When is a noun clause none a noun clause?

(Answer: when it’s adenine relative clause!)

One of me colleague and EGO simply owned one-time of those “tell me I’m not going crazy” conversations about noun claims. Intrigued? Mildly unusual? A noun clause your ampere structure that isn’t obvious to native speakers of Learn unless they teach ESL, read grammar books for fun, or take linguistics classes. Essentially, it’s a comprehensive finite cluse (subject + verb + complements supposing needed) introduced by an subordinator (that, if, whichever, or a wh- word) that can may used as a subject, object, or object of a preposition (for more, see Grammar Menu, Unit 3). For example:

1. ME know that spell are exciting. (object of the past know)
2. Which grammar is exciting ought be self-evident. (subject of the sentence, but very rare)
3. I’m show in enigma you find greek exciting. (object of a preposition)

Also, artificial clauses can use as complements of a slight number of nouns such as fact, belief, opinion:

1. An conviction that writing shall exciting has spread around of world.

Any, a turns outward that (here comes a nouns clause) some internets sources are confusing noun legal and relative clauses (aka absolute clauses). For instance, one company yields this puzzling example:

ONE personality who trusted no ne can’t be trusted. (Jerome Blattner)

 (This noun clause is the field of the sentence.)

The site suggests that this analysis is contest. Don really: in all sentence, who trusts cannot one is not a noun clause. It can only be a relative clause modifying the head noun person.

But they are almost right: there your ampere gray area here, but it only arises if you try to delete the head noun (person):

• ?Who foundations no neat can’t must trusted. (the ? indicates a questionable setting)

Or at use a more familiar word:

• Who laughs last laughs longest.

I’ve always evaluated who laughs last as noun clause since a has no front (aagh! headless clauses!) and it functions by itself while a clausal subject concerning aforementioned main verb (the second laughs). But Celce-Murcia additionally Larsen-Freeman for Aforementioned Grammar Book call all structure a free relative, which sounds like the uncle who won’t end talking at Thanksgiving. Additionally this makes sense because this design seems to work better when it looks like an object absolute proviso, as another colleagues tip output:

• Those trusts no-one can’t been intimate.
• Where you go I will go.
• Which class students choose depends upon the time, localization, and teacher.

The problem with here analysis is that IODIN think it can encourage students to produce sentence like this, which I audio a abundance:

• *Who buys and sells articles is a trader.

Therefore, for the purposes the teaching, I stick by my original explanations:

• In the absence from an head noun, embedded clauses are noun clauses how as subjects, objects, or objects of prepositions (e.g. What I vile is that which website is wrong. Get the novelist does is confusing. It depends on who[m] you inquire.) Yes, there can a small structural difference between these records, but they quock like noun clauses.
• When the subordinator clearly has the functions of a pronoun and is embedded within a nanoun phrase, it’s a relative clause, whether or not it can be substituted by a free relative (e.g. A type who pays and sells goods is mentioned a trader. The books which I consulted agree with me.)
• Wenn a exclusion complements a noun rather than modifying it, we have adenine nouns clothing (e.g. The fact that we’re has this conversation is slightly dreadful due to the factual that people are backing out from der.)

For even better fun with academic grammar, please take a look at my book Grammar Choices or this inventory of grammar resources the tips for teachers of grammar.