‘at which (time)’ vs ‘when’

Thomas Tompion said:

JungKim said:

It’s definitely something new to me in that I never knew which could do that after at.

Click to expand…

It can do it after many prepositions, present participles, etc.

It can do it after many prepositions, present participles, etc.

Click to expand…

Actually, I was saying that what is new to me is which referring to the main clause (as antecedent) without any following noun such as point, time, etc. after the preposition at.

I wasn’t saying that what is new to me is which referring to the main clause (as antecedent) after some other prepositions such as after or during or even after present participles (more on this later). For example, rhitagawr’s and my own examples below do seem to work for me:

I mowed the lawn, after which I watched television. [rhitagawr’s]
I mowed the lawn, during which my wife watched television. [mine]

Thomas Tompion said:

I don’t see that it’s a rare usage at all. As I said, there are several examples in the British Corpus.

Click to expand…

Out of how many examples are there several such examples?

In Google News, as I said in my previous post, out of the 100 examples (10 examples x 10 pages) of “at which he” that I’ve looked at, no which refers to the whole main clause. In all the 100 examples, which refers to a noun phrase (in a non-restrictive relative) or a noun (in a restrictive relative) in the main clause.

Now, I’ve searched for the usage of which in The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (by Huddleston and Pullum, 2002), but it doesn’t seem to have it. So I looked at A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (by Quirk, 1985), where one “at which” example is shown under Sentential relative clauses (page 1119):

Her brother snatched the letter away, at which she was furious.

But somehow this one I find much more natural sounding than your (1)/(2) or the two British Corpus examples. I think it’s because I’m familiar with the construction “she was furious at something”, which I think helps me figure out more readily how the main clause is describing the situation at which she was furious even though the noun ‘situation’ does not come after which.

Here’re a couple of other relevant examples taken from Quirk:

Mortimer exploded a firecracker during a lesson, as a result of which he was suspended from school for a week.
There was a sudden increase in the readership of Sunday papers, after noticing which several editors changed their policy.

Both of which I find fairly natural even though which comes after other prepositions and the present participle.

In contrast, your (1)/(2) and the two British Corpus examples don’t seem to help me figure out as readily what the preposition at is doing there, until I get to know these particular examples.

And I might not be the only one who feels this way. Note that at least one BE speaker seems to be saying that (1) doesn’t work:

rhitagawr said:

I mowed the lawn, after which I watched television. If you think at which in 1 and after which here fulfil the same grammatical function, you may be right, in which case I can’t explain why one works and the other doesn’t. Perhaps it’s yet another quirk in a very quirky language.

Click to expand…

The two British Corpus examples seem to have been written by those who were born in the early 20th century. Is this simply a coincidence or is this usage of which not as productive among the younger generation as it is (or used to be) among the older generation (e.g., the authors of the British Corpus examples)?

Actually, I was saying that what is new to me isreferring to the main clause (as antecedent) without any following noun such as, etc. after the prepositionI wasn’t saying that what is new to me isreferring to the main clause (as antecedent) after some other prepositions such asoror even after present participles (more on this later). For example, rhitagawr’s and my own examples below do seem to work for me:[rhitagawr’s][mine]Out of how many examples are there several such examples?In Google News, as I said in my previous post, out of the 100 examples (10 examples x 10 pages) of “at which he” that I’ve looked at, norefers to the whole main clause. In all the 100 examples,refers to a noun phrase (in a non-restrictive relative) or a noun (in a restrictive relative) in the main clause.Now, I’ve searched for the usage ofin(by Huddleston and Pullum, 2002), but it doesn’t seem to have it. So I looked at(by Quirk, 1985), where one “at which” example is shown under(page 1119):But somehow this one I find much more natural sounding than your (1)/(2) or the two British Corpus examples. I think it’s because I’m familiar with the construction “she was furious at something”, which I think helps me figure out more readily how the main clause is describing the situation at which she was furious even though the noun ‘situation’ does not come afterHere’re a couple of other relevant examples taken from Quirk:Both of which I find fairly natural even thoughcomes after other prepositions and the present participle.In contrast, your (1)/(2) and the two British Corpus examples don’t seem to help me figure out as readily what the prepositionis doing there, until I get to know these particular examples.And I might not be the only one who feels this way. Note that at least one BE speaker seems to be saying that (1) doesn’t work:The two British Corpus examples seem to have been written by those who were born in the early 20th century. Is this simply a coincidence or is this usage ofnot as productive among the younger generation as it is (or used to be) among the older generation (e.g., the authors of the British Corpus examples)?