushed together into a single sentence. (Did you notice, I did it there. And (arguably) again!)
The two sentence structures smushed into this one sentence are (with the primary subject/verb in bold):
He is the kind of person who would not have been categorizable by anyone in the 19th century.
If he had lived in the 19th century, people would not have been able to categorize him.
The actual sentence spoken ends up smushing the two grammatical sentences together, typically with a moment of grammatical confusion (indicated by a comma or dash) in the middle.
Wikipedia gives several examples of anacoluthon in English, including Milton's
Had ye been there – for what could that have done?
The two sentence structures smushed up here are
Had ye been there, you could have done something. (Well, actually, no, nothing— never mind.)
It's okay that you weren't there, for what could that have done?
The implication is that the speaker changes his mind halfway through the line.
In your original example, the speaker has not changed his mind about what he wants to say; he's just made a little tweak to how he wants to say it.
For an extreme example — in which the extreme disorder of the words does (well, is implied to) reflect the extreme disorder of ideas behind them — look at Fred Armisen's "Nicholas Fehn" character on Saturday Night Live.
https://twitter.com/sarahcpr/status/760657101404327936
You know, it's— it's the reason... I wake up— I wake up, like, anybody— I was taught... Every— well, most Americans, if you— Education. Any— any border, if Helsinki, if Oslo— I think— any publication, we would— isn't it integral, isn't it the most important— it's the substance, the very idea, that we can unite, that makes me feel, personally—
answered Jan 10 at 15:46
QuuxplusoneQuuxplusone
25616
3
I was going to say that that last example read a lot like something our current president would say... And then I saw that the tweet you linked said exactly that :P
– V2Blast
Jan 10 at 20:17
add a comment |
He is the kind of person who, if he had lived in the 19th century, people would not have been able to categorise him.
This is a rhetorical device known as anacoluthon. The grammatical structure of the sentence shifts as the sentence is spoken — or, you could view it as, two different sentence structures have been smushed together into a single sentence. (Did you notice, I did it there. And (arguably) again!)
The two sentence structures smushed into this one sentence are (with the primary subject/verb in bold):
He is the kind of person who would not have been categorizable by anyone in the 19th century.
If he had lived in the 19th century, people would not have been able to categorize him.
The actual sentence spoken ends up smushing the two grammatical sentences together, typically with a moment of grammatical confusion (indicated by a comma or dash) in the middle.
Wikipedia gives several examples of anacoluthon in English, including Milton's
Had ye been there – for what could that have done?
The two sentence structures smushed up here are
Had ye been there, you could have done something. (Well, actually, no, nothing— never mind.)
It's okay that you weren't there, for what could that have done?
The implication is that the speaker changes his mind halfway through the line.
In your original example, the speaker has not changed his mind about what he wants to say; he's just made a little tweak to how he wants to say it.
For an extreme example — in which the extreme disorder of the words does (well, is implied to) reflect the extreme disorder of ideas behind them — look at Fred Armisen's "Nicholas Fehn" character on Saturday Night Live.
https://twitter.com/sarahcpr/status/760657101404327936
You know, it's— it's the reason... I wake up— I wake up, like, anybody— I was taught... Every— well, most Americans, if you— Education. Any— any border, if Helsinki, if Oslo— I think— any publication, we would— isn't it integral, isn't it the most important— it's the substance, the very idea, that we can unite, that makes me feel, personally—
answered Jan 10 at 15:46
QuuxplusoneQuuxplusone
25616
He is the kind of person who, if he had lived in the 19th century, people would not have been able to categorise him.
This is a rhetorical device known as anacoluthon. The grammatical structure of the sentence shifts as the sentence is spoken — or, you could view it as, two different sentence structures have been smushed together into a single sentence. (Did you notice, I did it there. And (arguably) again!)
The two sentence structures smushed into this one sentence are (with the primary subject/verb in bold):
He is the kind of person who would not have been categorizable by anyone in the 19th century.
If he had lived in the 19th century, people would not have been able to categorize him.
The actual sentence spoken ends up smushing the two grammatical sentences together, typically with a moment of grammatical confusion (indicated by a comma or dash) in the middle.
Wikipedia gives several examples of anacoluthon in English, including Milton's
Had ye been there – for what could that have done?
The two sentence structures smushed up here are
Had ye been there, you could have done something. (Well, actually, no, nothing— never mind.)
It's okay that you weren't there, for what could that have done?
The implication is that the speaker changes his mind halfway through the line.
In your original example, the speaker has not changed his mind about what he wants to say; he's just made a little tweak to how he wants to say it.
For an extreme example — in which the extreme disorder of the words does (well, is implied to) reflect the extreme disorder of ideas behind them — look at Fred Armisen's "Nicholas Fehn" character on Saturday Night Live.
https://twitter.com/sarahcpr/status/760657101404327936
You know, it's— it's the reason... I wake up— I wake up, like, anybody— I was taught... Every— well, most Americans, if you— Education. Any— any border, if Helsinki, if Oslo— I think— any publication, we would— isn't it integral, isn't it the most important— it's the substance, the very idea, that we can unite, that makes me feel, personally—
answered Jan 10 at 15:46
QuuxplusoneQuuxplusone
25616
answered Jan 10 at 15:46
QuuxplusoneQuuxplusone
25616
answered Jan 10 at 15:46
QuuxplusoneQuuxplusone
25616
answered Jan 10 at 15:46
QuuxplusoneQuuxplusone
25616
25616
3
I was going to say that that last example read a lot like something our current president would say... And then I saw that the tweet you linked said exactly that :P
– V2Blast
Jan 10 at 20:17
add a comment |
3
I was going to say that that last example read a lot like something our current president would say... And then I saw that the tweet you linked said exactly that :P
– V2Blast
Jan 10 at 20:17
3
3
I was going to say that that last example read a lot like something our current president would say... And then I saw that the tweet you linked said exactly that :P
– V2Blast
Jan 10 at 20:17
I was going to say that that last example read a lot like something our current president would say... And then I saw that the tweet you linked said exactly that :P
– V2Blast
Jan 10 at 20:17
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language Learners Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fell.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f192438%2fwhy-is-he-is-the-kind-of-person-who-if-he-had-lived-people-would-not-have%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Great question! It would be better if you didn’t presuppose that it actually was ungrammatical in your question, though. Leave that judgment to the answers.
– snailboat♦
Jan 28 at 4:58