A recent Perdue ad tries to get mileage from the old adage "You are what you eat." They want to underscore that their chickens are fed wholesome diets. They say "You are what you eat eats." But they should say "You are what what you eat eats."
In the sentence "what you eat" is a particular type of noun phrase (NP), a nominal relative clause.
To do what Perdue wants, you need to create an outer nominal relative clause. The nominal relative "what you eat" is the inner nominal relative clause, and it becomes the subject of the outer relative clause "what [what you eat] eats"
To simplify a bit, let's get to Perdue's point:
1) You are what you eat
2) A chicken is what it eats
3) You are what a chicken eats
If a chicken is "what you eat" you can substitute the nominal relative "what you eat" for the noun phrase "a chicken" in sentence 3). "You are what what you eat eats."
Never mind the implication that you are a chicken. Glide right past that. But Perdue needs better copy editors.
You are correct. However, if I were one of Perdue's copy editors, thinking about the overall appeal of the ad, I would choose what they chose. I believe that "Winston tastes good."
Maybe you are right. But there are differences. For over a century in English, like and as have been used interchangeably in this context. One encounters this commonly and frequently. Although grammar sticklers might bristle, it is part of the daily vernacular.
In the other case, I would be surprised if most people ever use two embedded nominal relatives or even encounter them. People just don't tend to think that way. It is too complicated. You will hear things like "What you see is what you get." But these nominal relatives are not embedded or nested.
As a result, I think it is the responsibility of the ad copy editors, if they choose to use that kind of complex construction, to get it right.
The Winston ad used the vernacular, and succeeded. The Perdue ad is attempting to use something very uncommon and very sophisticated, but is doing it incorrectly.
Glenn said
To simplify a bit, let's get to Perdue's point:
1) You are what you eat
2) A chicken is what it eats
3) You are what a chicken eats
I wonder if Perdue's ad agency was inspired by a bumper sticker, "Vegetables aren't food. Vegetables are what food eats."