# Where did you eat <that you got this killer migraine>?



## JungKim

American TV Show Gossip Girl has this conversation (transcript):


> Dan: _What exactly happened last night?_
> Chuck: _I already told him..._ Dan, pointing at Chuck without looking away: _I'm asking you._
> Serena: _Well, I got food poisoning, and then Chuck helped me out. _
> Dan: _Okay, where exactly did you eat that you got this killer food poisoning migraine?_


In the last sentence, what's the nature of the underlined _that_-clause?


----------



## owlman5

It looks like a clumsy attempt to say ... _that gave you this killer food-poisoning migraine? _

Of course, you could ask for the same information with a much simpler, clearer question: _Where did you get food poisoning?_


----------



## bennymix

JungKim said:


> American TV Show Gossip Girl has this conversation (transcript):
> 
> In the last sentence, what's the nature of the underlined _that_-clause?



I believe it's an adjectival clause serving as an object complement {object referred to by 'where'}.


----------



## JungKim

bennymix said:


> I believe it's an adjectival clause serving as an object complement {object referred to by 'where'}.


Do you mean it's a relative clause having _where_ as its antecedent?


----------



## bennymix

JungKim said:


> Do you mean it's a relative clause having _where_ as its antecedent?



It's a clause headed by 'that' which points back to 'where'  and there is a common referent {the place in question}.    And what is your opinion, Jung Kim?


----------



## JungKim

bennymix said:


> It's a clause headed by 'that' which points back to 'where'  and there is a common referent {the place in question}.    And what is your opinion, Jung Kim?


I feel it's a relative clause referring back to _where_. But you seem to be hesitant about calling it a relative clause. If you are, why?


----------



## bennymix

I would agree it's a relative clause.

==
ADDED.  In light of later discussion below, I would now say,  "not a relative clause."


----------



## velisarius

Interesting. I think it's similar to this older usage  (again, it's used after a question):
that ever he had come nigh her

_where exactly did you eat that you got this killer food poisoning migraine?_

I'd gloss it as:_ Where exactly did you eat, *with the result that* you got this killer migraine?_


----------



## JungKim

velisarius said:


> Interesting. I think it's similar to this older usage  (again, it's used after a question):
> that ever he had come nigh her
> 
> _where exactly did you eat that you got this killer food poisoning migraine?_
> 
> I'd gloss it as:_ Where exactly did you eat, *with the result that* you got this killer migraine?_


Actually, I was thinking the same thing. At first, I thought it was the resultative meaning with the normal 'so' omitted.
_Where exactly did you eat so that you got this killer food poisoning migraine?_

But as you have noted, this usage is somewhat old-fashioned, and wouldn't probably be uttered, so I thought, by a teenage character in a modern TV show. So the only remaining option was the relative clause reading. Hence, the question.


----------



## elroy

I don’t think it’s old-fashioned, and I don’t think @velisarius was suggesting it was.  I think she was simply comparing the two usages structurally.

The original sounds perfectly ordinary to me in contemporary English, and I immediately read “that” as “such that.”


----------



## PaulQ

JungKim said:


> But you seem to be hesitant about calling it a relative clause. If you are, why?





owlman5 said:


> It looks like a clumsy attempt to say ... _that gave you this killer food-poisoning migraine?_





velisarius said:


> I'd gloss it as:_ Where exactly did you eat, *with the result that* you got this killer migraine?_



It seems to me that the sentence is poorly constructed and thus difficult to analyse. The "_that you got this killer food poisoning migraine?"_ is more adjectival than relative, and the "that" appears to function more as a conjunction than a pronoun/relative.


----------



## JungKim

elroy said:


> I don’t think it’s old-fashioned, and I don’t think @velisarius was suggesting it was.  I think she was simply comparing the two usages structurally.
> 
> The original sounds perfectly ordinary to me in contemporary English, and I immediately read “that” as “such that.”


Regardless of whether the resultative reading is contemporary English, is there anything that prevents us from reading the _that_-clause as a relative clause with _where _as its antecedent?


----------



## JungKim

PaulQ said:


> The "_that you got this killer food poisoning migraine?"_ is more adjectival than relative, and the "that" appears to function more as a conjunction than a pronoun/relative.


Is there an adjectival clause other than a relative clause?


----------



## Myridon

If it modifies "where", then it's something like:
What place that you got this killer food poisoning did you eat?
That would mean "Out of the several places where you got this killer food poisoning, which one did you eat at?"
That's not what the original sentence means.


----------



## PaulQ

JungKim said:


> Is there an adjectival clause other than a relative clause?


I didn't mentioned "clause". And I did that on purpose. I said it was "more adjectival" i.e. functioning closer to an adjectival subordinate or a prepositional modifier than a relative.

As I said, the sentence is poorly constructed and, to that extent, it defies analysis. To this I will add that reconstructing it will result in a different analyses.


----------



## elroy

The sentence is well constructed, and @velisarius and I have given an appropriate analysis.


----------



## Loob

Like veli, I'd say it's an older usage; but it clearly still exists in some varieties and registers of English.

Here's what I'd say is the relevant OED definition, taken from the entry for _*that, conj*_:
[3] b. Introducing a clause expressing a fact (with verb in the indicative), or a supposition (with verb in the subjunctive or with should) as a consequence attributed to the cause indicated by the main clause (which is most commonly interrogative); sometimes nearly ‘in consequence of which’; or (with indicative) ‘since, seeing that’.​OE  [...]​1842   Ld. Tennyson Lady Clare in Poems (new ed.) II. 196   Are ye out of your mind,..that ye speak so wild?​1885   Sat. Rev. 21 Feb. 242/2   We are not pigeons that we should eat dry peas.​1898   G. B. Shaw Philanderer II. 106   My daughter wants to marry you! Who are you, pray, that she should have any such ambition?​[...]​2009   A. B. White McClain's Law ii. 13   Is something wrong that dad was in such a hurry?​


----------



## JungKim

elroy said:


> The sentence is well constructed, and @velisarius and I have given an appropriate analysis.


Like I said, initially I did read it as a resultative clause. But I don't know why it can't be analyzed as a relative clause. You have yet to answer my question in post #12.


----------



## elroy

I’m thinking about it.  To help me out, can you give me a couple sentences with “where” and a “that” clause in which you believe the “that” clause modifies “where”?  In other words, a couple sentences that you believe have the structure you are asking about?


----------



## Loob

JungKim said:


> Like I said, initially I did read it as a resultative clause. But I don't know why it can't be analyzed as a relative clause. You have yet to answer my question in post #12.


Myridon's post 14 looks convincing to me, JungKim.  Like elroy, I'd be interested to see any examples you have of similar constructions which you would analyse as relatives.


----------



## JungKim

Loob said:


> Myridon's post 14 looks convincing to me, JungKim.


Honestly, I don't quite understand what Myridon's post is supposed to mean.



elroy said:


> I’m thinking about it.  To help me out, can you give me a couple sentences with “where” and a “that” clause in which you believe the “that” clause modifies “where”?  In other words, a couple sentences that you believe have the structure you are asking about?





Loob said:


> Like elroy, I'd be interested to see any examples you have of similar constructions which you would analyse as relatives.



_The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language_ (Page 1060) has this example:


> iv _Where can we go for lunch that isn’t too expensive? _


And says this:


> And the interrogative prepositions _when _and _where _– like nominal _time _and _place _– can serve as antecedents for integrated _that _relatives, which occur most readily in postposed position, as in [iv].


----------



## bennymix

JungKim said:


> Is there an adjectival clause other than a relative clause?



Just to confirm, you have no issue with saying that the clause {that...} in question is both adjectival and relative.   Yes?


----------



## Loob

JungKim said:


> Honestly, I don't quite understand what Myridon's post is supposed to mean.


That's precisely because it really doesn't work to treat the original sentence as containing a relative clause.


JungKim said:


> _The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language_ (Page 1060) has this example:
> 
> 
> 
> Where can we go for lunch that isn’t too expensive?
Click to expand...

The CGEL example, on the other hand, does work:
_Where can we go for lunch that isn’t too expensive?
= What place can we go to for lunch that isn’t too expensive?
= What place that isn't too expensive can we go to for lunch?
= What relatively inexpensive place can we go to for lunch?_


----------



## bennymix

So the verdict is "It's NOT a relative clause in the OP".    yes?

OK, what is it?


----------



## JungKim

bennymix said:


> Just to confirm, you have no issue with saying that the clause {that...} in question is both adjectival and relative.   Yes?


Yes, although I'd consider 'adjectival' a less accurate term to classify clauses.


----------



## JungKim

Loob said:


> The CGEL example, on the other hand, does work:
> _Where can we go for lunch that isn’t too expensive?
> = What place can we go to for lunch that isn’t too expensive?
> = What place that isn't too expensive can we go to for lunch?
> = What relatively inexpensive place can we go to for lunch?_


In your paraphrase, you've replaced _where_ with _to what place._ Let me try a similar paraphrase of the OP by replacing _where _with _at what place_:
_Where exactly did you eat that you got this killer food poisoning migraine?
= At what place exactly did you eat that you got this killer food poisoning migraine at?
= At what place that you got this killer food poisoning migraine at exactly did you eat?
= What place that you got this killer food poisoning migraine at exactly did you eat at?_

That said, I don't know if any paraphrasing is the test to figure out whether the original works or not.


----------



## bennymix

Note that none of the three paraphrases are in proper English;  the second and third, esp. would never be said or written.


----------



## JungKim

bennymix said:


> Note that none of the three paraphrases are in proper English;  the second and third, esp. would never be said or written.


Why not? I wouldn't say them myself, but I can certainly understand them.


----------



## Forero

JungKim said:


> Why not? I wouldn't say them myself, but I can certainly understand them.


The word _exactly_ does not fit where you have it in the second and third "paraphrases".


----------



## icecreamsoldier

JungKim said:


> Why not? I wouldn't say them myself, but I can certainly understand them.


One reason is the duplicates of 'at' which add confusion, and the sentences become ungrammatical.

If you are simply aiming to replace 'where' with 'at what place', it becomes:
_At what place exactly did you eat that you got this killer food poisoning migraine?_

...and we are left with the same problem of trying to understand the nature of the 'that...migraine' part. Others have explained it well in posts above, but I will try to explain how I see it, in simple terms.

In essence, we have two sentences:
1. Where exactly did you eat?
2. You got this killer food poisoning migraine.

Now, simplifying them:
1. Where did you eat?
2. You got sick.

They are then joined using 'that', which acts as a conjunction (see Loob's post, #17), and we have our question:
Where did you eat, that you got sick?
--> Where did you eat, *[so that/in order that/as a result of which]* you got sick?


----------



## JungKim

Forero said:


> The word _exactly_ does not fit where you have it in the second and third "paraphrases".


Then, we can remove _exactly_.


----------



## JungKim

icecreamsoldier said:


> One reason is the duplicates of 'at' which add confusion, and the sentences become ungrammatical.
> 
> If you are simply aiming to replace 'where' with 'at what place', it becomes:
> _At what place exactly did you eat that you got this killer food poisoning migraine?_
> 
> ...and we are left with the same problem of trying to understand the nature of the 'that...migraine' part.


Yes, it's better not to add the additional _at_ in the relative clause, and your sentence can still be analyzed as having a relative clause:

_At what place exactly did you eat _[_that you got this killer food poisoning migraine _____]_?_

Here, the blank indicates the gap in the bracketed relative clause whose antecedent is the underlined _place_. Note that the noun _place_ can function as the antecedent of a relative clause without the help of a preposition such as _in_ or _at_.

_This is the place _[_that you got this killer food poisoning migraine _____]. 

So I wonder why your sentence cannot be analyzed as having a relative clause.



icecreamsoldier said:


> Others have explained it well in posts above, but I will try to explain how I see it, in simple terms.
> 
> In essence, we have two sentences:
> 1. Where exactly did you eat?
> 2. You got this killer food poisoning migraine.
> 
> Now, simplifying them:
> 1. Where did you eat?
> 2. You got sick.
> 
> They are then joined using 'that', which acts as a conjunction (see Loob's post, #17), and we have our question:
> Where did you eat, that you got sick?
> --> Where did you eat, *[so that/in order that/as a result of which]* you got sick?


Again, I'm not saying that this analysis is incorrect. All I'm asking is why the other analysis is impossible.


----------



## bennymix

> _JK {#32}example: This is the place _[_that you got this killer food poisoning migraine _____].





> JK: So I wonder why your sentence cannot be analyzed as having a relative clause.



Your example sentence above in your post #32, does indeed have a relative clause, but you have altered the structure and meaning of the original phrase,  which, based on the previous discussion, seems to be NOT relative.  That you can take a portion of the original and rewrite it to contain a relative clause simply proves your mental dexterity.


----------



## JungKim

bennymix said:


> Your example sentence above in your post #32, does indeed have a relative clause, but you have altered the structure and meaning of the original phrase,  which, based on the previous discussion, seems to be NOT relative.  That you can take a portion of the original and rewrite it to contain a relative clause simply proves your mental dexterity.


Apparently, you've misread my post.
I was saying that this sentence works as having a relative clause:
_At what place exactly did you eat _[_that you got this killer food poisoning migraine _____]_?_


----------



## Loob

Look again at Myridon's post 14, JungKim.

If _that etc_ were a relative clause, you'd have to parse the sentence (as you did in post 26) as
_At what place that you got this killer food poisoning migraine did you eat?_

But the meaning of that would be:
_> At which of the places that you got this killer food poisoning migraine did you eat?_


----------



## JungKim

Loob said:


> Look again at Myridon's post 14, JungKim.
> 
> If _that etc_ were a relative clause, you'd have to parse the sentence (as you did in post 26) as
> _At what place that you got this killer food poisoning migraine did you eat?_
> 
> But the meaning of that would be:
> _> At which of the places that you got this killer food poisoning migraine did you eat?_



I don't get the final stage where you'd replace _what place_ with _which of the places_.
Why don't you do the same thing for CGEL's sentence?


----------



## manfy

JungKim said:


> I don't get the final stage where you'd replace _what place_ with _which of the places_.
> Why don't you do the same thing for CGEL's sentence?


I think the argument is based on the idea that a defining relative clause implies that its antecedent is undefined without that relative clause, thus multiple places (or multiple versions of the antecedent) must exist.
But I think that argument is moving on thin ice.


----------



## Forero

I think the "that" in question, if not a "such that", makes more sense as a "whence"/"wherefrom" than as a "whereat".

An alternative reading of the original sentence:

_Where exactly did you eat, where you got this killer food poisoning migraine?_
= "At what place exactly did you eat, where you got this killer food poisoning migraine?"
= "At what place exactly did you eat, that you got this killer food poisoning migraine from?"
= "What place exactly did you eat at, that you got this killer food poisoning migraine from?"

But even though the second relative clause modifies "place", moving it ahead of "did you eat" does not work.

"What place exactly that you got this killer food poisoning migraine from did you eat at?" really does seem to define one or more "killer" sources and then ask at what such place the person ate. Even if we add a comma.


----------



## JungKim

Forero said:


> I think the "that" in question, if not a "such that", makes more sense as a "whence"/"wherefrom" than as a "whereat".
> 
> An alternative reading of the original sentence:
> 
> _Where exactly did you eat, where you got this killer food poisoning migraine?_
> = "At what place exactly did you eat, where you got this killer food poisoning migraine?"
> = "At what place exactly did you eat, that you got this killer food poisoning migraine from?"
> = "What place exactly did you eat at, that you got this killer food poisoning migraine from?"


Before I posted the question, I did wonder if it'd be better to add "from" in the _that_-clause when analyzing it as a relative clause. 



Forero said:


> But even though the second relative clause modifies "place", moving it ahead of "did you eat" does not work.
> 
> "What place exactly that you got this killer food poisoning migraine from did you eat at?" really does seem to define one or more "killer" sources and then ask at what such place the person ate. Even if we add a comma.


Thanks. In fact, moving the _that_-clause ahead of "did you eat" is not necessary to prove that it's a relative clause. When an interrogative word such as _where_ or _when_ or _what_ is an antecedent of a relative clause, the relative clause normally comes after the main interrogative clause.

That said, even if we place the _that_-clause ahead of "did you eat", I don't understand how it defines the "killer food poisoning migraine" place and then ask where the person ate. I mean, the context dictates that the person first ate at a place and then got the "killer food poisoning migraine" from eating at the place, doesn't it?


----------



## Forero

It really matters whether you got food poisoning where you ate or whether you ate where you got food poisoning.

If "where you got food poisoning" defines the place, then when you eat there you are asking for trouble.


----------



## JungKim

Forero said:


> It really matters whether you got food poisoning where you ate or whether you ate where you got food poisoning.
> 
> If "where you got food poisoning" defines the place, then when you eat there you are asking for trouble.


If you're to convey that you went back and ate again where you had previously gotten food poisoning from, shouldn't _got_ be _had gotten_?

_What place exactly that you had gotten this killer food poisoning migraine from did you eat at?_

Actually, in this order where getting the disease is mentioned before eating, we may not need the past perfect form _had gotten_, because the act of getting the disease can be understood to have happened before the act of eating, even without the help of the past perfect form.

In the original order, however, I think we do need the past perfect form _had gotten _in order to interpret the act of getting the disease to have happened before the act of eating.

_Where exactly did you eat that you had gotten this killer food poisoning migraine? _(_had got_ in BE)

But the original text has the past form _got_, which I think means that even if we're to interpret the _that_-clause as a relative clause, we can't interpret the act of getting the disease to have happened before the act of eating. Then, Myridon and Loob's reasoning behind rejecting the relative reading doesn't hold water, does it?


----------



## Loob

Have it your way, JungKim.


----------



## JungKim

Loob said:


> Have it your way, JungKim.


Could you please tell me how my reasoning about the verb form doesn't work?


----------



## Loob

No, sorry.  I'm clear that "that" is a conjunction in your sentence, not a relative pronoun. Myridon's/my explanation may not be convincing,  but I'm afraid I haven't got the energy to turn any more somersaults.


----------



## Forero

The point is that a defining relative clause defines.

The place could not be defined by something that had not happened yet.

And why would you eat at a place defined by such an event?


----------



## manfy

JungKim, you're free to analyze the that-clause as a relative clause! Just because the "such that" theory with _that _as a conjunction is sensible and probably right doesn't mean that the relative clause theory is automatically wrong.
There are many grammatical structures that can be analyzed in different ways and several of those ways are correct - one may be  more plausible than the other but they are both correct nevertheless.

You can look at the OP as a clefted wh-question and that should automatically make the that-clause a relative clause, e.g.
Where was it that you got your food poisoning?

I'd say in this case _that _really refers to _where_, which can be seen when you turn the question into an answer:
It was there that I got food poisoning.
Here it's clear that the antecedent of _that _is _there_, which means that the antecedent in the clefted question must be _where_.

Now if you look at the semantics of the OP "Where did you eat that ..." you see that the core message is identical with "where was it that ..."

It's still a bit different from the CGEL example "where can we go for lunch that is not too expensive" but well, you can't have it all...

[edit: correcting typos]


----------



## SevenDays

JungKim said:


> American TV Show Gossip Girl has this conversation (transcript):
> 
> In the last sentence, what's the nature of the underlined _that_-clause?


To me, the underlined element is a _complement clause_, and not a "relative clause." More precisely, that "that" is a _complementizer_ (introducing the complement clause), and not a "relativizer" (which normally introduces a relative clause).

I call it a _complement clause_ mainly on two grounds: (1) the complement clause _that you got this killer food poisoning migraine _is an argument ("completes the meaning") of the main clause _where exactly did you eat?_; (2), crucially, the complement clause represents a proposition. By contrast, a (restrictive) relative clause identifies its referent, as in _This is the place where you got this killer food poisoning migraine_. As relative pronoun (or relative adverb, if you wish), "where" takes a place/location as referent.


----------



## bennymix

Yes, in simple terms  "that you got" is not about a place, a noun.   It's about a situation, a phrase. "your eating at a place."   That is how I, a non-professional, put the matter.


----------



## JungKim

Forero said:


> The point is that a defining relative clause defines.
> 
> The place could not be defined by something that had not happened yet.
> 
> And why would you eat at a place defined by such an event?


Why? Because, without the defining relative clause, the question might not be defined enough to get the answer you desire.
The question _Where exactly did you eat? _alone may be enough, or it may not. The thing is, the speaker gets to decide if it's enough or not, and even if it's enough, the speaker is free to add whatever the heck he sees fit.

It would have been more clearly a relative clause if _from _was added.
_Where exactly did you eat that you got this killer food poisoning migraine from? _

Here, the presence of _from_ makes it abundantly clear that the _that_-clause has to be a relative clause. Please let me know if you disagree about this.

And I don't think there's such a rule or a reasoning that prevents you from adding a defining relative clause that describes an event that happens after the event described in the main clause. Not that I know of.

In fact, I think this does work:
_I ate at this place _[_where I got this killer food poisoning migraine_]_.
I ate at this place _[(_that_)_ I got this killer food poisoning migraine from_].
Here, I think the bracketed clause is clearly a relative clause defining the noun _place_.

Now, does removing _from _from the second example suddenly make the bracketed clause a resultative clause? [Not a rhetorical question]
_I ate at this place _[(_that_)_ I got this killer food poisoning migraine_].


----------



## manfy

SevenDays said:


> I call it a _complement clause_ mainly on two grounds: (1) the complement clause _that you got this killer food poisoning migraine _is an argument ("completes the meaning") of the main clause _where exactly did you eat?_; (2), crucially, the complement clause represents a proposition. By contrast, a (restrictive) relative clause identifies its referent, as in _This is the place where you got this killer food poisoning migraine_. As relative pronoun (or relative adverb, if you wish), "where" takes a place/location as referent.


That seems sensible. But does the concept "complement clause" fit into traditional grammar? It sounds more like one of the more modern views on grammar.

[edit: typo]


----------



## manfy

JungKim said:


> It would have been more clearly a relative clause if _from _was added.
> _Where exactly did you eat that you got this killer food poisoning migraine from? _
> 
> Here, the presence of _from_ makes it abundantly clear that the _that_-clause has to be a relative clause. Please let me know if you disagree about this.


After re-reading your post and considering SevenDays' and benimix's statements I do tend to disagree.
The addition of _from _makes the sentence a bit more bizarre.
The relative nature in an explicit statement like below is evident:
_The place *that* I got food poisoning *from* should be closed down by the authorities._​_The place *where* I got food poisoning (from) should be closed down by the authorities._​
But in your question form "_Where exactly did you eat *that *you got..._", the question clause does not automatically translate into "the place that..." in my mind. Additionally, I don't see that 'that' can be replaced with 'where' in this form. I can't put my finger on it but 'where' would feel off.

[edit for clarity]


----------



## SevenDays

manfy said:


> That seems sensible. But does the concept "complement clause" fit into traditional grammar. It sounds more like one of the more modern views on grammar.


Not sure how the term "complement clause" would fit into traditional grammar. I suspect some versed in traditional grammar would use the term "complement clause" for a clause that complements/completes the meaning of a particular part of speech (noun, verb, adjective). I extend the definition to include a subordinate clause that complements/completes the meaning of the main clause. And probably others would use the term "elaborate clause" simply because the "that-clause" elaborates/adds details on the idea presented in the main clause.



manfy said:


> After re-reading your post and considering SevenDays' and benimix's statements I do tend to disagree.
> The addition of _from _makes the sentence a bit more bizarre.
> The relative nature in an explicit statement like below is evident:
> _The place *that* I got food poisoning *from* should be closed down by the authorities._​_The place *where* I got food poisoning (from) should be closed down by the authorities._​
> But in your question form "_Where exactly did you eat *that *you got..._", the question clause does not automatically translate into "the place that..." in my mind. Additionally, I don't see that 'that' can be replaced with 'where' in this form. I can't put my finger on it but 'where' would feel off.
> 
> [edit for clarity]


I can't use "from" in the OP manner, but I could accept

_*Where* exactly did you eat *from* that you got this killer food poisoning migraine?_

"from" belongs in the main clause. Still, to me, the _that-clause_ is a _complement clause_, not a relative clause.


----------



## Roxxxannne

If you like _*Where* exactly did you eat *from* that you got this killer food poisoning migraine?_
do you also like 
_*From where* exactly did you eat that you got this killer food poisoning migraine?_


----------



## SevenDays

Roxxxannne said:


> If you like _*Where* exactly did you eat *from* that you got this killer food poisoning migraine?_
> do you also like
> _*From where* exactly did you eat that you got this killer food poisoning migraine?_


In my previous post, I was trying to see how adding "from" could make the sentence _acceptable_, at least for some. Speaking just for myself, on my high horse, I can't naturally use "from" that way.


----------



## JungKim

manfy said:


> After re-reading your post and considering SevenDays' and benimix's statements I do tend to disagree.
> The addition of _from _makes the sentence a bit more bizarre.
> The relative nature in an explicit statement like below is evident:
> _The place *that* I got food poisoning *from* should be closed down by the authorities._​_The place *where* I got food poisoning (from) should be closed down by the authorities._​
> But in your question form "_Where exactly did you eat *that *you got..._", the question clause does not automatically translate into "the place that..." in my mind. Additionally, I don't see that 'that' can be replaced with 'where' in this form. I can't put my finger on it but 'where' would feel off.
> 
> [edit for clarity]


So do you disagree with Forero's alternative reading in post #38 (reposted here)?:


Forero said:


> I think the "that" in question, if not a "such that", makes more sense as a "whence"/"wherefrom" than as a "whereat".
> 
> An alternative reading of the original sentence:
> 
> _Where exactly did you eat, where you got this killer food poisoning migraine?_
> = "At what place exactly did you eat, where you got this killer food poisoning migraine?"
> = "At what place exactly did you eat, that you got this killer food poisoning migraine from?"
> = "What place exactly did you eat at, that you got this killer food poisoning migraine from?"



Also, what do you think of my three other sentences?


JungKim said:


> In fact, I think this does work:
> _I ate at this place _[_where I got this killer food poisoning migraine_]_.
> I ate at this place _[(_that_)_ I got this killer food poisoning migraine from_].
> Here, I think the bracketed clause is clearly a relative clause defining the noun _place_.
> 
> Now, does removing _from _from the second example suddenly make the bracketed clause a resultative clause? [Not a rhetorical question]
> _I ate at this place _[(_that_)_ I got this killer food poisoning migraine_].


----------



## manfy

JungKim said:


> Also, what do you think of my three other sentences?
> 
> 
> 
> Now, does removing _from _from the second example suddenly make the bracketed clause a resultative clause? [Not a rhetorical question]
> _I ate at this place _[(_that_)_ I got this killer food poisoning migraine_].
Click to expand...

Let's start with this one and simplify it further so we can focus on the structure (since the correlation of migraine with food poisonig is simply strange and just distracts from the things we're looking at):
This is the place *where *I got food poisoning.  clearly a relative clause; _place _is the antecedent of _where_​This is the place *that *I *got *food poisoning *from*.  clearly a relative clause; _place _is the antecedent of _that_​This is the place *that *I got food poisoning.  This seems ungrammatical; the that-clause seems to be a relative clause, but the semantics of _get _doesn't work with the pronoun _that_. You need the pronoun _where _or the verbal phrase '_get <something> from <somewhere>_'​If you change the structure to a declarative statement, it becomes even more obvious:
I got food poisoning this place.  clearly ungrammatical; the sentence needs the preposition _at _or _from_.​
This answers your question: yes, dropping the preposition can change the function of the subordinate clause and/or can make it ungrammatical.

PS: And before you ask, yes, the elliptical version is grammatical again:
This is the place I got food poisoning. ​
And that's justified because we mentally expand that version to "This is the place *where *I got food poisoning."
(And that's probably also the reason why native speakers like to drop the pronoun because you don't have to bother about what pronoun to choose. )


----------



## velisarius

I just noticed a similar construction in a piece of writing that is not particularly antique. In (British) travel-writer Colin Thubron's_ Among The Russians _(pub. 1983) we have the example:

_Cruelly I asked him how much time he had spent in the West that he should know such things._

It's clearly not a relative clause. I've never seen this particular use of a _that _clause examined in a grammar book, but it's difficult to know what to look for.


----------



## manfy

JungKim said:


> So do you disagree with Forero's alternative reading in post #38 (reposted here)?:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the "that" in question, if not a "such that", makes more sense as a "whence"/"wherefrom" than as a "whereat".
> 
> An alternative reading of the original sentence:
> _Where exactly did you eat, where you got this killer food poisoning migraine?_
Click to expand...

First off, the primary reading of the that-clause as "such that" seems most plausible, as Forero suggested.
The idea of reading _that _as _whence _or _wherefrom _seems ok, but I fear by making that substitution we're getting on a slippery slope. 

You can't always change one word for another and think everything else stays the same. 
I'm not enough of a grammarian to explain that in a concise, yet clear and definitive way, but I think that my example in #56 shows that seemingly minor changes can have a big change in the overall meaning of a sentence.

Velisarius has provided a good equivalent example:


> _Cruelly I asked him how much time he had spent in the West that he should know such things._


Here I would have a hard time interpreting 'that' in any other way than "such that". Somehow 'that' does not attach itself to any preceding noun; the reading as relative clause seems semantically blocked.


----------



## JungKim

velisarius said:


> I just noticed a similar construction in a piece of writing that is not particularly antique. In (British) travel-writer Colin Thubron's_ Among The Russians _(pub. 1983) we have the example:
> 
> _Cruelly I asked him how much time he had spent in the West that he should know such things._
> 
> It's clearly not a relative clause. I've never seen this particular use of a _that _clause examined in a grammar book, but it's difficult to know what to look for.


I'm not sure how your example is a similar construction.
In your example, the interrogative phrase is a noun phrase _how much time_, which the _that_-clause cannot have a gap for, whereas the OP's interrogative phrase is a prepositional phrase _where_ (adverb phrase in traditional grammar), which the _that_-clause can have a gap for.
Assuming the underlined clauses are relative clauses:
_he should know such things _+ NP 
_you got this killer migraine there _


----------



## JungKim

manfy said:


> Velisarius has provided a good equivalent example:
> 
> Here I would have a hard time interpreting 'that' in any other way than "such that". Somehow 'that' does not attach itself to any preceding noun; the reading as relative clause seems semantically blocked.


In my previous post, I have shown why the _that_-clause cannot be a relative clause in velisarius's example, and why I don't think the example is "a good equivalent example".

Again, everybody accepts CGEL's _where_ example:
_Where can we go for lunch that isn’t too expensive?_

But almost everybody seems to reject the relative reading of the OP:
_Where exactly did you eat that you got this killer food poisoning migraine?_

The only structural difference is that CGEL's example's gap in the relative clause functions as subject whereas the OP's gap in the relative clause functions as an adjunct. Does this mean that the interrogative word _where_ cannot be modified by a defining relative clause whose gap functions as an adjunct? If there's any truth to this proposition, why?


----------



## manfy

JungKim said:


> Again, everybody accepts CGEL's _where_ example:
> _Where can we go for lunch that isn’t too expensive?_
> 
> But almost everybody seems to reject the relative reading of the OP:
> _Where exactly did you eat that you got this killer food poisoning migraine?_


I think first and foremost it boils down to the fact that native speakers (and fluent second language speakers like myself) never even think of grammar when the sentence sounds normal and when the sentence is semantically clear.
Grammar - with all its rules and structures - only enters the mind if the sentence sounds off or if it is semantically strange.

Now just speaking for myself, the CGEL sentence is fairly clear. To be honest, I wouldn't have analyzed it like the CGEL linguists. I'd have thought that 'that' refers back to 'lunch', ie. a lunch that isn't too expensive. 
But after some additional thought, I can see that it could also refer back to 'where'. 

Here's how my mind resolves this:
_Where can we go for lunch that isn’t too expensive? = Where can we go for lunch[, summarizing thought for 'where can we go for lunch': *a place*] that isn’t too expensive?_
Now mentally, _that _refers back to _a place_, which in turn refers back to _where_.

If I try the same thing with the OP, it still doesn't work:
Where exactly did you eat[, *the place*] that you got this killer food poisoning migraine?
It still doesn't work because of the missing preposition 'from' at the end.

But the alternative with 'such that' works just fine:
Where exactly did you eat [*such*] that you got this killer food poisoning migraine?

All of that happens in a split second of course, and as soon as the meaning is clear, my mind is not trying to dissect it any further and I just continue listening to what the speaker is saying next.


----------



## JungKim

manfy said:


> Now just speaking for myself, the CGEL sentence is fairly clear. To be honest, I wouldn't have analyzed it like the CGEL linguists. I'd have thought that 'that' refers back to 'lunch', ie. a lunch that isn't too expensive.


I agree with all you have to say, except for your analysis that _that_ refers back to _lunch_.
Because, in order for your analysis to work, we need a determiner such as _a _(just as you yourself have said):
_Where can we go for a lunch that isn’t too expensive?_

Oh, and one more thing. Not all native speakers thought that the _that_-clause was a resultative clause.


----------

