0

American sitcom That '70s Show has these lines (YouTube):

Eric: So, uh, for future reference, do I have to ask you, uh, before I go out with my friends?

Donna: No. Uh yes. Sometimes.

Eric: So, uh, how will I know which times?

Donna: Well, you'll know afterwards, when I get mad.

Is when a relative word taking afterwards as antecedent?

If you think this analysis is wrong, please provide your own analysis.

If you think this is right, please explain why it has to be.

Improve this question
3
  • It's a joke. After one of the times that you should have asked is when I will get mad.
    – Hot Licks
    Jul 4, 2020 at 2:19
  • @HotLicks Do I look like I don't understand the line?
    – JK2
    Jul 4, 2020 at 2:41
  • You need a noun antecedent for when to act as a relative (where it means in which or on which).
    – Tinfoil Hat
    Jul 5, 2020 at 7:09

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
2
+25

Donna: Well, you'll know afterwards, when I get mad.

Is when a relative word taking afterwards as antecedent?

When, adverb = the time at which

This is spoken “Well, you'll know afterwards, [slight pause] when I get mad.” = “Well, you'll know afterwards, which is when I will get mad.” or “Well, you'll know afterwards because afterwards is the time at which I will get mad.”

“when I get mad” is in apposition to “afterwards” – you can omit either “when I get mad” or “afterwards” (but not both.)

Afterwards is an adverb, and thus “when I get mad” is a descriptive adverbial phrase, explaining the meaning of “afterwards” – it is thus ‘relative’.

Consider:

“John, the man who owns the shop, is very ill.” You can omit "John" or "the man who owns the shop"

Improve this answer
8
  • 2
    Yes: afterwards and when I get mad are in apposition, not afterwards and when. The Wikipedia example is incorrect.
    – Edwin Ashworth
    Jul 4, 2020 at 9:30
  • Is there any reason for inserting "will" before "get"?
    – JK2
    Jul 4, 2020 at 15:52
  • @EdwinAshworth What Wikipedia example?
    – JK2
    Jul 4, 2020 at 15:53
  • @JK2 That cited in the previous answer.
    – Edwin Ashworth
    Jul 4, 2020 at 16:16
  • @EdwinAshworth Please explain how the example is incorrect.
    – JK2
    Jul 5, 2020 at 0:02
1

Yes, the "afterwards" is an antecedent to the "when" in this case.

One of the examples of an antecedent that is followed by a corresponding proform, given in this wikipedia page is

d. He arrived in the afternoon, when nobody was home. - Prepositional phrase as antecedent

where "in the afternoon" is a prepositional phrase that is the antecedent to "when". The difference between this example and the one in "Well, you'll know afterwards, when I get mad.", is that this example is in the past, hence, "when nobody was home". In "Well, you'll know afterwards, when I get mad.", the "afterwards" is in the future, so the present simple is used in "when I get mad".

As we can see in the Cambridge Dictionary's grammar section

The present simple is used to refer to events in the future which are certain because they are facts, or because there is a clear or fixed schedule or timetable.

Improve this answer
7
  • Although the wiki marks "in the afternoon" as antecedent of "when", I'm not sure if the antecedent is "in the afternoon" or "the afternoon". Take for example He waited until the afternoon, when nobody was home. Here, I think the antecedent is "the afternoon", not "until the afternoon". If so, why can't we say that the antecedent in the wiki example is also "the afternoon", not "in the afternoon"?
    – JK2
    Jul 4, 2020 at 4:21
  • If the antecedent were "afternoon", then "when nobody was at home" would have to be adjectival. In that case "in the afternoon when nobody was at home" would not have a comma and be a complete noun phrase, In that case it would have to be "on the afternoon when nobody was at home" and that would have to refer to a previously mentioned afternoon. However, we see that what is meant is that "He arrived in the afternoon and he arrived when nobody was at home" - both are adverbial.
    – Greybeard
    Jul 4, 2020 at 22:09
  • @Greybeard I don't understand your dichotomy between "adjectival" and "adverbial". (1) Who said the antecedent is "afternoon"? I was comparing "the afternoon" (not "afternoon") and "in the afternoon" as antecedent. (2) Just because "when nobody was home" is a supplementary clause separated by a comma doesn't mean that it's an adverbial clause. If it were, you could place it before the main clause, which you can't.
    – JK2
    Jul 5, 2020 at 0:14
  • 1
    @JK2: I don't think the antecedent/proform framework applies here, as when nobody was home is not a proform by any definition I can imagine. In any case, these are two adverbial ways to say the same thing: He arrived in the afternoon. He arrived when nobody was home. Same here: He waited until the afternoon. He waited until when nobody was home. In the first set, the preposition participates in the apposition: in the afternoon = when nobody was home. In the second, it does not: the afternoon = when nobody was home. But in neither case is when nobody was home a relative clause.
    – Tinfoil Hat
    Jul 5, 2020 at 15:54
  • 1
    Maybe we should we pick a particular grammar for terms, but... // Relative (adjective) clause (when is a relative pronoun): He arrived on an afternoon when nobody was home. // Adverb clause (when is a subordinating conjunction): He arrived in the afternoon, when nobody was home. // Noun (fused/free relative) clause (when is a fused relative): He waited until when nobody was home.
    – Tinfoil Hat
    Jul 6, 2020 at 2:39

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.