Can post-copular predicative noun phrases take non-restrictive who-clauses?

[birdeen's call]

Tova Rebecca Rapaport (A Study of Israeli Hebrew, 1987, PhD thesis, avaliable on the internet, p. 135) says what follows. (Square brackets are mine.)

Thus, the post-copular NP [noun phrase] of an equative can precede this type of relative [that is a non-restrictive relative with "who"]; the post-copular NP of a predicative can not.

Is the following correct, and does it refute the statement above?

"And what happened after the accident?"
"A stranger helped me."
"In Wołomin? I don't believe that. How did he help you?"
"It wasn't a man. It was a woman, who looked just like Ania by the way, and if it hadn't been for her, I'd have died there. She dressed the wound on my arm, and she took me to the hospital."

It seems to me that it is correct. I think it refutes Rapaport's statement too. "A woman" does precede "who looked just like Ania", and I think "who looked just like Ania" is a non-restrictive who-clause. But I feel that it's cheating, because what we have here is a parenthetical clause. If this does refute Rapaport's statement, can the statement be repaired? I feel there should be a way to do it.

 

[5jj]

"It wasn't a man. It was a woman, who looked just like Ania by the way, and if it hadn't been for her, I'd have died there. She dressed the wound on my arm, and she took me to the hospital."

It is fine.

It seems to me that it is correct. I think it refutes Rapaport's statement too. "A woman" does precede "who looked just like Ania", and I think "who looked just like Ania" is a non-restrictive who-clause. But I feel that it's cheating, because what we have here is a parenthetical clause. If this does refute Rapaport's statement, can the statement be repaired? I feel there should be a way to do it.

I think that Rapaport would argue that the antecedent of 'who' is 'it'. If that seems odd, rephrase the sentence slightly - "The stranger was a woman, who looked like Mary, and ..."

This is what Rapaport seems to be arguing at the bottom of page 135 of her thesis. I'll stop there for the moment.

 

[birdeen's call]

I think that Rapaport would argue that the antecedent of 'who' is 'it'. If that seems odd, rephrase the sentence slightly - "The stranger was a woman, who looked like Mary, and ..."

This is what Rapaport seems to be arguing at the bottom of page 135 of her thesis. I'll stop there for the moment.

Thanks, I see. I missed the footnote. I'll think about it and ask if I have trouble with something.

 

[5jj]

Thanks, I see. I missed the footnote. I'll think about it and ask if I have trouble with something.

I don't know that I will be able to give convincing answers. I haven't really given the thesis the time needed to test every claim properly, but my fairly superficial first reading gave me the impression that she was skating on rather thin ice at times..