Re: Mandarin Relative Clauses?

SMITH,MARCUS ANTHONY wrote:

> Frankly, I don't believe that this sentence is an example of extraposition
> due to a heavy relative clause. I think instead that it is a necessity of
> copular sentences. Note that the "light" relative you used before also
> cannot function as the subject of a copular sentence.
>
> *Who doesn't work is a lazy person.
> Whoever doesn't work is a lazy person.
>
> *Who sings well is a talented person.
> Whoever sings well is a talented person.
Granted.  But:

    What you see is what you get.
    Whatever you see is what you get.

    When you fall 50 m, you are dead.
    Whenever you fall 50 m, you are dead.

These *are* semantically different, but both members of each pair
are grammatical.  So it is "who" that is different, not just
copulatives.

--
There is / one art             || John Cowan <jcowan@...>
no more / no less              || http://www.reutershealth.com
to do / all things             || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
with art- / lessness           \\ -- Piet Hein