Re: "Difficult" clauses

On May 13, 2007, at 7:08 AM, MorphemeAddict@WMCONNECT.COM wrote:

> In a message dated 5/12/2007 9:29:58 PM Central Daylight Time,
> hmiller@IO.COM
> writes:
>
>
>>> "We spent all night talking about something I don't remember what it
>>> was" doesn't sound right to me.  Shouldn't there be something
>>> after "something": "and," a period, a semicolon?
>>
>> Not a pause, but you can add an implicit "that" after "something".
>>
>>
>
> Any of the three options "and", period, or semicolon would work
> fine, since
> it's essentially two independent clauses.
> Adding explicit "that" is wrong, though, because "that" would be
> the direct
> object of "I don't remember", but there is already an explicit
> direct object:
> "what it was".
> If "that" *is* added, then "what it was" should be left out or put
> in its own
> clause somehow.
You're talking about using the word "it" for the "trace" in the
hypothetical quasi-sentence "We spent all night talking about
something [that] I don't remember what {trace} was". My impression is
that such constructions are OK in some idiolects but not others. It
isn't quite grammatical in my idiolect, although occasionally I say
such things anyway, fully conscious that they feel ungrammatical,
because sometimes it is the quickest or most obvious way to say
something.

Come to think of it, that suggests the question to me of just what it
is to have a native intuition of grammaticality -- can I really claim
to find it ungrammatical, if I do sometimes come up with it
spontaneously (and not as deliberate wordplay)? But it really does
feel ungrammatical.