Search results for 'tag:Conversations tag:Relative pronouns' matching tags 'Conversations' and 'Relative pronouns'

Tricky 'Relative Pronoun'

Stenka25 — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 10:09:37 GMT

Can you give me a precious tip from the following two paragraph?

1. Less than a decade into the new millennium, the separation between art and ordinary life is diminishing. ... Art is not a phase of life apart from the work-a-day world, to which one may turn in moments of leisure or perhaps in the name of so-called "culture,' or in a spirit of worship.

2. Whatever the reason for such behavior, unbalanced conversations usually remind us that turn taking is a fundamental part of the give and take that we expect from others in our everyday interactions.

I think,in 1, the underlined 'which' represents 'phase' and in 2, the underlined 'that' represents 'part.'

I want to know if I am right or not in my reasoning.

And I also want to know if someone asks me, why can't it be 'life' in 1, and why can't it be 'the give and take' in 2, how can I explain?

Re: Who or That

Cool Breeze — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 06:12:20 GMT

Conchita57 wrote:
In a very formal situation, the relative pronoun 'whom' could be used. In real life conversation, though, 'who' and that' are more usual, the latter being preferred. It is also possible, and even more common, to omit the relative pronoun altogether: He is the only man we need.

Hi Conchita

So in a very formal situation you would say:

He is the only man whom can do it.

(I'm referring to the original poster's sentence.) I wouldn't. Nor would I omit that in this sentence:

He is the only man that knows it and can help us.

Cheers
CB

Re: Who or That

Conchita57 — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 22:02:48 GMT

In a very formal situation, the relative pronoun 'whom' could be used. In real life conversation, though, 'who' and that' are more usual, the latter being preferred. It is also possible, and even more common, to omit the relative pronoun altogether: He is the only man we need.

Re: Could you help me with an authorative reference?

Mister Micawber — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 14:01:40 GMT

I am not clear on this, Pinenut-- the omission of restrictive relative pronouns is accepted, at least informally, in many other cases as well:

OMITTED RELATIVE, CONTACT CLAUSES

These two terms are used, along with others, to describe the common and perfectly acceptable practice of omitting the relative pronoun from a restrictive clause or restrictive modifier: Hereâs the dress Mother brought me. There is the woman Iâm going to marry. Two centuries ago people argued that all relatives ought to be stated, as in the dress that Mother brought, or the woman whom [that] Iâm going to marry, and a few people still insist that omitting relatives be limited to Informal or Semiformal writing and the Conversational levels, while others consider the omission suitable only to conversation. It is a matter of tone or style, not of correctness: sometimes omitted relatives can sound a bit more relaxed than the situation may require, and on other occasions including the relative pronoun may seem a bit ponderous or stiff. Standard English accepts either.

Am I missing something?

Re: Remove Whose & Rewrite without Whose

CalifJim — Sun, 23 Jan 2005 16:58:58 GMT

Just because we have object him/them does not mean that "the corresponding interrogative or relative pronoun", must be used.

True. So true, particularly because of the "must".

But in the context of a student question implicitly asking "What's all the fuss about 'who' and 'whom'?" I believe the student deserves some kind of easily grasped mnemonic/principle as an explanation, not just a dismissive "Don't bother with such stupidities", although frankly I am often tempted in that direction, as you surely recognize by my additional comments.

And in everyday conversation, you are unlikely to hear being used with near the frequency that you'll hear . Wouldn't you agree, Jim?

Come to California. Spend a month. Converse with as many people as you like. Take note of the number of times you hear "whom". I'll give you a dollar for each "whom" at the end of your stay. I doubt you'll have taxi fare to the airport for your trip back.

I think that pretty much answers whether I agree!

CJ

PS. Throw in a dollar for each "It is he" and "It is I". I don't think that taxi will go even another mile.

Re: Remove Whose & Rewrite without Whose

just the truth — Sun, 23 Jan 2005 09:55:56 GMT

Since the statement form is "I told the news to him." or "I told the news to them" [Note the m's.], the corresponding interrogative or relative pronoun also has the m: It's he to whom I told the news. It's he whom I told the news to.

JT: Just because we have object him/them does not mean that "the corresponding interrogative or relative pronoun", must be used.

--------------------
The Grammar Book

They [prescriptive grammars] also tell us to always use in object position. A prescriptive grammar can be abused by those who insist on outdated conventions ... .
-------------------

Note that in everyday conversation, you are not ever going to hear anyone say "It's he to whom I told the news" or even "It's he who I told the news to". It just doesn't occur in everyday speech. In fact, it would be almost as rare to find it in modern writing as well.

JT: And in everyday conversation, you are unlikely to hear being used with near the frequency that you'll hear . Wouldn't you agree, Jim?

Re: Remove Whose & Rewrite without Whose

CalifJim — Sun, 23 Jan 2005 06:39:05 GMT

"He's the one I told the news to" or "He's the one I told" is the more idiomatic formulation.

Since the statement form is "I told the news to him." or "I told the news to them" [Note the m's.], the corresponding interrogative or relative pronoun also has the m: It's he to whom I told the news. It's he whom I told the news to.

Note that in everyday conversation, you are not ever going to hear anyone say "It's he to whom I told the news" or even "It's he who I told the news to". It just doesn't occur in everyday speech. In fact, it would be almost as rare to find it in modern writing as well.

Re: WHO, WHOME, WHOSE????????

miriam — Tue, 18 May 2004 11:57:38 GMT

Who, whom and whose are relative pronouns. Who and whom are used for persons. They introduce relative clauses postmodifying the head of a noun phrase, and they are identical in form with interrogative pronouns but function differently.

Who: nominative form.
"The student who failed the test was very upset."
"I know the address of the girl who forgot her keys on my desk."

Whom: objective form.
Whom is formal and used mainly in writing. In conversation it is usually replaced by who (unless it follows a preposition):
"Tom, who(m) I have always trusted, told me the truth about the incident."
"The beggar to whom I gave some bread last night is back."
or
"The beggar who(m) I gave some bread to last night is back."

Who(m) may be omitted as objects in a relative clause:
"Tom is a man [whom] I have always trusted."
"The beggar [whom] I gave some bread to last night is back."

Whose: possessive form.
"That is the teacher whose students are bright."
"The new book, whose aim is to introduce you to the world of linguistics, is now available at the library."

Here are a few examples of interrogative pronouns:
"Who was at the party last night?"
"To whom did you lend my books?" / "Who(m) did you lend my books to?"
"Who(m) will you invite to your birthday party?"
"Whose notebook is this?" / "Whose is this notebook?"

If you can understand this, you could try to complete the sentences you posted. Give it a try!

Miriam