# What: pronoun or conjunction



## a cooperator

Hi,

1- I got what I asked for.
2- I wish that I knew what was going to happen
In the two sentences above 
First:Which part of speech is "what" a relative pronoun or subordinate conjunction? Could you possibly tell me how I can relatively quickly distinguish whether or not the words like "what, which, who, how, where, when and whom are relative pronouns or subordinate conjunctions?

Finally: Why is the noun clause in the second sentence doesn't have a subject in spite of I know that every verb must have a subject?


Thanks in advance,


----------



## entangledbank

'What' is a relative pronoun in both. It is equivalent to something like 'the thing which', that is a noun phrase in the main clause plus a pronoun in the relative clause. It combines the two functions.

I got what I asked for. = I got the thing which I asked for. (relative clause is underlined)
The underlined parts are the relative clauses, but with 'what' the clause makes the object of the main verb:
I got what I asked for. = I got the thing which I asked for. (object is underlined)

In your second sentence, 'what' _is_ the subject of 'was'.


----------



## PaulQ

It would probably help you to look here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/what there are plenty of examples.


----------



## a cooperator

entangledbank said:


> 'What' is a relative pronoun in both. It is equivalent to something like 'the thing which', that is a noun phrase in the main clause plus a pronoun in the relative clause. It combines the two functions.
> 
> I got what I asked for. = I got the thing which I asked for. (relative clause is underlined)
> The underlined parts are the relative clauses, but with 'what' the clause makes the object of the main verb:
> I got what I asked for. = I got the thing which I asked for. (object is underlined)
> 
> In your second sentence, 'what' _is_ the subject of 'was'.


Thanks a lot, however, 
First: as far as I know that adjctival[relative] clause is preceded by a discribed noun. However, in this sentence "I got what I asked for" the relative pronoun "what" isn't preceded with a noun
Second: in both "I got what I asked for. = I got the thing which I asked for."  "which" and what" are only as an object for the relative clause and not all the relative clause is an object of the main verb "got".
Finally: you said ''what' _is_ the subject of 'was' . However, as far as I know that "what" is an object of "know" because know is a transitive verb.


----------



## PaulQ

Further to entagledbanks excellent post, 

I got what I asked for. There are two verbs so there will be two subjects and two objects. 

To simplify, let us change *asked for* to *requested*

Then: *Your example, as an example, is faulty*. *What *is often used to mean *that which*. It is so common that it is accepted but when examining *what*'s function, it has to be returned to its original form. So, for clarity, let us expand *what *to *that which*

I............. got...... that, which I requested
Subject... verb.......... object

I got that, which... (*that *is a pronoun, *which *is a relative pronoun introducing a clause adjectival to *that*)

Q:"Which sort of "*that*" did you get?" 
A: "I got the sort of *that *which I requested" - *which I requested* may be seen as a relative adjectival clause to *that*.

That which I got..... was....... that which I requested
.....Subject............verb............predicate object

Does that help?


----------



## Loob

It's an interesting question, a cooperator.

Personally, I'd categorise "what" rather differently in your two sentences.

In "I got what I asked for", I'd see "what as a "fused relative" - a relative which combines the antecedent with the relative pronoun.  In other words, I'd say that "what" = "that which" or "the thing which", where "that" (or "the thing") is the antecedent, and "which" is the relative pronoun.

In "I wish I knew what was going to happen", I would see "what" differently.  I would see this as an example of 'reported speech', with "what" as an interrogative pronoun:
Direct speech: "What is going to happen?"
Indirect speech: _I wish I knew what was going to happen_.


----------



## a cooperator

PaulQ said:


> Further to entagledbanks excellent post,
> 
> I got what I asked for. There are two verbs so there will be two subjects and two objects.
> 
> To simplify, let us change *asked for* to *requested*
> 
> Then: *Your example, as an example, is faulty*. *What *is often used to mean *that which*. It is so common that it is accepted but when examining *what*'s function, it has to be returned to its original form. So, for clarity, let us expand *what *to *that which*
> 
> I............. got...... that, which I requested
> Subject... verb.......... object
> 
> I got that, which... (*that *is a pronoun, *which *is a relative pronoun introducing a clause adjectival to *that*)
> 
> Q:"Which sort of "*that*" did you get?"
> A: "I got the sort of *that *which I requested" - *which I requested* may be seen as a relative adjectival clause to *that*.
> 
> That which I got..... was....... that which I requested
> .....Subject............verb............predicate object
> 
> Does that help?



Your explanation is quite excellent. On the other hand, it hasn't been answered my question about "I wish that I knew what was going to happen" because entangledbank said ''what' _is_ the subject of 'was' . However, as far as I know that "what" is an object of "know" because know is a transitive verb. So the verbal phrase "was going" doesn't have a subject.


----------



## Loob

The object of "knew" is the clause "what was going to happen".  
The subject of "was going to happen" is "what".


----------



## a cooperator

Loob said:


> The object of "knew" is the clause "what was going to happen".
> The subject of "was going to happen" is "what".


Thank you so much indeed, I hope you reple me on this similar inquiry to close this case. in this indirect question "Do you know who is winning the election?"  "who" is a subject of the verbal phrase "is winning"? and who is a subordinate conjunction.


----------



## Loob

a cooperator said:


> Thank you so much indeed, I hope you reple me on this similar inquiry to close this case. in this indirect question "Do you know who is winning the election?"  "who" is a subject of the verbal phrase "is winning"? and who is a subordinate conjunction.


"Who" is certainly the subject of "who is winning the election".

"Who" is not, to my mind, a subordinate conjunction.  I don't think "who" can ever be a conjunction.


----------



## a cooperator

a cooperator said:


> Thank you so much indeed, I hope you reple me on this similar inquiry to close this case. in this indirect question "Do you know who is winning the election?" "who" is a subject of the verbal phrase "is winning"? and who is a subordinate conjunction.





Loob said:


> "Who" is certainly the subject of "who is winning the election".
> 
> "Who" is not, to my mind, a subordinate conjunction. I don't think "who" can ever be a conjunction.



Isn't "who is winning the election" a noun clause that needs the conjunction "who" to join it with the main clause "Do you know"? For instance, in this sentence "Tell me who wrote the letter" and "Do you know who you are speaking to?"

My understanding is that "who" in all three sentences is "subordinate conjunction" and what I underlined is a noun clause.

Would you mind correcting them for me if I was wrong?


----------



## JulianStuart

This statement should make it clear that who is a relative pronoun and just because it begins a subordinate clause, does not make it a subordinate conjunction





> A subordinate clause—also called a dependent clause—will begin with a subordinate conjunction *or* a relative pronoun and will contain both a subject and a verb. This combination of words will not (necessarily) form a complete sentence.


----------



## PaulQ

cooperator,
Could you tell me how
"Do you know who is winning the election?"
"Tell me who wrote the letter"

differ from

"Do you know John is winning the election?"
"Tell me John wrote the letter"

"Do you know who you are speaking to?" is *not *the same at all. It is 

"....Do.............. you...... know....... *to whom* ........you.... are speaking?"
Auxilliary Verb.. subject.. verb..... indirect object... subject..... verb


----------



## a cooperator

JulianStuart said:


> This statement should make it clear that who is a relative pronoun and just because it begins a subordinate clause, does not make it a subordinate conjunction



But I have read that "who wrote the letter" in "Tell me who wrote the letter." is a noun clause because it isn't preceded by a discribed noun. And you said that "who" is a relative pronoun.How will "who" be a relative pronoun and the "who wrote the letter" isn't a relative clause. As far as I know that relative pronoun introduces the relative[adjective] clause. On the othere hand, "who" is a conjunction[ I am not quite sure whether or not it is a subordinate conjunction] in this "Tell me who wrote the letter." to introduces the noun clause " who wrote the letter.".
On the other hand, "who" is relative pronoun here"I know the man who sent this letter" because there is a described noun "man" that precedes the relative clause.


----------



## a cooperator

PaulQ said:


> cooperator,
> Could you tell me how
> "Do you know who is winning the election?"
> "Tell me who wrote the letter"
> 
> differ from
> 
> "Do you know John is winning the election?"
> "Tell me John wrote the letter"
> 
> "Do you know who you are speaking to?" is *not *the same at all. It is
> 
> "....Do.............. you...... know....... *to whom* ........you.... are speaking?"
> Auxilliary Verb.. subject.. verb..... indirect object... subject..... verb



I am not pretty sure what the difference is, however, what I know is: both
"Do you know who is winning the election?"
"Tell me who wrote the letter"
are a noun clauses because there isn't any described noun[name] before the what I underlined(a noun clause).

Also, both
"Do you know John is winning the election?"
"Tell me John wrote the letter"
are noun clauses, however, the conjunction"that" is omitted because "that" can be omitted in noun clauses.

In addition, I was expected that what I underlined in both "Do you know who you are speaking to?" and "Do you know to whom you are speaking ?" is a noun clause.


On the other hand, "who" is a relative pronoun here"I know the man who sent this letter" because there is described noun "man" that precedes the relative clause.

It would be quite greatly appreciated if you could tell me the correct. And I hope you are a little more explicit. Because I am quite confused between these topics.


----------



## neal41

Cooperator:

You are confused about terminology.  'What' and 'who' are definitively not subordinate conjunctions.  I believe that they are relative pronouns, but I am a little unsure about the terminology myself.  Remember that these terms are parts of a model that linguists have created in order to better understand the very complex phenomenon of language.  Different linguists develop different models with different terminology.

'Since' in "Since I saw you last, I have remarried" and 'if' in "If I were here, I would help you" are subordinate conjunctions.


----------



## neal41

a cooperator said:


> Hi,
> 
> 1- I got what I asked for.
> 2- I wish that I knew what was going to happen
> 
> Finally: Why is the noun clause in the second sentence doesn't have a subject in spite of I know that every verb must have a subject?
> ,



It may be helpful to point out that there are *3* verbs in the second sentence.  'Wish' is the verb in the main clause.  The direct object in the main clause is the subordinate clause 'that I knew what was going to happen'.  That is what you are wishing for.  The word 'that' which introduces the subordinate clause plays no syntactic role in it.  The subject of the SC is 'I', the verb is 'knew', and the DO is another SC, namely, 'what was going to happen'.  In this lower level SC 'what' is the subject.

In the first sentence the SC 'what I asked for' is the DO of the verb 'got'.  Within the SC 'what' might be regarded as the object of the preposition 'for' or as the DO of the prepositional verb 'ask for'.


----------



## PaulQ

a cooperator said:


> My understanding is that "who" in all three sentences is "subordinate conjunction"


 That is why I changed "*who*" to "*John*"


----------



## JulianStuart

> As far as I know that relative pronoun introduces the relative[adjective] clause.


*That is not the only thing a relative pronoun can do* - you only know part of the information and other people are trying to help you learn more - so please read carefully what they write (for example, I already said this in post # 12 ).

I wrote to Bill, *who is winning the election*.
In that case the who is a *relative pronoun introducing a relative (adjectival) clause* because it relates to Bill (it is an adjectival clause describing him). *Who is the subject of the clause.*

I want to know *who is winning the election*.
In this case who is a *relative pronoun introducing a noun clause*. I want to know X. X is the object of the verb know and therefore it is a noun (or in this case a noun clause) - it is in the form of an indirect question.  *Who is the subject of the clause.*


----------



## a cooperator

PaulQ said:


> That is why I changed "*who*" to "*John*"



Could you be a little more explicit, Mr PaulQ, Please?

And you didn't tell me whether "who" is a subordinate conjunction or not.


----------



## PaulQ

As *John *is not a subordinate conjunction, then we can assume that *who *is not.


----------



## JulianStuart

JulianStuart said:


> *That is not the only thing a relative pronoun can do* - you only know part of the information and other people are trying to help you learn more - so please read carefully what they write (for example, I already said this in post # 12 ).
> 
> I wrote to Bill, *who is winning the election*.
> In that case the* who is a relative pronoun introducing a relative (adjectival) clause* because it relates to Bill (it is an adjectival clause describing him). *Who is the subject of the clause.*
> 
> I want to know *who is winning the election*.
> In this case* who is a relative pronoun introducing a noun clause*. I want to know X. X is the object of the verb know and therefore it is a noun (or in this case a noun clause) - it is in the form of an indirect question.  *Who is the subject of the clause.*





a cooperator said:


> Could you be a little more explicit, Mr PaulQ, Please?
> 
> And you didn't tell me whether "who" is a subordinate conjunction or not.


But if you read the post above - which I hope you did - you will see that who is not a subordinate conjunction, it is a RELATIVE PRONOUN.


----------



## a cooperator

JulianStuart said:


> *That is not the only thing a relative pronoun can do* - you only know part of the information and other people are trying to help you learn more - so please read carefully what they write (for example, I already said this in post # 12 ).
> 
> I wrote to Bill, *who is winning the election*.
> In that case the who is a *relative pronoun introducing a relative (adjectival) clause* because it relates to Bill (it is an adjectival clause describing him). *Who is the subject of the clause.*
> 
> I want to know *who is winning the election*.
> In this case who is a *relative pronoun introducing a noun clause*. I want to know X. X is the object of the verb know and therefore it is a noun (or in this case a noun clause) - it is in the form of an indirect question. *Who is the subject of the clause.*



Thanks for you conformation, I have read in a book that all noun clauses are introduced with a conjunction and not a pronoun. This is quite the most strange that "conjunction" that introduces a noun clause calls a relative pronoun. 

Could you possibly give me an example where "who" and "what" are used as a subordinate conjunction? I quite know "that, which, when, and because" can be used as a subordinate conjunction.


----------



## JulianStuart

Please provide a source to the "book you have read" - the definition that writer uses for subordinate conjunction may allow a word to be both a subordinate conjunction and a relative pronoun at the same time.


----------



## lucas-sp

"Because" is a subordinating conjunction. I don't think anybody except you is claiming that "who" is a subordinating conjunction. (So _you_ should be "giving _us_ an example where 'who' and 'what' are used as subordinate conjunctions.")

The clause "who is winning the election" in the sentence "I want to know *who is winning the election*" is a *fused relative clause*. Relative clauses are normally adjectives or adverbs, but they can become "fused" when their subject and relative pronoun merge. So they can be noun clauses too. And it's not fair to say that there "isn't a subject"; in fact, this is a special case where the same word does double-duty as the subject and the pronoun.

Throw the book that says noun clauses can't be introduced with a pronoun away. That makes no sense. ("Whoever" seems like an obvious exception there.)

In fact, I'd advise not worrying too much about this stuff. I get the sense that these nuances of grammar - which really don't matter in terms of successful performance and comprehension of English - are confusing you. Wouldn't it be better to ask what "who" or "what" means? Try _paraphrasing_the sentence (writing it again in a different way in your own words, but with the same meaning), rather than trying to determine the parts of speech in it.


----------



## a cooperator

entangledbank said:


> 'What' is a relative pronoun in both. It is equivalent to something like 'the thing which', that is a noun phrase in the main clause plus a pronoun in the relative clause. It combines the two functions.
> 
> I got what I asked for. = I got the thing which I asked for. (relative clause is underlined)
> The underlined parts are the relative clauses, but with 'what' the clause makes the object of the main verb:
> I got what I asked for. = I got the thing which I asked for. (object is underlined)
> 
> In your second sentence, 'what' _is_ the subject of 'was'.



First: as far as my understanding is that adjctival[relative] clause is preceded by a discribed noun. However, in this sentence "I got what I asked for" the relative pronoun "what" isn't preceded with a noun.

If "what I asked for" in this "I got what I asked for"  is a relative clause in spite of there isn't a described noun before it then I am going to insist that "what the answer is" in this sentence "I don't know what the answer is" is a relative clause as well.


----------



## a cooperator

JulianStuart said:


> Please provide a source to the "book you have read" - the definition that writer uses for subordinate conjunction may allow a word to be both a subordinate conjunction and a relative pronoun at the same time.



Mr Julian, the book which I have read is being mentioned that *the following conjunctions come before  a noun clauses, for instance, who, what, when, why, where, which, and so on. *And if the a conjunction is the same the pronoun*, the author of that book will say the the following pronouns come before  a noun clauses, for instance, who, what, when, why, where, which, and so on. 
Yes, of course, the author of that book says the subordinate clauses are either a noun, relative clauses or adverbial clauses.

*


----------



## lucas-sp

lucas-sp said:


> The clause "who is winning the election" in the sentence "I want to know *who is winning the election*" is a *fused relative clause*. Relative clauses are normally adjectives or adverbs, but they can become "fused" when their subject and relative pronoun merge. So they can be noun clauses too. And it's not fair to say that there "isn't a subject"; in fact, this is a special case where the same word does double-duty as the subject and the pronoun.


Um... 

In the sentence "I don't know what the answer is," "what the answer is" is a *fused relative clause*. Relative clauses are normally adjectives or adverbs, but they can become "fused" when their subject and relative pronoun merge. So they can be noun clauses too. And it's not fair to say that there "isn't a subject"; in fact, this is a special case where the same word does double-duty as the subject and the pronoun.


----------



## JulianStuart

Insist eek  all you like but 


> If "what I asked for" in this "I got what I asked for"  is a relative clause


 that assumption is incorrect.  "what I asked for" is a noun clause. Period.

 Edit : While it represents the object of "got" and functions as a noun, it can also be regarded as a *fused* relative, as Paul points out.  These grammatical terms are not always "non-overlappimg!"

It would indeed be cooperative if you could please provide a source/reference to this book you keep mentioning - you hold it in higher regard than the information you are being given by those trying to help you.


----------



## PaulQ

1. Can you copy out an example from the book where the "conjunction" *who *comes before a noun clause?
2. What is the title and author's name of the book?


----------



## lucas-sp

The book which you've read (what is it, by the way?) doesn't seem to share its vocabulary with the people to whom you're talking right now. There isn't just one answer to these questions.

Also, again, in some systems there are noun clauses that are relative clauses (they're called "fused relative clauses"). They're still introduced by relative pronouns. Whatever we want to do about this, Julian is right to say that (#29) "what I asked for" is a noun clause, another person is right to say that it's a "fused relative clause," another person is right to say that it's actually a shorthand version of "the thing for which I asked" and is thus a sloppy application of or a nominalization of an _adjectival _relative clause, etc. etc. etc.

How is it helpful to know whether "who" or "what" in a sentence is a relative pronoun or a subordinating conjunction? Both of those things A) start dependent clauses and B) link them to the main clause. If you can identify and understand the _meaning_ of "who" or "what," at a certain point the term's "absolute" classification becomes a mere academic exercise, and a question of vocabulary and classification.

But yeah, I also want to see this text where "who" is called a subordinating conjunction.


----------



## a cooperator

JulianStuart said:


> Insist eek all you like but
> that assumption is incorrect. "what I asked for" is a noun clause. Period.
> 
> Edit : While it represents the object of "got" and functions as a noun, it can also be regarded as a *fused* relative, as Paul points out. These grammatical terms are not always "non-overlappimg!"
> 
> It would indeed be cooperative if you could please provide a source/reference to this book you keep mentioning - you hold it in higher regard than the information you are being given by those trying to help you.




Please understand me,Mr Julian.., the book which I have read is being mentioned that *the following conjunctions come before a noun clauses, for instance, who, what, when, why, where, which, and so on. My conclusion:*if a conjunction is the same the pronoun*, the author of that book will say the the following pronouns come before a noun clauses, for instance, who, what, when, why, where, which, and so on. 
Yes, of course, the author of that book says the subordinate clauses are either noun, relative clauses or adverbial clauses.

*


----------



## lucas-sp

a cooperator said:


> *Yes, of course, the author of that book says the subordinate clauses are either a noun, relative clauses or adverbial clauses.*


But this quite simply isn't correct - because there are noun clauses that are relative clauses, and relative clauses that are adverbial. You (or the book's author) are confusing or conflating multiple ways of classifying clauses - by their function (noun, adjective, adverb) and by their structure (dependent clauses, relative clauses, content clauses).


----------



## a cooperator

lucas-sp said:


> But this quite simply isn't correct - because there are noun clauses that are relative clauses, and relative clauses that are adverbial. You (or the book's author) are confusing or conflating multiple ways of classifying clauses - by their function (noun, adjective, adverb) and by their structure (dependent clauses, relative clauses, content clauses).



I would say that with other words:
The author of the book says that subordinate clauses are of three kinds: noun, relative and adverbial clauses.


----------



## lucas-sp

OK, fine. You can say whatever you want. But you may quickly run out of people who are willing to discuss your thoughts with you.

You're wrong, though, because "relative" clauses _are not equivalent to adjectival clauses_.

You would be better off saying "subordinate clauses are of three kinds: noun, *adjectival,* and adverbial clauses." _Relative_ clauses can be either noun, adjectival, _or_ adverbial clauses: 

Noun: Tell me *what I want to hear*.
Adjective: The words *that I want to hear* are so easy to say: "I love you."
Adverb: *Whatever you say,* I will always care for you.

These are all relative clauses - all introduced by relative pronouns - and they are, hey hey, acting as nouns, adjectives, and adverbs.

Thus... you may want to re-evaluate your claim in post #34.


----------



## a cooperator

JulianStuart said:


> Insist eek all you like but
> that assumption is incorrect. "what I asked for" is a noun clause. Period.
> 
> Edit : While it represents the object of "got" and functions as a noun, it can also be regarded as a *fused* relative, as Paul points out. These grammatical terms are not always "non-overlappimg!"
> 
> It would indeed be cooperative if you could please provide a source/reference to this book you keep mentioning - you hold it in higher regard than the information you are being given by those trying to help you.


First: I quite think that Provide you with the name of the book is not necessary because the author of that book is a non - native speaker. The necessity is:
:

As long as "A relative clause qualifies a noun comming before it."
If in this "I got what I asked for" is a relative clause then where the noun which the relative clause "what I asked for" qualifies. 
Also in this: I don't know what the answer is" is a relative clause as well.

Please tell me to close this case.


----------



## PaulQ

because the author of that book is a non - native speaker... I rest my case.


----------



## lucas-sp

a cooperator said:


> "A relative clause qualifies a noun comming before it."


It is *not true* that "a _relative_ clause" qualifies a noun coming before it. That is the definition, not of a _relative_ clause, but of an _adjectival _clause. (*Adjectives* qualify nouns.)

You did a great job finding a paradoxical result with a nonsensical assumption (i.e. "If we take this to be the definition of 'a relative clause,' then we quickly find examples of relative clauses without nouns coming before them"). Thus, having completed your _reductio ad absurdum_, you ought to abandon your initial assumption and formulate a new definition of "relative clause."

Please consider modifying your definition of "relative clause" to close this case...


----------



## a cooperator

lucas-sp said:


> It is *not true* that "a _relative_ clause" qualifies a noun coming before it. That is the definition, not of a _relative_ clause, but of an _adjectival _clause. (*Adjectives* qualify nouns.)
> 
> You did a great job finding a paradoxical result with a nonsensical assumption (i.e. "If we take this to be the definition of 'a relative clause,' then we quickly find examples of relative clauses without nouns coming before them"). Thus, having completed your _reductio ad absurdum_, you ought to abandon your initial assumption and formulate a new definition of "relative clause."
> 
> Please consider modifying your definition of "relative clause" to close this case...



First: Can I understand from your explanation that a relative clause and a djectival clause are difference.
Finally: you say that what I underlined " I don't know what the answer is" is a relative clause.


----------



## a cooperator

a cooperator said:


> Please understand me,Mr Julian.., the book which I have read is being mentioned that *the following conjunctions come before a noun clauses, for instance, who, what, when, why, where, which, and so on. My conclusion:*if a conjunction is the same the pronoun*, the author of that book will say the the following pronouns come before a noun clauses, for instance, who, what, when, why, where, which, and so on.
> Yes, of course, the author of that book says the subordinate clauses are either noun, relative clauses or adverbial clauses.
> 
> *


Please reply my inquiry specifically.
First: as far as my understanding is that adjctival[relative] clause is preceded by a discribed noun. However, in this sentence "I got what I asked for" the relative pronoun "what" isn't preceded with a noun.

If "what I asked for" in this "I got what I asked for" is a relative clause in spite of there isn't a described noun before it then I am going to insist that "what the answer is" in this sentence "I don't know what the answer is" is a relative clause as well.




lucas-sp said:


> OK, fine. You can say whatever you want. But you may quickly run out of people who are willing to discuss your thoughts with you.
> 
> You're wrong, though, because "relative" clauses _are not equivalent to adjectival clauses_.
> 
> You would be better off saying "subordinate clauses are of three kinds: noun, *adjectival,* and adverbial clauses." _Relative_ clauses can be either noun, adjectival, _or_ adverbial clauses:
> 
> Noun: Tell me *what I want to hear*.
> Adjective: The words *that I want to hear* are so easy to say: "I love you."
> Adverb: *Whatever you say,* I will always care for you.
> 
> These are all relative clauses - all introduced by relative pronouns - and they are, hey hey, acting as nouns, adjectives, and adverbs.
> 
> Thus... you may want to re-evaluate your claim in post #34.



Here I saw that there is a differnce between relative and adjectival clause, altough my understanding is both of them are the same.


----------



## a cooperator

JulianStuart said:


> Insist eek all you like but
> that assumption is incorrect. "what I asked for" is a noun clause. Period.
> 
> Edit : While it represents the object of "got" and functions as a noun, it can also be regarded as a *fused* relative, as Paul points out. These grammatical terms are not always "non-overlappimg!"
> 
> It would indeed be cooperative if you could please provide a source/reference to this book you keep mentioning - you hold it in higher regard than the information you are being given by those trying to help you.





a cooperator said:


> Please understand me,Mr Julian.., the book which I have read is being mentioned that *the following conjunctions come before a noun clauses, for instance, who, what, when, why, where, which, and so on. My conclusion:*if a conjunction is the same the pronoun*, the author of that book will say the the following pronouns come before a noun clauses, for instance, who, what, when, why, where, which, and so on.
> Yes, of course, the author of that book says the subordinate clauses are either noun, relative clauses or adverbial clauses.
> 
> *


Please reply my inquiry specifically.
First: as far as my understanding is that adjctival[relative] clause is preceded by a discribed noun. However, in this sentence "I got what I asked for" the relative pronoun "what" isn't preceded with a noun.

If "what I asked for" in this "I got what I asked for" is a relative clause in spite of there isn't a described noun before it then I am going to insist that "what the answer is" in this sentence "I don't know what the answer is" is a relative clause as well.




lucas-sp said:


> OK, fine. You can say whatever you want. But you may quickly run out of people who are willing to discuss your thoughts with you.
> 
> You're wrong, though, because "relative" clauses _are not equivalent to adjectival clauses_.
> 
> You would be better off saying "subordinate clauses are of three kinds: noun, *adjectival,* and adverbial clauses." _Relative_ clauses can be either noun, adjectival, _or_ adverbial clauses:
> 
> Noun: Tell me *what I want to hear*.
> Adjective: The words *that I want to hear* are so easy to say: "I love you."
> Adverb: *Whatever you say,* I will always care for you.
> 
> These are all relative clauses - all introduced by relative pronouns - and they are, hey hey, acting as nouns, adjectives, and adverbs.
> 
> Thus... you may want to re-evaluate your claim in post #34.



Here I saw that there is a differnce between relative and adjectival clause, altough my understanding is both of them are the same.


----------



## cyberpedant

"Who" is not, not , not! a conjunction of any kind. It is a pronoun!


----------



## a cooperator

cyberpedant said:


> "Who" is not, not , not! a conjunction of any kind. It is a pronoun!


Thanks, I am absolutely surprised this answer of what.
I knew that who and what are never conjunctions, however, what I don't know is what I mentioned the post #41.


----------



## cyberpedant

a cooperator said:


> Thanks, I am absolutely surprised this answer of what.
> I knew that who and what are never conjunctions, however, what I don't know is what I mentioned *in* post #41.



OK. Let's take a look at your last sentence: "what I don't know is what I mentioned *in* post #41." =  That which (what) I don't know is that which (what) I mentioned ...." 
_"That which (what) I don't know_" is a noun clause, subject of the verb "is."
_"that which (what) I mentioned...._" is also a noun clause, predicate complement of the same verb. NVN [noun, verb, noun] is one of the most usual sentence forms in English.


----------



## Resa Reader

Loob said:


> It's an interesting question, a cooperator.
> 
> Personally, I'd categorise "what" rather differently in your two sentences.
> 
> In "I got what I asked for", I'd see "what as a "fused relative" - a relative which combines the antecedent with the relative pronoun. In other words, I'd say that "what" = "that which" or "the thing which", where "that" (or "the thing") is the antecedent, and "which" is the relative pronoun.
> 
> In "I wish I knew *what *was going to happen", I would see "what" differently. I would see this as an example of 'reported speech', with "what" as an *interrogative pronoun:
> *Direct speech: "What is going to happen?"
> Indirect speech: _I wish I knew what was going to happen_.



Well, I've read it all.  So, being another non-native speaker I'm a bit reluctant to add something to the "confusion".
Nevertheless, I just wanted to say that I quite agree with Loob here.
Some of the confusion might come from the fact that in English the same words can be interrogative pronouns or relative pronouns.
http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000342.htm

So in a sentence like 'I don't know what the answer is.' I'd call 'what' an interrogative pronoun (or simply a 'question word').
Like Mrs Loob I see this as reported speech (the direct question being 'What is the answer?). Of course I agree with everybody that 'what the answer is' is a noun clause here.




> *JulianStuart
> *I wrote to Bill, *who is winning the election*.
> In that case the who is a *relative pronoun introducing a relative (adjectival) clause* because it relates to Bill (it is an adjectival clause describing him). *Who is the subject of the clause. *[I agree]
> 
> I want to know *who is winning the election*.
> In this case who is a *relative pronoun introducing a noun clause*.
> [Here I am not so sure. I would again see 'who' as an interrogative pronoun. It's again a reported question I'd say.]
> I want to know X. X is the object of the verb know and therefore it is a noun (or in this case a noun clause) - it is in the form of an indirect question. *Who is the subject of the clause.*



Well, be it as it may, terminology is really not that important here. The important thing is that you know how to use those words correctly in a sentence.


----------



## lucas-sp

Resa Reader said:


> Well, be it as it may, terminology is really not that important here. The important thing is that you know how to use those words correctly in a sentence.


Hear, hear.

I have to confess that I'm gonna get confused about the terminology here too. All that I can say is that in the sentence "I want to know who is winning the election" I would say that "who is winning the election" is _plainly_ a noun clause, and that it's introduced by a "relative pronoun." I wouldn't care what any of my students thought about the grammar of that sentence, as long as they could paraphrase it correctly as "I desire to find out which of the candidates is ahead in the polls." _That's_ what you should work on, in my opinion.

I said before that there are situations where relative pronouns introduce clauses that are used as adverbs and nouns. (This is why I don't understand the urge to make "relative clause" and "adjective clause" synonymous. There are clearly relative clauses that are noun clauses too. It's only an arbitrary terminological distinction to decide that relative clauses "ought" to be adjectival and all other cases are deviations from that norm; we could do it the other way just as easily.) The linguists fudge the math here by calling these* "fused" relative clauses*, where the relative pronoun is _simultaneously_ the noun-subject of the (dependent) clause and its own antecedent in the main sentence. Is that satisfying to hear? I don't know, sorry. But there you go.


----------



## JulianStuart

There has to be some way this thread can be merged with the one on "interrogative clauses"  

I want to know X (where X= "who is winning the election")
X can be called:
Indirect question.
Interrogative clause.
Noun clause.
Reduced relative clause.

Everyone needs to check out the wiki - it introduces another "term" - the *embedded* question !
Wh-movement in English subordinate clauses


> Wh-movement is also seen in subordinate clauses in English. Sentences of the kind below are sometimes called embedded (or indirect) questions.
> 
> I wonder what he bought.


----------



## lucas-sp

And to add to Julian's most recent post: we would have different reasons to call X each of those different things. For instance, we might choose to call X a "noun clause" if we wanted to compare the structures of different kinds of noun clauses, or call X an "indirect question" if we wanted to think about the different rhetorical consequences of posing a question in different ways, or call X an "interrogative clause" if we wanted to think about what it did and did not reveal about the subject it introduces and comments upon.

In the abstract, there's no reason to get held up on which one of these terms X "actually" is. Because they're all just ways of highlighting different facets of X. I don't think this is the same as being sloppy or saying "it doesn't matter"; what I'm trying to say is that, without some reason to examine these facets of X, we wouldn't know what kind of name we would most want to give to X. We need a _purpose,_ a _motivation_​, before we choose how best to describe X.


----------



## Pertinax

There are a lot of misconceptions in this thread.
I completely agree only with Loob and Resa.

This is an example of a fused relative clause, introduced by the relative pronoun "what":
    1. _I got what I asked for._

These are examples of a subordinate interrogative clause, introduced by the interrogative pronouns "what" and "who":
    2. _I knew what was going to happen._
    3. _Do you know who is winning the election?_

The reason for construing the "who" in (3) as an interrogative pronoun is that (3) would normally be understood as:
_Do you know what is the answer to the question "Who is winning the election"?_

In order to construe the "who" in (3) as a relative pronoun, a far less plausible meaning would be implied:
_Are you acquainted with the person who is expected to win the election?_


----------



## a cooperator

JulianStuart said:


> There has to be some way this thread can be merged with the one on "interrogative clauses"
> 
> I want to know X (where X= "who is winning the election")
> X can be called:
> Indirect question.
> Interrogative clause.
> Noun clause.
> Reduced relative clause.
> 
> Everyone needs to check out the wiki - it introduces another "term" - the *embedded* question !
> Wh-movement in English subordinate clauses





entangledbank said:


> 'What' is a relative pronoun in both. It is equivalent to something like 'the thing which', that is a noun phrase in the main clause plus a pronoun in the relative clause. It combines the two functions.
> 
> I got what I asked for. = I got the thing which I asked for. (relative clause is underlined)
> The underlined parts are the relative clauses, but with 'what' the clause makes the object of the main verb:
> I got what I asked for. = I got the thing which I asked for. (object is underlined)





As the Michael Swan's explanation that is as follows:

"when an object comes at the beginning a clause(e.g. in a question or relative clause), a two- word verb usually stays together, so that a preposition can be separated from its object and go at the of the clause. In my example a two- word verb "asked for" stays together because " an object comes "what" at the beginning a clause. As a result I assist that "what" is only the object of noun clause, however, "What I asked for" is the object of main verb "got"


----------



## JulianStuart

a cooperator said:


> As the Michael Swan's explanation that is as follows:
> 
> "when an object comes at the beginning a clause(e.g. in a question or relative clause), a two- word verb usually stays together, so that a preposition can be separated from its object and go at the *end* of the clause. In my example a two- word verb "asked for" stays together because " an object comes "what" at the beginning a clause. As a result I assist *assert* that "what" is only the object of the noun clause*;* however, "What I asked for" is the object of main verb "got"



I think you meant assert not insist.  I agree with your assertion and I don't think anyone here here has ever said otherwise.

"What I asked for" is a noun clause.
That noun clause is the object of "I got". 
 "What" is the object of "I asked for" within that clause.


----------



## a cooperator

JulianStuart said:


> I think you meant assert not insist. I agree with your assertion and I don't think anyone here here has ever said otherwise.
> 
> "What I asked for" is a noun clause.
> That noun clause is the object of "I got".
> "What" is the object of "I asked for" within that clause.



Yes this quite excellent. And I want to conform for me if there is really a difference between a relative and djectival clause, as I have got in the post #35


----------



## cyberpedant

Perhaps you can visualize the problem this way:
The relative clause is a basket containing three jewels. These jewels differ from on another. One is the noun clause; the second is the adjective clause; the third is the adverb clause. All three fit nicely into the basket of relative clauses, but they are not identical to one another. So there is no "difference" between relative clauses and adverbial clauses, as the second is a subset of the first. 
*But* noun clauses are different from adjective clauses which are different from adverb clauses.


----------

