Andrew Patterson wrote:
>Another interesting thing that I've just noticed about the subjunctive:
>It seems to have two subjects.
>
>We say I[subject 1] wish[verb] he[subject 2] would stop talking[verb phrase
>
>
>I asked if anyone thought the subjunctive is also a type of relative
>clause. The truth is I don't know.
>
The above is not a relative clause. The omitted 'that' is a conjunction,
not a relative pronoun.
>
>We do not usually use pronouns with relative clauses, so it is difficult to
>relate it that way.
>
>But, thinking of that great film, "She" with Ursula Andress. In the film
>Ursula was refered to as "She who must be obeyed." If I convert this into a
>relative clause, I could say,
>
>"I[subject 1]am going to visit she[subject 2] who must be obeyed.
>
The above is wrong.Visit requires an object. The relative pronoun
'who' is the subject of the relative clause
I am going to visit she*
It probably seems right because 'She' in the context of the novel
feels like a name rather than a pronoun so
'She who must be obeyed' in its entirety becomes the object of visit
>
>Somehow,
>
>"I'm going to visit her who must be obeyed," sounds wrong, so relative
>clauses (or at least the one above has two subjects but no object.
>
>Can anyone tell me what's going on here?
>
>By the way, if you haven't seen the film it's well worth seeing.
>
>
The above is correct
I'm going to visit the the woman who called earlier
I'm going to visit her
It's probably because you are not used to seeing a pronoun as the object
of the first clause that it seems wrong
David Barrow