CHAPTER 6

RELATIVE CLAUSES
(© Sentences Processes, Nadina Vișan)

5.1. Relative Clauses and Other Kinds of Relatives

By relative clauses we understand:

❖ all the wh-complements mentioned in the previous section.
❖ other kinds of relative clauses such as that relatives (those relative clauses introduced
by THAT)

(1) This is a gift that you fully deserve.

(Acesta este un cadou pe care îl meriţi pe deplin.)
❖ participial relatives
(2) The fellow wearing those odd clothes is Jane’s husband.
(Bărbatul în haine ciudate este soţul lui Jane.)
❖ infinitival relatives
(3) I need some tools with which to fix the car.
(Am nevoie de unelte cu care să repar maşina.)

We will mainly focus on wh-complements leaving aside other kinds of relatives and
cleft sentences.

5.2. The Co-reference Condition - a discussion of attributive relatives

As we shall see, relative clauses can have more than one syntactical function. The best
known function, normally associated with relative clauses is that of Attribute. We shall first
discuss relative clauses functioning as attributes in order to establish the mechanism that
grants their existence.
These relative clauses represent a type of subordination that is based on the fact that
the main clause and the subordinate clause share a nominal constituent. Consider the
following:

(4) I met a woman. John loves that woman.

By combining these two clauses, we obtain

(5) I met a woman whom John loves.

(Am cunoscut o femeie pe care o iubeşte John.)

What has happened? The common element woman appears in the main clause only
and is resumed by the relative pronoun introducing the second clause. We presuppose that the
phrase the woman in the second clause under (4) has been transformed into a relative
constituent (it has been relativized) and moved at the beginning of the clause to link it to the
previous one. The place where the phrase the woman used to stand has remained empty, like a
gap:

(6) I met a woman whom John loves _____.

Since the phrase a woman and the relative pronoun whom under (6) refer to the same
object, we can co-index them (that is we place the same index under each of them):
(7) I met a womani whomi John loves _____.

But how do we mark the fact that the verb loves used to have a direct object right after
it that has been moved up front?
We place the same index under the letter t (that stands for trace):

(8) I met a womani whomi John loves ti.

This way, we can clearly indicate that the co-reference condition that stipulated the
necessity of a shared nominal for the main clause and the relative attributive clause has been
observed.
The relative pronoun preserves its function of a direct object within the relative
subordinate. Let us supply an example where the relative pronoun functions as a prepositional
object:

(9) I met a woman. John offered flowers to that woman.

The common element woman is present, so the co-reference condition (that the two
clauses should have co-referring elements) is observed. The resulting structure can have two
forms:

(10) a. I met a womani whoi John had offered flowers to ti

b. I met a womani to whomi John had offered flowers ti

In point of terminology, we call the nominal that the relative clause refers to the
antecedent of the relative clause. The element that has been moved in front position and
transformed into a relative pronoun is called the relativized constituent.
The mechanism that allows for the appearance of relative attributive clauses is
movement: the movement of the relativized constituent in initial position, by leaving behind a
trace.

5.3. The Classification of Relative Clauses

According to the criterion of form, relative clauses are divided into:

❖ dependent relative clauses (clauses that have an overt antecedent, i.e. whose main
clause contains a nominal that can be co-indexed with the introducing relative
pronoun)

(11) This is the mani whomi I love.

(Acesta este bărbatul pe care îl iubesc.)

Under (11) the relative subordinate finds its antecedent in the main clause: the phrase
the man.
❖ independent relative clauses or Free Relative Clauses (those clauses which lack an
overt antecedent, that do not have an expressed antecedent in the main clause)

(12) Who breaks pays.

(Cine strică plăteşte.)
(13) Whoever swims in sin shall swim sorrow.
(Cine păcătuieşte mult va suferi.)
 Example (12) is an instance of a relative clause (introduced by a wh-element) whose
antecedent has been deleted, is no longer overtly expressed, unlike in the case of (14), where
we are looking at a more obsolete (i.e. far-fetched) form of the same sentence:

(14) Hei whoi breaks pays.

(Cel care strică plăteşte.)

So, in a manner of speaking, we can assume that Independent or Free Relative Clauses
must have originated from dependent ones; only their antecedent is no longer expressed, it is
covert. Unlike their sisters, these relatives, cannot function as attributes, they currently fulfil
the function of subjects or objects, as follows:

❖ Subject Free Relative Clause

(15) Whoever touches pitch shall be defiled.

(Cine se atinge de smoala va fi întinat.)

❖ Direct Object

(16) I would like to know what you need.

(Aş dori să ştiu ce vrei.)

❖ Indirect Object (the only clauses that can have this function in fact)

(17) He gave whoever came to the door a winning smile.

(Oferea un zâmbet cuceritor oricui venea la uşa lui.)

❖ Prepositional Object

(18) You should vote for whichever candidate you think best.
(Trebuie să votezi cu candidatul pe care îl consideri cel mai potrivit.)

❖ Predicative

(19) This was what she intended.

(Asta era ceea ce voise ea.)

❖ Adverbial

(20) Go wherever you want.

(Du-te unde pofteşti.)

The second criterion that further classifies relative clauses has to do with meaning and
is restricted to dependent relatives only. They can be thus divided into:
❖ defining or restrictive relative clauses (those dependent relative clauses that identify an
antecedent; they offer crucial information about this antecedent, they define it).

(21) The man who came to woo me was a god.

(Cel care a venit să mă peţească era un zeu.)
(Only that particular man that was my suitor looked like a god)
 ❖ non-defining or non-restrictive or appositive relative clauses (those dependent relative
clauses that do not offer crucial information about the antecedent. They only provide
supplementary information about it.)

(22) Mercury, who is the god of commerce, is my favourite god.

(Mercur, care este zeul negoţului, este zeul meu favorit.)
(Mercury, who incidentally is the god of commerce, is my favourite god)

The function of non-restrictive relative clauses is that of Appositive attributes. Their

meaning is also reinforced by orthography, and by the intonation the speaker uses in uttering
the whole sentence.

In conclusion, a diagram would sum up the types of relative clauses discussed:

Restrictive/defining
The man who came to see me is a genius.
Dependent Non-restrictive/non-defining
Relative clauses That man, who came to see me, is a genius.

Independent Whoever came to see me was a genius.

5.4 Restrictions Imposed On The Relative Clause by the Determiner of the Antecedent

When the antecedent has no determiner, it can only be followed by a non-defining

relative clause (an apposition):

(23)  Freddie Mercury, who died a few years ago, composed The Bohemian Rhapsody.
(Freddie Mercury, care a murit acum câţiva ani, a compus The Bohemian Rhapsody.)

When combined with a restrictive relative clause, the proper name is recategorized
into a common name and receives its own determiner (the, a, etc.):

(24) The Freddie Mercury I knew was a rock-star.

(Freddie Mercury pe care-l cunosteam eu era o vedeta rock.)
(25) I know a Freddie Mercury who gives piano lessons.
(Cunosc un Freddie Mercury care dă lecţii de pian.)

First and second person pronouns do not normally take restrictive relative clauses.
They can be followed only by non-restrictive ones (appositions):

(26) I, who am your son, can see your shortcomings only too well.
(Eu, care-ţi sunt fiu, îţi văd prea bine defectele.)

(27) Anybody else would have done something except myself, who am not a woman, but a
peevish, ill-tempered, dried-up old maid.
(Oricine ar fi acţionat, numai eu nu, care nu sunt o femeie, ci o fată bătrână
morocănoasă, iritabilă şi uscată.)

(28) They come to me, who neither work nor am anxious.

(Ei apelează la mine, care nici nu muncesc şi nici nu sunt îngrijorat.)
 Third person pronouns however do accept restrictive relative clauses:

(29) He who laughs last laughs best (archaic).

(Cine râde la urmă râde mai bine.)

5.5 Relative Clause Introducers

Relative clause introducers are usually placed at the beginning of the relative clause. In
literary English they may sometimes be found later in the sentence:
❖ after a present participle

(30) … saying which he left the room

(… care lucruri fiind spuse, părăsi camera.)

❖ after an infinitive

(31) The African queen issued forth upon the Lake to gain which they had run such dangers
and undergone such toils.
(Regina africană se năpusti spre lac să redobândească cele pentru care trecuseră prin
atâtea pericole şi avuseseră parte de atâta trudă.)

❖ As the object of a preposition and after than:

(32) He consulted his watch at 10-minute intervals, in spite of which the service finished
late.
(Se uita la ceas din zece în zece minute, şi cu toate acestea slujba s-a terminat târziu.)

(33) He was a railway fanatic, than whom few more can be more crashing.
(Era un fanatic al mersului cu trenul, şi puţini oameni îl întreceau la asta.)

❖ Sometimes the preposition can have partitive value:

(34) He was prone to an inevitable series of moods, each of which has evolved its own
system of harmony.
(Era înclinat spre stări schimbătoare, şi fiecare din aceste stări îşi dobândise propriul
sistem de armonie.)

(35) The compositions of Cardan, some of the last notes of whose harp he heard, were now
in his possession.
(Compoziţiile lui Cardan, ale căror ultime note de harpă le auzise, erau acum în
posesia lui.)

Aside from these marginal examples, relative clause introducers retain their clause
initial position. We shall briefly have a look at the most important ones.

5.5.1. Relative Pronouns

Who [+human] with its case forms whom [+human] and whose [± human]:

(36) a. The woman who came to see my painting was the Queen itself.
(Femeia care a venit să îmi vadă tabloul era Regina însăşi.)
b. The woman to whom you showed the painting was the Queen.
 (Femeia căreia i-ai arătat tabloul era Regina.)
c. The woman whose painting I sold was very young.
(Femeia al cărui tablou l-am vândut era foarte tânără.)
d. The painting whose buyer she was looked marvelous.
(Tabloul al cărui cumpărător era arăta minunat.)

Whose appears as the appropriate genitive form for both [+human] and [-human]
objects, as can be seen in (36d). The genitive form with which is still in use, too, but it is
typical of the formal, literary style:

(37) a. The book whose cover I lost was very expensive.

(Cartea a cărei coperta am pierdut-o era foarte scumpă.)
b. The book the cover of which I lost was very expensive.
(Cartea a cărei copertă am pierdut-o era foarte scumpă.)

(37b) is an example of relative clause introduced by a genitival pronoun where there is

a form of inversion imposed by the presence of the genitive form of which. There are
situations when inversion is not obligatory, but these ones are even more infrequent than those
illustrated under (37b):

(38) …as if she were being gradually cornered by a cruelty of which he was the almost
unconscious agent.
(Iris Murdoch, An Accidental Man)
(… de parcă era încet-încet încolţită de o cruzime al cărei agent aproape inconştient
era el.)

Which [-human]

(39) The story which he claimed to have told was too fantastic for my taste.
(Povestea pe care pretindea că a spus-o era prea fantastică pentru gustul meu.)

There are a few exceptions when which can acquire the feature [+human]:

When which has a partitive value:

(40) Which of the two men is nicer?

(Care dintre ei este mai drăguţ?)

However in rhetorical question who is still preferred:

(41) Who of us will stain his hands with murder?

(Cine dintre noi îşi va mânji mâinile cu o crimă?)

with archaic value:

(42) Our Father, which art in Heaven …

(Tatăl nostru carele eşti în ceruri…)

When a personal denotation refers not to an individual, but to a type or a function:

(43) a. Shaw is commonly regarded more as a funny man than as the revolutionary which at
bottom he is.
 (Shaw este în general privit mai degrabă ca un tip hazliu decât ca revoluţionarul care
este în esenţă.)
b. Freud is the analyst which we must enjoy.
(Freud este psihanalistul pe care trebuie să-l citim)
c. He is not the man which he used to be.
(Nu mai este omul care era odată.)

When its genitive form is used to give a very formal tone to the passage (but this is
very infrequent):

(44) Livia had just been delivered of twin boys, of which, by the way, Sejanus seems to
have been the father.
(Livia tocmai născuse doi băieţi gemeni, al căror tată se pare că era Sejanus.)

Both who and which are used for:

collective nouns

(45) a. This was a tribe who moved from the Baltic Sea.
(Acesta era un trib care venise de la Marea Baltică.)
b. … Asiatic tribes and American tribes which resemble each other.
(… triburile asiatice şi amerindiene care seamănă între ele.)

states, animals, ships (that can be personified)

(46) a. … Italy, which entered the war in May 1915 …

(…Italia care a intrat în război în mai 1915…)
b. … France, whom it concerned most closely, did however take certain precautions …
(… Franţa, pe care o privea direct, şi-a luat totuşi nişte precauţii…)

what – can normally introduce only free relative clauses:

(47) I didn’t know what they wanted.

(Nu ştiam ce vor.)

The rare occasions when what functions as an introducer of restrictive relative clauses, it is

archaic

(48) It is rich what gets the peaches,

It is poor what gets the punches.
(Cei bogaţi primesc onoruri, cei săraci primesc ponoase.)

dialectal

(49) a. …the bloke what signs our books …

(tipul care ne semnează cărţile)
b. One can’t expect foreigners to have the same ideas what we have.
(one cannot expect foreigners to have the same ideas that we have)
(Nu poţi să te aştepţi ca străinii să aibă ce idei avem noi.)
5.5.2 Relative Adverbs: when, where, while, why, how, etc.

When they introduce restrictive relative clauses, their antecedents are nouns
expressing places, time, reason, etc. and can be replaced by prepositional phrases with
adverbial function:

(50) a. Poland is the place where Christine was born.

(Polonia este locul în care s-a născut Christine.)
b. Poland is the place in which Christine was born.
(Polonia este locul în care s-a născut Christine.)

(51) a. Ten o’clock is the time when they have lunch.

(Ora zece este momentul când ei iau prânzul.)
b. Ten o’clock is the time at which they have lunch.
(Ora zece este momentul când ei iau prânzul.)

When they introduce free relative clauses, no antecedents are required:

(52) a. He went where he had been before.

(S-a dus unde mai fusese.)
b.They left when they decided it was proper to.
(Au plecat când s-a hotărât că este potrivit.)

There are cases when these adverbs can appear in their older forms (in archaic passages):

(53) a. The place whither he goes is unknown.

(Locul către care merge este necunoscut.)
b. They returned to the land whence they had come.
(S-au întors în ţara din care veniseră.)
c. A system where by a new discovery will arise.
(Un sistem prin care va apărea o nouă descoperire)
d. A dark forrest wherein dangers lurk.
(O pădure întunecată în care ne pândesc primejdiile.)
e. This is the place wherefrom they came.
(Acesta este locul din care au venit.)

5.5.3. Relative THAT

Relative THAT normally appears as the introducer of restrictive relative clauses:

(54) This is the book that pleased her most.

(Aceasta este cartea care o încântă cel mai mult.)

It is invariable, never preceded by prepositions and requires an antecedent with the

exception of archaic idiomatic contents:

(55) Handsome is that handsome does.

(Only the person that behaves in a handsome way can be considered handsome).

Moreover, the relative introducer THAT – unlike its pair that introduces complement
that-clauses – can have almost any syntactic function within the relative clause:
Subject

(56) Did you see the letter [that came today?]

(Ai văzut scrisoarea care a sosit azi?)

Direct Object

(57) Did you get the books [that I sent you?]

(Ai primit cărţile pe care ţi le-am trimis?)

Prepositional Object

(58) That is the man [that I was talking about.]

(Acesta este cel despre care vorbeam.)

Predicative

(59) He is not the man [that he was.]

(Nu este omul care era odinioară.)

Adverbial

(60) Tuesday was the day [that he left.]

(Ziua în care a plecat a fost o marţi.)

When do we prefer to use THAT instead of WHICH/WHO?

When the antecedent is a compound nominal that refers to a human and a thing:

(61) The children were the parcels that filled the car.
(Copiii erau pachetele ce umpleau maşina.)

With a superlative antecedent

(62) She is the prettiest girl that I have ever seen.

(Este fata cea mai frumoasă pe care am văzut-o vreodată.)

With an antecedent preceded by determiners such as: all, every, any, not any, much, little:

(63) That ugly little house was all the home that I have ever had.
(Căsuţa aceea urâtă era singurul cămin pe care l-am avut vreodată.)

When the rule of euphony must be observed

(64) a. Who that knew her would help loving her?

(Cine dintre cei care o cunoşteau se puteau împiedica să o iubească?)
b.* Who who knew her could help loving her?

5.5.4. Other relative introducers

There are of course other relative clauses introducers, but they are used very
infrequently: as, but
in standard language

(65) a. Honest man as he was, it went against the grain with him to step into his shoes.
(Cinstit cum era, era contrar naturii sale să îl urmeze.)
b. I’ll get you such things as you may want.
(O să îţi dau acele lucruri pe care le doreşti.)
c. This is the same one that/as you had before.
(Este la fel cu cel pe care l-ai avut.)

in dialect

(66) a. Uncle George, him as was in China …

(Uncle George, who had been in China …)
(Unchiul George, care fusese în China…)
b. There’s not many as’ll say that.
(There aren’t many who will say that)
(Nu-s mulţi care să spuie asta…)

archaic use

(67) a. There is no man but feels pity for starving children. (There isn’t a man who doesn’t
feel pity …)
(Nu e om care să nu simtă milă faţă de copiii care mor de foame)
b. There is no one of us but wishes to help you.
(Nu este nimeni dintre noi care să nu vrea să te ajute.)
c. I never had a slice of bread
Particularly long and wide
But feel upon the sandy floor,
And always on the buttered side.
(Niciodată nu s-a întâmplat, când am avut o bucată de pâine măricică, să nu îmi cadă
pe podeaua murdară, şi întotdeauna pe partea unsă cu unt.)

Sometimes in colloquial or dialectal English, the relative clause introducer is omitted:

(68) a. It’s the dry weather does it.

(It’s the dry weather that is to blame.)
b. It was me made her think that was the best thing to do.
(It was me who made her think…)

This phenomenon is usually met with cleft relative clauses such as those under (68).

This remark brings us to another important question to ask: When can we delete
relative clause introducers? The answer to this question is rather straight: relative introducers
can be deleted whenever THAT can be used as an alternative to the respective relative
introducer.
For instance in

(69) The man whom John met lives in Boston.

(Omul pe care l-a întâlnit John locuieşte în Boston)

The relative pronoun whom can indeed be replaced by that:

(70) The man that John met lives in Boston.
(Omul pe care l-a întâlnit John locuieşte în Boston)

This means that both whom and that can be deleted without the sentence losing its
grammaticality:

(71) The man John met lives in Boston.

(Omul pe care l-a întâlnit John locuieşte în Boston)

Note that deletion is impossible in

(72) The man whom John spoke to is an idiot.

(Cel cu care vorbeşte John este un idiot.)

since a replacement of the relative phrase with that cannot be performed in view of the fact
that the relative introducer that cannot preceded by preposition (see subsection 5.5.3):

(73) a. *The man to that John spoke is an idiot.

b.*The man John spoke to is an idiot.

When the preposition appears at the end of the clause, the replacement is allowed and deletion
is indeed an option:

(74) a. The man who John spoke to is a genius.

(Cel cu care vorbeşte John este un geniu.)
b. The man that John spoke to is a genius.
(Cel cu care vorbeşte John este un geniu.)
c. The man John spoke to is a genius.
(Cel cu care vorbeşte John este un geniu.)

5.6. Pied Piping and Preposition Stranding

If you go back to our discussion in 5.2, regarding the mechanism that licenses the
formation of relative clauses, you will remember that a relative clause such as that in

(75) She was the woman [who everybody listened to]

(Ea era cea care pe care o ascultau toţi.)

appeared as a result of movement:

(76) a. She was a woman. Everybody listened to that woman.

b. She was the womani whoi everybody listened to______.
c. She was the womani whoi everybody listened to ti.

The phenomenon by means of which the relativized prepositional phrase is moved in

clause initial position but leaves its preposition behind is called Preposition stranding: the
preposition has been stranded at the end of the sentence.
The opposite phenomenon, by means of which the whole phrase is moved up front
(preposition and all) bears the name of pied piping, where the wh-word is the pied piper that
drags after it another element:
(77) She was the woman i to whomi everybody listened.

By extension, another case of pied piping is offered by the movement of the genitival phrase
at the beginning of the relative clause:

(78) a. This is the book. I lost the cover of the book.

b. This is the booki whosei cover I lost ti.
(Aceasta este cartea a cărei copertă am pierdut-o.)

In this case the wh-word drags the constituent cover in clause initial position, acting
again as a genuine pied piper.
The difference between (77) and (78), apart from the distinct syntactical functions the
prepositional and the genitival phrase have, lies in the fact that in the case of (78) pied piping
is obligatory. We couldn’t say something like:

(79) * This is the book whose I lost cover.

5.7 Key Concepts

Relative Clauses can be dependent and in that case they need an antecedent in the
main clause, that is nominal phrase to which the relative clause introducer could send back.
The relative clause introducer is also called the relativized constituent and it corefers with the
antecedent in the main clause.
Dependent relative clause (so called because they are dependent on their antecedent)
can further be split into restrictive ones (that define and identify the antecedent) and non-
restrictive ones (that offer additional information about the antecedent and have an appositive
value). Both these types of relative clauses function as Attributes (appositive or not, as the
case is).
Independent relative clauses are also called Free Relative Clauses because their
antecedent is missing, has been deleted. They do not function as attributes, but as subjects or
objects (in fact fulfilling almost all syntactical functions, including that of Indirect Object
which only they can have).
The mechanism that lies at the basis of dependent (and independent) relative clauses is
movement, as can be seen in those particular sentences exhibiting preposition stranding or
pied piping.
 Seminar 5 – Relative Clauses

1. Combine the following sentences so as to get relative attributive clauses (some of the
sentences can be combined in two ways):

1. She came to London. I went to London, too. 2. John told his friend a story about the king.
The king was just passing by. 3. They met those students. None of the students agreed with
them. 4. I bought Jim a book. He liked that book. 5. I introduced him to Jim. He told Jim
everything about his plans. 6. Susan wants to meet Jane. She doesn’t know anything about
Jane. 7. I had a book. I lost the book’s cover. 8. This is my husband. I am my husband’s wife.
9. The students like their teacher. Any of the students would answer to questions. 10. The
students like their teacher. All of them would answer their teacher’s questions.

2. Write a sentence as similar as possible to the given one. Use the word in capitals
without changing it:

Whose is the car which is blocking the street? WHOM

This is the town in which Charles Dickens was buried. WHERE
It was silly of him to tell her the secret. WHICH
He’s the author who received the prize. WHO
These are people about whom we cannot tell much. WHO
That couple had their child abducted by terrorists. WHOSE
It was such a pity that you couldn’t join the party. WHICH
To whom are you writing this letter? WHO
This is the guy that they first met in Monte Carlo. WHOM
These are the tulips that were awarded the big prize. TO
A lot of tourists went on a trip to Delphi; most of them were from England. WHOM

3. Identify the relative clauses stating their type in the sentences below:

1. This is the village where I spent my youth. 2. Did he mention the time when the plane takes
off? 3. Did they tell you the reason why they all left? 4. Shakespeare, who is a genius, is a
great playwright. 5. The advantage of the supermarket is that you can buy what you want at a
place where you can park your car. 6. On the day on which this occurred I was away. 7. He
cannot have been more than twenty when we first met. 8. I have met him where I least
expected. 9 She, on whom nobody could depend, was the one we all welcomed and admired.
10. They are what their parents made them, however sad this may be.

4. Translate the following, paying attention to the restriction imposed by antecedent

determiners on relative clauses:

1. Acesta nu este Bucureștiul pe care-l știu eu. 2. Dintre toate personajele prezente, prințul a
ales-o pe Cenușăreasa, care era cea mai frumoasă fată din sală. 3. Dintre toate persoanele de
față a trebuit să mă alegi pe mine să vorbesc, care nu știu să leg nici două cuvinte. 4. Cine nu
muncește nu izbândește. 5. Voi care vă credeți mari și tari, poftiți în față. 6. Cu toții doreau să-
l audă pe acel Luciano Pavarotti care încântase mii de iubitori de operă. 7. Mie, căreia nu-mi
plăcea să las lucrurile neterminate, nu-mi convenea o astfel de situație.

5. Analyse the syntactic function of the relative clause and of the relative pronoun that
introduces it:
1. She was a poor housewife, but a passionate knitter, the products of whose nimble fingers
were worn by Stollfus. 2. It is therefore not surprising that the theology upon which the
Reformation was founded should be due to a man whose sense of sin was abnormal. 3. He had
entertained hopes of being admitted to a sight of the young ladies, of whose beauty he had
heard so much. 4. He thought how like her her expression was then to what it had been the
moment when she looked round at the doctor. 5. He is also handsome, which a young man
ought likewise to be. 6. And that money, which will not be yours, until your mother’s decease,
is all that you may ever be entitled to. 7. And yet, you should go to the place where the river
is, to where the rich and powerful are. 8. I cannot see him whenever he pleases. 9. It was
family pride and filial pride, for he is very proud of what his father was. 10. One evening of
each week was set aside for the reception of whosoever chose to visit him. 11. This law was
that which the senator thought of as his legislative masterpiece. 12. Only three were aware of
what was undoubtedly known there. 13. These people never want to talk about what you want
to talk about. 14. He flunked whatever students he disliked. 15. They listened to what he had
to say.

6. Comment upon the grammaticality of the following:

a) The man who(m)/*which/that/ we saw was nice. b) The book *who(m)/which/that/ I

read last night surprised me. c) The woman who/*whom/*which/that/* came to dinner was
very late. d) The book*whom/which/that/* deals with this problem is very good. e) The man
for whom/*who/*which/*that/* we are looking is not here. f) The man
who(m)/*which/that/ we are looking for is not here. g) The book for
*whom/which/*that/* we are looking is in my bag. h) The book *who(m)/which/that/ we
are looking for is in my bag.

7. Read the following and notice the literary effect caused by the phenomenon of
recursiveness (repeated embeddings of sentences that become relative clauses) in the
passage; try to translate the Romanian text using the same technique.

This is the horse that kicked the policeman, that I saw trying to clear away the crowd that had
collected to watch the fight that the short man had started.
(Iris Murdoch, “The Accidental Man”)

„Guturaiul”. Cumnatul meu avea, pe linie paternă, un văr primar, al cărui unchi pe linie
maternă avea un socru, al cărui bunic pe linie paternă se-nsurase în a doua căsătorie cu o
tânără băștinașă, al cărei frate întâlnise într-una din călătoriile sale o fată de care se
îndrăgostise și cu care a avut un fiu, care s-a căsătorit cu o farmacistă curajoasă, care nu era
altceva decât nepoata unui subofițer de marină din marina britanică și al cărui tată adoptiv
avea o matușă care vorbea curgător spaniolă și care era, poate, una din nepoatele unui inginer,
mort de tânăr, nepot la rândul lui al unui proprietar de vie din care se obținea un vin modest,
dar care avea un văr de-al doilea, vajnic plutonier, al cărui fiu se însurase cu o tânără foarte
frumoasă, divorțată, al cărei prim soț era fiul unui patriot sincer, care s-a priceput să-și crească
una din fete în dorința de a face avere și care a reușit să se mărite cu un vânător, care-l
cunoscuse pe Rothschild și al cărui frate, după ce-și schimbase de mai multe ori meseria, s-a
căsătorit și a avut o fată, al cărei străbunic, pirpiriu, purta niște ochelari pe care-i primise de la
un văr al lui, cumnatul unui portughez, fiu natural al unui morar, nu prea sărac, al cărui frate
de lapte luase de nevastă pe fiica unui fost medic de țară, el însuși frate de lapte cu fiul unui
lăptar, la rândul lui fiul natural al unui alt medic de țară, însurat de trei ori la rând, a cărui a
treia soție … (Eugen Ionesco, „Teatru”)
8. Which of the following relative sentences can be reformulated by means of preposition
stranding?

1. The first question with which Ambrose had to deal was that of the statue of victory in
Rome. 2. The time at which he ate breakfast was inconvenient. 3. Thus they remained utterly
obsessed with themselves and each other, and some natural healing process of which Dorina
felt she ought to know. 4. In the interest of public decency, the safeguarding of which was
actually not his task, he requested that the public be excluded. 5. The problem of safe
transportation, no easy answers to which could be offered, has been troubling them forever. 6.
She was the very woman about whom I knew absolutely nothing. 7. This was the ice-pick
with which one had seen her stab her husband to death. 8. She had fully realized how much
her love for Austin cut her off from other people, as if she were being gradually cornered by a
relentlessness of which he was the almost unconscious agent. 9. For the intense anxious sense
of herself with which she was suddenly invested she was quite untrained. 10. Irene, for whom
he had sacrificed his nights and days, he rarely saw now.

9. Identify the cases of Pied Piping in the following sentences:

1. His father’s friends, whose interest he most sincerely shared, were now all gone. 2. This
story, the unravelling of which had cost her many minutes of her life, was now complete. 3.
She had lying in front of her a number of books and dictionaries most of which had been
shipped from remote countries. 4. The only relatives she would have liked to put up with were
her mother’s sisters. 5. His friends, no matter which, knew nothing of what he had been
subjected to.

10. Optional Exercises. Translate the following making use of the knowledge acquired
about relative clauses:

De douăzeci de ani, din săraca urbe provincială unde vegetau fără speranță, capitala le
păruse un pisc inaccesibil, spre care aveau drept să năzuiască numai cutezătorii cu glezna tare
și plămânii largi.
Toate sfârșeau. Rămânea un vis urât și lung de care și amintirea va fugi mâine
cutremurată.
Căci pentru toți patru copiii, cu toată deosebirea de vârstă și fire, capitala era
necunoscutul miraculos (…) unde fiecare va afla tot ce-i poftește inima și tot ce i-a urzit,
himeric, închipuirea.
Nelu, al treilea frate în ordinea cronologică, închipuia capitala ca un fabulos garaj de
unde nu lipsește nici o marcă de automobil din cele mai rarisime și ca o vastă arenă sportivă,
unde în fiecare zi se dezlănțuie competiția între două echipe (…).
Pentru alții, pentru dumneata bunăoară, precât am înțeles din cele ce-mi vorbeai
adineauri, sunt vrednic de invidiat.
A venit la mine să-mi ceară să-i numesc un ginere director. I-am numit ginerele cum a
vrut și unde a vrut, de altfel un băiat bun! – și nu știa cum să-mi mulțumească.
Nu-i greu să-și dea seama cât m-am scandalizat și ce tămbălău am făcut când văzui
cum te-au lăsat toți să mucezești într-o asemenea puturoșenie de târg.
Vag își amintea că într-adevăr (…) fusese chemat să dezlege o întâmplare tulbure și că
în spiritul său drept și-a sacrificat prietenul pentru adevăr. Dar ce anume a fost și cum s-a
terminat povestea nu mai știa și nici n-ar fi crezut vreodată că exista cineva care să mai
păstreze o atât de fidelă amintire. Fostul camarad îi apăru cu totul altfel de cum îl socotise
până acum.
Ești proaspăt sosit aici, nu-ți dai poate încă pe deplin seama de câte intrigi și de câte
presiuni uzează politicianismul chiar în justiție.
 Dacă le convingea vreo însușire cât de mică, speram că aveai să faci dumneata ceea ce
face un frate mai mare pentru unul mai mic. Îmi spuneam că nu se poate să nu bănuiești în ce
singurătate și deznădejde se află un om tânăr într-un oraș unde totul îi e dușmănos!
Tot ce-ai citit dumneata încă nu înseamnă nimic! Să-ți mai adaog și concluzia ultimă,
care nu figurează nici în dezbaterile procesului, nici în searbăda mea versiune, la care văd că
tot tragi mereu cu ochii. (…) Cât golim ceștile astea de cafea, ți-o rezum la câteva cuvinte.
Ceea ce n-a făcut președintele de tribunal din Franța, când îl invitase pe Henri
Rochefort să ia în primire un sector electoral și să se aleagă deputat, cu surle și cu tobe, a făcut
el.
(Cezar Petrescu – Calea Victoriei – slightly adapted)

– De altfel chiar și idealuri de felul acesta mă străduiesc să nu-mi mai fac pentru că am
observat că mi se îndeplinesc și nu pot alege acum care dintre ele merge în sensul vieții mele
adevărate și care nu, încă neștiind care este adevărata mea viață.
Voi încerca să-mi explic de ce la început mi s-a părut că ai ochii verzi și de ce astăzi,
până mai adineauri, ochii tăi au fost cenușii.
Avea acum un fel de vertij, din care cauză pe Dora, deși atât de aproape, o vedea ca de
la o mare distanță.
În spatele lor, pe strada Icoanei, tramvaiul venea cu duduit de avalanșă și bătăi de
clopote trase furios de o perdea roșie și galbenă, de fier, între ele și străzile și casele din urmă-
le, dinspre Maria Rosetti, din direcția căreia apoi, de unde venea și Marta, apărură, izvorânde
mereu însă tare îndepărtate, cu sclipiri abia vizibile, roiuri de fetițe.
– E foarte frumos ce-mi spui, zise ea cu ochii mari, pierduți într-o direcție vagă.
Nici nu îndrăznesc să mă gândesc la bănuiala care mă încearca. Dar nu vezi? Mai întâi
ideea că a rămas sărac, apoi că trebuie să lichideze tot și să plece și acum că e bolnav când de
fapt cu toții știm că este sănătos. Nu ți se pare bizar la el care până acum a fost un bărbat atât
de energic, optimist și cumpănit?
(Radu Petrescu – Matei Iliescu)