fused relative

[tchimpoi]

I wonder if a sentence like:

"what he did to me was wrong" would be a fused relative?

 

[Cagey]

I wonder if a sentence like:

"what he did to me was wrong" would be a fused relative?

Hi Tchimpol, and welcome to the forums.

Yes, "what" in this sentence is a "fused relative".

For those who are not familiar with this terminology, here is Wiki's description of a "fused or nominal relative clause":

a relative clause that does not modify an external noun phrase, and instead has a nominal function fused into it. For example:

What he did is clearly impossible, but I saw him do it.
​

Here, what he did has the sense of that which he did, i.e. the thing that he did, and functions as the subject of the verb is.
​

 

[Cagey]

Perhaps it would have been better to use the sentence given in the original post.

1) The original sentence without a "fused relative":

The thing that he did to me was wrong.
​

Here, the clause "that he did to me" modifies "thing". It functions as an adjective.

2) The example sentence with a "fused relative":

What he did to me was wrong.
​

Here one word, "what", stands for "the thing" and "that"; "what" is a "fused relative". The clause "What he did to me" is the subject of "was [wrong]". It has a "nominal function" (acts as the subject of the sentence) and is a fused or nominal relative clause.

I hope that this was helpful to someone.

 

[tchimpoi]

Thanks for all the info. Appreciate it very much.

Tchimpoi