2

The following is an excerpt from the website.

Disneyland, all of which belongs to the Disney Company, is located in Anaheim.

While I am aware of "all of which", "some of which", etc. usages, I think I've never heard of "all of that".

Disneyland, all of that belongs to the Disney Company, is located in Anaheim.

I believe the second sentence is grammatically wrong. A thought occured to me that it may be related to the nonrestrictive usage of relative pronoun. "That" cannot be used as nonrestrictive one.(after comma)

Can anyone please verify this?

Improve this question
7
  • You are correct.
    – relaxing
    Commented Mar 17, 2017 at 15:46
  • 1
    You are right, "that" is not possible in that function. Which is one of the reasons why "that" is not a relative pronoun, but a clause subordinator.
    – BillJ
    Commented Mar 17, 2017 at 15:52
  • @BillJ Thank you for your helpful comment! Can you please elaborate more on a "clause subordinator"?
    – thegreentea
    Commented Mar 17, 2017 at 17:10
  • The word "that" which introduces relative clauses is not actually a relative pronoun but a subordinator, just as it is when it introduces content clauses as in I realise that you felt insulted. This is evident from several factors; for example it has no genitive form and it cannot occur as complement of a preposition. It is not possible to say *the woman that's turn it was (instead you have to say the woman whose turn it was). And you can't say *The letter to that you referred (instead you have to say the letter to which you referred.)
    – BillJ
    Commented Mar 17, 2017 at 17:56
  • @BillJ I tried to understand your explanation with my background in grammar, which was learned outside English-speaking countries. Here is my interpretation: a "subordinator" means that when "that" is followed by a perfect sentence, introducing a noun clause; as a "relative pronoun", "that" is followed by an incomplete sentence(lacking subject or object), introducing an adjective clause. As you said, if "that" in "all of that" is a subordinator, the sentence is wrong becuase it is replacing part of the subject.
    – thegreentea
    Commented Mar 17, 2017 at 18:48

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

Your are correct in this context. Personally, I think the "all of which" is too much and in actual communication you would just say:

Disneyland, owned by the Disney Corporation, is located in Anaheim.

But I get that site is just offering examples using "all of which". "All of that" is not grammatically incorrect, though. That is a generic pronoun which, in this use, would refer to some previously mentioned subject.

(After reading a long book) It took a long time, but I'm glad I read all of that.

(Looking over an area of new houses) All of that was built in the last three years.

Less stringent environmental controls leads to increased pollution in Asia, and all of that eventually turns into smog over parts of North America.

Of course, in the third sentence, you could more efficiently say

"... Asia, all of which eventually turns into smog ..."

Improve this answer
3
  • Thank you so much for your detailed explanation! So, "that" does not play a role as a relative pronoun (which serves as conjunction+pronoun). Am I correctly understoond?
    – thegreentea
    Commented Mar 17, 2017 at 17:02
  • @Luxembourg , BillJ says here it's a "clause subordinator", meaning it helps join two clauses together. I don't quite understand the subtle distinction between a "relative pronoun" and a "clause subordinator" since in my examples "that" definitely acts as a pronoun.
    – Andrew
    Commented Mar 17, 2017 at 17:07
  • 1
    I was referring only to the "that" which introduces relative clauses (see my message to the OP). The "that" in your examples is of course a pronoun used anaphorically.
    – BillJ
    Commented Mar 17, 2017 at 18:06

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .