David Barrow wrote:
> Aaron Grahn wrote:
> > Is there a good way to introduce a subordinate clause without a
> > particle? For instance in
> > The dog with the man that I saw was green.
IMO the problem with the example given is that it is very unclear w.r.t.
_what was seen_.
1. The dog was green -- that much is clear
2. The dog was with a man -- equally clear
3. I saw ... the man? or the dog?
As many of us have pointed out, since the RC follows "man", we assume "I saw
the man". But I think Aaron's intention was to say "I saw the dog [and it
was with the man]-- though that has not really been clarified.
>> Given that the best place for a relative clause is next to the
> noun/pronoun it
> qualifies, my first interpretation of the above would be that you saw
> the man.
> However, people don't always do what's best :-)
> The dog that I saw with the man was green
> makes clear what I saw, but leaves the 'with the man' ambiguous.
Yes. It leads to a 4th reading: I saw a green dog. I was with the man.
> The dog that I saw **that/which** was with the man was green.
Good grief. Creeping dyslexia-- I had to go back and corrrect the above--
I'd typed "was" in every case for "saw" AARGH