You're absolutely right; both "the kind of hats" and "they didn’t really live in New York" can seem like potential objects of the verb "knew," which does create some ambiguity. Let’s break down the structure to clarify their relationship and the role of "knew" here.

Structural Breakdown

1. Noun Phrase: "the kind of hats"
   This is the head noun phrase that the entire clause modifies.

2. Relative Clause: "that you knew they didn’t really live in New York"
   This relative clause is connected to "the kind of hats" to convey an idea about the hats' appearance.

3. Embedded Sentence within the Relative Clause:
   The relative clause "that you knew they didn’t really live in New York" includes an embedded idea:

   • You knew (from the hats) that they didn’t really live in New York.

Resolving the Ambiguity

The verb "knew" here is subtly working in a causal sense: seeing the hats allowed the speaker to infer (or "know") that the wearers were not New Yorkers. In this sense:

• Direct Semantic Object: "they didn’t really live in New York" (the actual piece of knowledge inferred).
• Instrument of Knowledge: "the kind of hats" (the basis on which this knowledge was inferred).

Rephrasing to Clarify

To capture this meaning more directly, we could rephrase the sentence as:

• "They all had on the kind of hats that made you realize they didn’t really live in New York."

In this rephrasing:

• "the kind of hats" is what conveys the message, acting as an instrument or signal.
• "they didn’t really live in New York" is the inferred idea.

Summary

In the original sentence, "knew" takes "they didn’t really live in New York" as the understood fact. Meanwhile, "the kind of hats" provides the clue that triggers this knowledge. So, although the hats are not the direct semantic object of "knew," they serve as the reason for that knowledge, creating an implied causal relationship.

Great question! In the sentence “You knew (from the hats) that they didn’t really live in New York,” using “from which” instead of “that” does introduce some grammatical and stylistic issues. Here’s a closer look:

1. Grammatical Function of "From Which"

"From which" is a prepositional phrase that typically refers to a source or point of origin and is often used in more formal contexts. It usually follows nouns that denote something concrete or spatial—like a place, a container, or an idea that has a clear origin. For instance:

• “The city from which they came was beautiful.”
• “The evidence from which we drew our conclusions was solid.”

In these cases, “from which” clearly marks the source of information or origin.

2. Awkwardness and Ambiguity in Context

Replacing “that” with “from which” would make the sentence awkward and ambiguous:

"The kind of hats from which you knew they didn’t really live in New York."

This structure sounds unnatural because “hats” aren’t a typical “source” in a literal or figurative sense from which knowledge flows directly. It would imply the hats are almost like an information source or origin, which sounds odd and is confusing for the reader.

3. Stylistic Considerations

"That" is much more idiomatic here, making the sentence flow naturally. The phrase "the kind of hats that you knew" feels more like casual speech, while "from which you knew" is overly formal and doesn’t suit the informal tone of the sentence.

Summary

Grammatically, “from which” doesn’t work well because hats aren’t a direct source of information in the way that “from which” implies. So, "that" functions more naturally as a relative pronoun here, smoothly introducing the clause that describes what the hats imply about the wearers.

------------------------------------------------------------------

ChatGPT의 말: