空論上の砂、楼閣上の机。

The Castle of Indolence

関係詞節が命令文になる?!

友人が Freeden (2015) から次の一節を紹介してくれました。

If, however, private property was seen as a means to other liberal attributes, say self-development, that might explain the fluctuating fortunes of the concept of property in liberal thought and practice—namely, its relative centrality or distance from the liberal core, on which, see Chapter 4.

全体の構造としては [If private property(S') was seen(V') . . . ,] that(S) might explain(V) the fluctuating fortunes(O) . . . , [on which, see Chapter 4]. となっており、「この点については第4章を参照せよ」というように前文の内容を指した非制限節をつくっています。種類としては . . . , {∅︎/on/for} which see {∅︎/(O)}. ぐらいしかお目にかかったことがありませんが、逆にこの6種類は学術的な文章だとよく見かけます。なぜ学術的なのかというと、それはラテン語の quod vide (q.v.) に由来していると考えられるからでしょう。Petzell (2013) は次のように指摘しています。

In the short-hand style of dictionaries, the phrase om vilket se (lit. ‘of which see’) is used to direct the reader forward. Referring phrases of this exact sort occur in Latin: quod vide. Presumably, the Swedish om vilket se should be seen as an instance of adaptation to the Latin equivalent, an adaptation that has occurred in other European languages as well (e.g. English which see). The Latin phrase is not to be analysed as a subordinate clause containing an imperative verb form. Rather, it is an instance of so called relative connection, whereby a wh-phrase is used in a non-interrogative (i.e. relative) way in an independent utterance.

私がこのような現象を初めて知ったのは長原 (1990) です。

非制限節は独自の発話行為として独自の文のタイプを選べ、(48) のように命令文の形を取るということまで起こるという。

(48) a. Please accept my check for $3.69, which find enclosed.
b. Examples abound in Ross (1967), which see.

Cinque (2008) もこの用例を多く載せています。

As with il quale-nonrestrictives (and differently from che/cui-nonrestrictives) in Italian (cf. (10)(11) above), English nonrestrictives can also be non-declarative. See (36), where the nonrestrictives are interrogative, and (37), where they are imperative (37a/b), or optative (37c):

(36) a. There is then our father, by whom will we ever be forgiven for what we have done?
b. It may clear up, in which case would you mind hanging the washing out? (= (10ii) of Huddleston and Pullum 2002,1061)
c. She may have her parents with her, in which case where am I going to sleep? (= (10iii) of Huddleston and Pullum 2002,1061)
d. I want to talk to that man, who who the hell is he anyway? (Andrews 1975,28)

(37) a. Please accept my check for $3.69, which find enclosed! (Martin 1972,5)
b. He said he’d show a few slides towards the end of his talk, at which point please remember to dim the lights!
(= (10i) of Huddleston and Pullum 2002,1061)
c. My friend, who God forbid you should ever meet,...(John Lyons, reported in Werth 1974,fn.4)

最後の (37) c. についてですが、これは God forbid you should ever meet my friend. が元となっています。Werth (1974) によれば、この文は Lyons が提示したものであるようですが、同時に Lyons は

If I were the marrying kind,
Which thank the lord I’m not sir,
The kind of man that I would wed,
Would be a rugby full-back.

というラグビーの歌を引用しているようです。Werth はこの “thank the lord” が挿入句とも考えられるとコメントしつつも、“God forbid” が挿入句であるとは考えられないとして非制限節の特徴を強調しています。

参考文献

長原幸雄. (1990). 「関係節」. 『新英文法選書』, 8. 大修館書店.
Cinque, G. (2008). Two types of nonrestrictive relatives. Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics. 7.
Freeden, M. (2015). Liberalism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.
Petzell, E. M. (2013). Relative inversion and non-verb-initial imperatives in Early Modern Swedish. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 36(01), 27–55. doi:10.1017/s0332586513000115
Werth, P. (1974). Some thoughts on non-restrictive relatives. Linguistics, 142:33–67.