While drafting an answer on another site, at one point I came up with the following sentence:
*You can’t force someone to follow a contract who hasn’t agreed to it.
I think the intended meaning is clear. But if you apply the grammar rules strictly, without regard for semantics, it would seem that the ‘who’ applies to the contract, which is a strange thing to say.
Is this construction grammatical and does it have a distinct name?
It seems it’s not an unheard of construction, at least.
We see dimly in the Present what is small and what is great,
Slow of faith how weak an arm may turn this iron helm of fate,
But the soul is still oracular; amid the market's din,
List the ominous stern whisper from the Delphic cave within,—
"They enslave their children's children who make compromise with sin."— James Russell Lowell, The Present Crisis
It’s even less clear here that Lowell meant ‘They {enslave their children’s children} who make compromise with sin.’ and not ‘They enslave {their children’s children who make compromise with sin}.’ (Perhaps he was aiming for some double meaning here.) But it makes sense to think the first interpretation is at least an intended one.
I guess if it’s good enough for Lowell, it’s good enough for me.
