# the hole <where> the tooth had been



## grammar-in-use

Hello everyone,

Dentists always ask questions when it is impossible for you to answer. My dentist had just pulled out one of my teeth and had told me to rest for a while. I tried to say something, but my mouth was full of cotton wool. He knew I collected match boxes and asked me whether my collection was growing. He then asked me how my brother was and whether I liked my new job in London. In answer to these questions I either nodded or made strange noises. Meanwhile, my tongue was busy searching out the hole *where* the tooth had been. (Source: 新概念英语第二册-Lesson 48_沪江英语学习网)

Question:
Does the sentence:
a. My tongue was busy searching out the hole *where* the tooth had been.
mean:
a1. My tongue was busy searching out the hole *in which* the tooth had been.
or
a2. My tongue was busy searching out the hole *in that place (of the gum) where* the tooth had been.
?
I'd really appreciate any comments.


----------



## The Newt

"In which the tooth had been" is how I read it.


----------



## grammar-in-use

The Newt said:


> "In which the tooth had been" is how I read it.


Thank you for your quick reply.
In that case it means that the tooth (or the teeth of humans) grows in a hole, doesn't it?
Doesn't it mean "There was a hole where the tooth had been"? That is, the hole was *in the place where* the tooth had been, no?


----------



## The Newt

grammar-in-use said:


> Thank you for your quick reply.
> In that case it means that the tooth (or the teeth of humans) grows in a hole, doesn't it?
> Doesn't it mean "There was a hole where the tooth had been"? That is, the hole was in the place where the tooth had been, no?


I don't really follow the distinction you're making. The tooth fell out and left a hole.


----------



## grammar-in-use

The Newt said:


> I don't really follow the distinction you're making. The tooth fell out and left a hole.


But there was no hole before the tooth was pulled out. "In which the tooth had been" suggests to me that there was a hole and the tooth grew there in the hole.


----------



## The Newt

grammar-in-use said:


> But there was no hole before the tooth was pulled out. "In which the tooth had been" suggests to me that there was a hole and the tooth grew there in the hole.


It's a potential hole. It's a pocket that formerly was filled but which now is empty.


----------



## grammar-in-use

The Newt said:


> It's a potential hole. It's a pocket that formerly was filled but which now is empty.


How about the interpretation of it as “the hole was *in the place where* the tooth had been”?


----------



## lingobingo

Maybe try using *gap* instead of *hole*? And stick to *where*, which is by far the most natural way to say this. It’s not clear why you’re making such a big deal of a simple statement.

My tongue was searching for the gap where my tooth had been / the gap [in my teeth] left by that tooth being extracted​


----------



## Myridon

There's a gap between the two other teeth above the gum line, but after you've just had one pulled, there's a hole in your gum where the root was.


----------



## grammar-in-use

Myridon said:


> there's a hole *in your gum where* the root was.


Yes, that's exactly how I understand it.
(1). There is a hole in the gum where the tooth was.
-->(2). There was a hole *in the gum where* the tooth had been.
-->(3). There was a hole *where* the tooth had been.
This doesn't mean the tooth had been in the hole (because the "*where*" in (3) doesn't refer back to the preceding "hole", does it?). In my view, it just means that the tooth had been in the place (or in the part of the gum) which was now (or had now become) the hole, considering that the human teeth do not grow in the hole but in the gum. Am I wrong?


----------



## Myridon

Yes, removing the root of the tooth from the gum created a hole where there had never been a hole before.  The tooth originally grew up through the gum and there was never an "empty" space - a hole.


----------



## sdgraham

As a side note, a formal name for the aforementioned hole seems to be "socket."
How To Reduce The Chance Of Dry Sockets | Periodontal Associates of Memphis


----------



## grammar-in-use

Myridon said:


> Yes, removing the root of the tooth from the gum created a hole where there had never been a hole before.  The tooth originally grew up through the gum and there was never an "empty" space - a hole.


Exactly!  
That's why I tend to take the original sentence to mean *a2* below, rather than a1.


grammar-in-use said:


> a. My tongue was busy searching out the hole *where* the tooth had been.
> mean:
> a1. My tongue was busy searching out the hole *in which* the tooth had been.
> or
> *a2*. My tongue was busy searching out the hole *in that part of the gum where* the tooth had been.
> ?


And I would say that a1 and a2 are intrinsically (logically and semantically) different. I may be wrong...or may be making too big a fuss over the trivial thing. But somehow I'd just think they are different.


----------



## grammar-in-use

sdgraham said:


> As a side note, a formal name for the aforementioned hole seems to be "socket."
> How To Reduce The Chance Of Dry Sockets | Periodontal Associates of Memphis


Thank you for that.
By the way, how would you look at the "where" in the OP? Does it mean "in the part of the gum where", or "in which", referring to the "hole"?


----------



## lingobingo

Trust me, if you’d just had an extraction, the last thing you’d want to do is stick your tongue into the empty socket and make it bleed all the more!  Hence my suggestion of its meaning being the gap that had now opened up where the tooth had been.


----------



## Myridon

lingobingo said:


> Trust me, if you’d just had an extraction, the last thing you’d want to do is stick your tongue into the empty socket and make it bleed all the more!  Hence my suggestion of its meaning being the gap that had now opened up where the tooth had been.


I've done it many times.  It takes weeks to heal over.  It's impossible to resist!

Some of us seem to be thinking the root of the tooth is not part of the tooth somehow. The hole is where the (root of the) tooth was.


----------



## grammar-in-use

lingobingo said:


> Trust me, if you’d just had an extraction, the last thing you’d want to do is stick your tongue into the empty socket and make it bleed all the more!


Sure thing!  


lingobingo said:


> its meaning being the gap that had now opened up *where* the tooth had been.


I would understand that both your "(...opened up) _*where* the tooth had been_" above and the original "(...the hole) _*where* the tooth had been_" mean "_*in the place where* the tooth had been_". In short, the "where" is not a relative but fused relative.


----------



## grammar-in-use

Myridon said:


> The hole is where the (root of the) tooth was.


I agree with you! 
It means that the hole is in the place where the (root of the) tooth was. Then can we directly say "the (root of the) tooth was in the hole"? I don't know...
Technically, the tooth was in the place which has now become a hole. In other words, the hole is (in the place) where the tooth was.


----------



## Edinburgher

grammar-in-use said:


> And I would say that a1 and a2 are intrinsically (logically and semantically) different. I may be wrong...or may be making too big a fuss over the trivial thing. But somehow I'd just think they are different.


I agree that (a1) and (a2) are logically different.  I would also say that (a) and (a1) are logically the same.  They are both ambiguous as to whether the tongue was probing into the gap where the non-root part of the tooth had been or was probing into the hole in the gum where the root had been.
In practice the tongue was probably probing both.  The meanings of (a) and (a1) include the meaning of (a2).


grammar-in-use said:


> In short, the "where" is not a relative but fused relative.


I don't think so.  A fused relative is a relative pronoun that has no external antecedent, and effectively acts as its own antecedent.  Here, however, "hole" or "gap" is clearly the external antecedent.  The only doubt is whether the speaker means the hole (gap) in the line of teeth, or the hole (socket) where the root had been.  The grammar is no help in resolving this ambiguity.


----------



## Rover_KE

sdgraham said:


> As a side note, a formal name for the aforementioned hole seems to be "socket."



Yes — my dentist, Phil Macavity, confirms that it's a socket.


----------



## grammar-in-use

Edinburgher said:


> Here, however, "hole" or "gap" is clearly the external antecedent.


Thank you for your explanation. This is where we disagree. I don't think the "hole" is an antecedent that the "where" refers to. 
I'd like to take "where the tooth had been" to mean "in the place where the tooth had been", which in turn acts as a post-modifier of the "hole", as in (3) below.

(1). This is the house *where* I live. ---This "*where*" is a relative adverb, introducing a relative clause with "where" referring to "house".
(2). This is *where* I live. ---This "*where*" is a fused relative adverb, meaning "the place where".
(3). Some people *where* I live don't like it. ---This "*where*" is also a fused relative adverb, meaning "in the place where".
(4). My tongue was busy searching out the hole *where* the tooth had been. ---This "*where*" is also a fused relative adverb, meaning "in the place where", the same as in (3).


----------



## Forero

To me, "where" here has to mean "at the place (socket in the gum, or gap in the line of teeth) where". The "hole" is just the place where the tooth had been but no longer was. It became a hole when the tooth was removed.

The whole clause "where the tooth had been" can be thought of as either an adverbial of place or a defining clause for "hole", and this "where" not only subordinates its clause but also plays the same role within that clause as "here" or "there" in "The tooth had been here/there." That is, it plays the role of complement of "been", which I believe can be thought of as an adverb of place.


----------



## Edinburgher

In your examples (2) and (3) you can actually make the substitutions, replacing "where" with the meanings you give them:
_2: This is *the place where* I live.
3: Some people *in the place where* I live don't like it._

If you make the same substitution in (4), you get:
_My tongue was busy searching out the hole *in the place where* the tooth had been._

This is ambiguous: The in-phrase could as well be telling us where the tongue was searching, or where the hole was.
To make it unambiguously mean the latter, we could add "that was":
_My tongue was busy searching out the hole *that was* in the place where the tooth had been._
But if we do that, we now have a full-blown relative clause, with "that" referring to "hole", and the whole sentence is then equivalent to (and more simply expressed as):
_My tongue was busy searching out the hole *in which* the tooth had been._

There doesn't appear to be any difference in meaning between the "in which" version and the "in the place where" version.  They both mean that the tongue was searching out a hole.  What hole?  The hole formerly occupied by the tooth.  Neither version makes clear whether "hole" means the now empty socket where the root had been, or the gap in the visible tooth-line where the visible part of the tooth had been.


----------



## Packard

lingobingo said:


> Trust me, if you’d just had an extraction, the last thing you’d want to do is stick your tongue into the empty socket and make it bleed all the more!  Hence my suggestion of its meaning being the gap that had now opened up where the tooth had been.


A day or two later, it might be an obsession to feel for the hole.  A couple of weeks later all that would remain is a gap.  

If it is a child, then it could remain tender as the new tooth erupts.


----------



## lingobingo

grammar-in-use said:


> Thank you for your explanation. This is where we disagree. I don't think the "hole" is an antecedent that the "where" refers to.
> I'd like to take "where the tooth had been" to mean "in the place where the tooth had been", which in turn acts as a post-modifier of the "hole", as in (3) below.
> 
> (1). This is the house *where* I live. ---This "*where*" is a relative adverb, introducing a relative clause with "where" referring to "house".
> (2). This is *where* I live. ---This "*where*" is a fused relative adverb, meaning "the place where".
> (3). Some people *where* I live don't like it. ---This "*where*" is also a fused relative adverb, meaning "in the place where".
> (4). My tongue was busy searching out the hole *where* the tooth had been. ---This "*where*" is also a fused relative adverb, meaning "in the place where", the same as in (3).


(1) *the house where* (= in which) I live — *where* modifies *the house* so is a bound rather than a free relative
(4) *the hole where* (= in which) the tooth had been — *where* modifies *the hole* so is a bound rather than a free relative


----------



## grammar-in-use

Forero said:


> To me, "where" here has to mean "at the place (socket in the gum, or gap in the line of teeth) where". The "hole" is just the place where the tooth had been but no longer was. It became a hole when the tooth was removed.


I couldn't agree with you more! Thank you.


Forero said:


> The whole clause "where the tooth had been" can be thought of as either an adverbial of place or a defining clause for "hole", and this "where" not only subordinates its clause but plays the same role within that clause as "here" or "there" in "The tooth had been here/there." That is, it plays the role of complement of "been", which I believe can be thought of as an adverb of place.


That's exactly how I look at the "where" in question. It does not refer to the preceding "hole" and then play the role of complement of "been", as a relative pronoun "where" necessarily does.
To my understanding, where-clauses can be treated as (a). clauses, (b). NPs, or (c). PPs modifying verbs or nouns, as illustrated below:

(1). This is the house *where* I live.
where I live =*in which* I live. This where-clause is a typical relative clause.

(2). This is *where* I live.
where I live =*the place where* I live. This where-clause is intrinsically an NP.

(3). He lives *where* I live.
where I live =*in the place where* I live. This where-clause is intrinsically a PP modifying the verb "lives".

(4). Some people *where* I live don't like it.
where I live =*in the place where* I live. This where-clause is intrinsically a PP modifying the *noun* "people".

(5). My tongue was busy searching out the hole *where* the tooth had been.
Here, "where the tooth had been" can be comparable to "where I live" in (4), both being PPs modifying *nouns* ("people" and "hole").

In relative clauses as in (1), "where" can be replaced by "in which", while in (2)/(3)/(4), "where" cannot be changed to "in which". So, I don't understand how you get "*in which* the tooth had been" from "*that was* in the place where the tooth had been".


Edinburgher said:


> _My tongue was busy searching out the hole *that was* in the place where the tooth had been._
> But if we do that, we now have a full-blown relative clause, with "that" referring to "hole", and the whole sentence is then equivalent to (and more simply expressed as):
> _My tongue was busy searching out the hole *in which* the tooth had been._


----------



## grammar-in-use

lingobingo said:


> (1) *the house where* (= in which) I live — *where* modifies *the house* so is a bound rather than a free relative
> (4) *the hole where* (= in which) the tooth had been — *where* modifies *the hole* so is a bound rather than a free relative


I would say the two "where"s work differently, as I explained in post 26.


----------



## lingobingo

Clearly we disagree.


----------



## grammar-in-use

lingobingo said:


> Clearly we disagree.


I know. 
Our disagreement largely depends on how we see the "hole".
Does it mean exactly the same as "socket"? If it does, then I would definitely agree with you - that this "where" is used to introduce a relative clause, with the "hole" or "socket" as its antecedent. To me, the sentence "_My tongue was busy searching out the socket *where (=in which)* the tooth had been_" is perfectly fine, as the human teeth grow in the socket.
On the other hand, if we take the "hole" to mean the *wound* left when the tooth was removed, then I would understand "where" as "in the place where", as our teeth do not grow in the "hole" or "wound". In this case, can we still take it to mean "_My tongue was busy searching out the *wound* *where (=in which)* the tooth had been_"? Or would it be _a bit_ better to interpret it as "_My tongue was busy searching out the *wound* *where (=in the place where)* the tooth had been_"?


----------



## lingobingo

Meanwhile, my tongue was busy searching out the hole *where* the tooth had been. (bound relative)
What was it looking for? The hole.​Which hole? The one where the tooth had been.​
Meanwhile, my tongue was busy searching out *where* the tooth had been. (free relative)
What was it looking for? Where the tooth had been.​


----------



## Forero

I prefer to say "at the place" rather than "in the place" in this context.

As I see it, a gap in the person's dentition or a hollow in the person's gum, either of which can be called a "hole", now occupies the same place formerly occupied by the tooth. When the tooth was there, it was just a place, not a hole (gap or hollow).

So the "where" in question means "at the place at which", not "the place in/at which", and not "in/at which". The whole "where" clause is a modifier, not an NP, and the word "where" itself is also a modifier, not an NP.


----------



## lentulax

'Roderick stared in disbelief at the hole where that morning his house had stood' [The house had been built over old mine-workings; he was called back  from work, and found his house had disappeared down a sink-hole.]

In what world would anyone understand that his house had been built in a hole (which was now just a hole without a house in it)? That might be the strictly 'logical' meaning, but I don't understand why logical coherence is considered an inevitable component in analysing or describing language usage. What hole was he staring at? The hole where his house had stood. That's how it's understood, immediately and unequivocally.

The semantic problem centres on the word 'hole' - a hole may be a cavity into which something may be put which may be the same dimensions as, or less than , the capacity of the hole , and may project beyond tpe hole; a hole may also be the space vacated by the removal of something , in other words , the 'hole'* is *the place once occupied by something else . Context makes clear what is meant. If the hole is where the house was, could we say (#18) 'the house had been  in the hole'? Of course we couldn 't. If you substitute , in your dental example, the more precise word 'socket' for 'hole', it's perfectly possible to say that the tooth had been in the socket.


----------



## grammar-in-use

Forero said:


> So the "where" in question means "at the place at which", not "the place in/at which", and not "in/at which".


I agree!
Here are some other similar sentences that I've found online, which might help support our "at the place at which" analysis:
a. After removal, there will be *holes in the back of your mouth where* you teeth were.
b. Why do I still have a *hole where* my tooth was extracted (after six weeks)?
c. A socket appears as a *hole in the jawbone where* a tooth was previously.



lentulax said:


> If you substitute , in your dental example, the more precise word 'socket' for 'hole', it's perfectly possible to say that the tooth had been in the socket.


I agree with it, as I said in #29:


grammar-in-use said:


> To me, the sentence "_My tongue was busy searching out the socket *where (=in which)* the tooth had been_" is perfectly fine, as the human teeth grow in the socket.


I've read your reply a couple of times, and am trying to get your take on the issue. Are you saying that you also agree with Forero's (and my) analysis of "where" in the OP as "at the place at which"?


lentulax said:


> If the hole is where the house was, could we say (#18) 'the house had been in the hole'? Of course we couldn 't.


----------



## elroy

grammar-in-use said:


> Does the sentence:
> a. My tongue was busy searching out the hole *where* the tooth had been.
> mean:
> a1. My tongue was busy searching out the hole *in which* the tooth had been.
> or
> a2. My tongue was busy searching out the hole *in that place (of the gum) where* the tooth had been.
> ?


a2.


----------



## lentulax

Briefly : the 'hole' is not '*in* the place in which the tooth had been'; it *is *the place in which the tooth had been*. *


----------



## grammar-in-use

lentulax said:


> Briefly : the 'hole' is not '*in* the place in which the tooth had been'; it *is *the place in which the tooth had been*. *


Then how would you comment on the following sentences?


grammar-in-use said:


> a. After removal, there will be *holes in the back of your mouth where* you teeth were.
> b. Why do I still have a *hole where* my tooth was extracted (after six weeks)?
> c. A socket appears as a *hole in the jawbone where* a tooth was previously.





lentulax said:


> The hole *where* his house had stood.


Can it be interpreted as “the hole *in* *which* his house had stood” or “the hole *in* *the* *place* *where* his house had stood” (or either)?


----------



## PaulQ

grammar-in-use said:


> Does the sentence:
> a. My tongue was busy searching out the hole *where* the tooth had been.
> mean:
> a1. My tongue was busy searching out the hole *in which* the tooth had been.


Semantically, they are both the same:

*Where *and *in which* (and *at/on which*) are locative adverbials

*Where *is usually understood as* "at/in/on which* place.*"*


----------



## grammar-in-use

PaulQ said:


> *Where *is usually understood as* "at/in/on which* place.*"*


But *where* can also usually be understood as "*at/in/on the place where*”, can’t it? Does this interpretation apply to the *where* in question?


----------



## Hermione Golightly

It's the hole in the gum where the root of the tooth had been. But we all know that the whole tooth wasn't in the root socket. It's easy to overthink.


----------



## nightowl666

I think a, a1 and a2 are similar in meaning. Nobody would misunderstand it. The author used the word "hole", because it happened after the dentist had extracted his tooth. If the author had not his tooth extracted, he would never use "hole" because it would not exist. Let me make another analogy. After a bomb explosion,  the place where the house had been built became a pit. So we can say: we are searching the pit where the house was built. But nobody would think that the house had been built in the pit before. There was no pit before the bomb blast. So back to your question, there was no hole before the tooth had been extracted. You can say the tooth grew in that hole. But remember when it was growing there, there was no hole, or rather the hole was filled with a tooth.

The original sentence is definitely correct. Even in Chinese, it is expressed the same way. Same logic.


----------



## lentulax

grammar-in-use said:


> 'The hole where his house had stood'
> 
> Can it be interpreted as “the hole *in* *which* his house had stood” or “the hole *in* *the* *place* *where* his house had stood” (or either)?


Yes, my' house' sentence was an ill-considered example; the hole you see  now and the house that stood there very obviously did not occupy exactly the same space - the hole is not the space left empty when the house disappeared. Sorry for confusing the issue.

Let's start again :
You asked :
Does the sentence:
a. My tongue was busy searching out the hole where the tooth had been.
mean:
a1. My tongue was busy searching out the hole in which the tooth had been.
or
a2. My tongue was busy searching out the hole in that place (of the gum) where the tooth had been.
?

The Newt opted for a1, and you asked ,'In that case it means that the tooth (or the teeth of humans) grows in a hole, doesn't it?' , to which the answer is 'No.' In my view, the meaning of an English sentence is what it conveys to English readers. In this case, English readers are familiar with the notion of a 'hole' in the sense of the empty space left when what had occupied that space has been removed, and *in this context *'hole' clearly has that sense. They are also familiar with human teeth and their development. I don't believe that any English reader would take it as meaning that human teeth grow in a hole. The fact that this might be a logical possibility is beside the point; on what grounds do you suggest that logic is the basis of language usage? You will notice that you have, perhaps unconsciously, replaced the word 'been' with 'grows', giving a greater air of plausibility to your 'logical' interpretation; the logical interpretation would simply be that there was a hole there before the tooth, and that the tooth had most recently filled that hole (perhaps the tooth fairy had been at work) - not a meaning that would be entertained by any English speaker. So a1 would be the natural choice  of those given; you might say that a2 is also quite feasible as a restatement, though the hole is not 'in' the place  the tooth had occupied - it is the place; logically you might argue that the 'place' might have been much more extensive  than the tooth, but we wouldn't consider that possibility; the semantic flexibility of 'hole' and 'place' is restricted and defined by the context. What we understand from the original is 'the hole that has been left by the extraction of the tooth'; I would say that on balance more of this meaning is conveyed by a1 than a2.

EDIT - cross-posted with last two contributions.


----------



## grammar-in-use

Thanks again, Lentulax.


lentulax said:


> the 'hole' is not '*in* the place in which the tooth had been'; it *is *the place in which the tooth had been*.*


This remark of yours, I think, is a good perspective from which to reconsider the "hole" question. It's helpful to me in rethinking about it otherwise. There are other native speakers, however, looking at it as I do, as you will have noticed above.


Forero said:


> To me, "where" here has to mean "at the place (socket in the gum, or gap in the line of teeth) where".


Besides, you natives also write sentences like below:


grammar-in-use said:


> a. After removal, there will be *holes in the back of your mouth where* you teeth were.
> b. Why do I still have a *hole where* my tooth was extracted (after six weeks)?
> c. A socket appears as a *hole in the jawbone where* a tooth was previously.


All the three examples are in support of our "at/in the place where" analysis, I guess. For example,
a. =a1. After removal, there will be holes *where (=in the back of your mouth where)* you teeth were.
Can you say for (b) above "Why do I still have a hole *in which* my tooth was extracted"?


----------



## lentulax

grammar-in-use said:


> Can you say for (b) above "Why do I still have a hole *in which* my tooth was extracted"?


Obviously not - but why should you want to ? There is a clear difference between 'where my tooth was' [it was '*in*...']  and .where my tooth was extracted' [it was extracted '*from.*..']; and '*a* hole' is not the same as '*the* hole'; it is noiceable that none of the three sentences you repeat in your last post have 'the hole' or 'the holes', rather than 'a hole' or 'holes'. What about ' Why has the hole where my tooth was extracted not healed up yet?' - 'the hole f*rom which *my tooth was extracted' ? Your question wasn't whether 'where' could in some sentences be interpreted as meaning 'in the place where' (which of course is true), but whether that was the best (or only acceptable) interpretation in the sentence you originally quoted.


----------

