http://www.englishforums.com/search/pro.htm?q=tag%3aRelative+PronounsSearch results for 'tag:Relative Pronouns' matching tag 'Relative Pronouns'en-USXMOD (Build: 3616.28671)http://www.englishforums.com/English/TwoInquiriesIntransitiveTransitive-ProblemRelativePronounPos/lxkrh/post.htmTue, 17 Nov 2009 10:30:18 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:990410minofachinoAfter talking it out with some fellow teachers and looking some terms up...we're still a little unsure about our conclusions. Any clarifications would be greatly appreciated! "I'm going to talk about Ichiro Suzuki." (Starting out a speech). When I substitute "speak" for "talk"--it works pretty good (I'm going to speak about Ichiro Suzuki). When I use "tell" it sounds really weird to me (I'm going to tell about Ichiro Suzuki). I feel like I need an object or something with "tell"--"I'm going to tell you about Ichiro Suzuki." Is this because "speak" and "talk" are generally more intransitive? Even if this is the case, "tell" can...http://www.englishforums.com/English/CanIUseThatAsPlural/lhhhc/post.htm#965640Mon, 09 Nov 2009 01:03:27 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:965640avangiHi chattt, Welcome to English Forums. Thanks for joining us. Sorry your post slipped thru the cracks. Everything you say is correct. When you ask if the sentence is "true," do you mean "is it correct?" Yes, it's correct. << What they share in common, however, is the extraordinary variety of plant and animal life-forms that are a necessary part of the ongoing process of their formation. >> I think your book is wrong in claiming the word "that" qualifies "variety." For one thing, the word "that" can't qualify anything. As a relative pronoun, it stands for, or represents a word or phrase. In my opinion, it stands for "life-forms."...http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhoOr/lwxzd/post.htm#962276Thu, 05 Nov 2009 10:05:33 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:962276cool breezeCuto should be capitalized if it's the name of your cat. I think your explanation about who and which are applicable to relative pronouns in many contexts. In your dialog who is an interrogative pronoun, and which would be wrong. Who is fine. If the speaker were sure that Cuto wasn't a person, he might say: What is Cuto? CBhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/RelativeClauses/kqlbg/post.htm#917052Fri, 25 Sep 2009 18:26:47 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:917052califjimThe fact that Jim smokes... The pipe that Jim smokes... The first is an example of a content clause or an appositive clause. It is not a relative clause. These structures consist of a noun like fact or belief followed by a clause introduced by the complementizer that (never which ). Being a complementizer, and not a pronoun, that does not refer back to any preceding noun. It does not act as a subject or object within the content clause. The clause simply elaborates the content of the fact or belief (or whatever noun precedes it). the fact that Jim smokes the thesis that socialism is evil the belief that the earth is round the hope that everything will turn out well the claim that pigs are aerodynamically stable ...http://www.englishforums.com/English/RelativePronouns/2/klhvv/Post.htm#892668Tue, 08 Sep 2009 19:09:25 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:892668anonymousRahul: (l) Yes, most grammarians say that the antecedent of "which" is "The police found the murder weapon"; however, a few don't know whether it is accurate to call "which made the prosecutor's job easier" an adjective clause. (2) Some grammarians would say that your sentence basically means the following: (a) The police found the murder weapon, and that made the prosecutor's job easier. ("That" refers to the first clause.) or (b) The police found the murder weapon, a fact that made the prosecutor's job easier. This is explained as a noun phrase acting as an appositive to the main clause. ("Fact" refers to the main clause.) (3) Sentences such as yours are very common...http://www.englishforums.com/English/RelativePronouns/2/klhvv/Post.htm#892591Tue, 08 Sep 2009 17:59:12 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:892591califjimWhat i I am trying to ask is that whether Which which is correct in the first sentence since the noun Weapon weapon is creating ambiguity , or not?? According to most grammarians today, that use of which is correct. I do remember reading somewhere, however, that grammarians used to frown on the use of which that does not have a specific and unambiguous noun as its antecedent. Maybe there are still some teachers and grammarians who follow that rule. Maybe your friend is more familiar with that older approach, and that makes him believe that the construction is wrong. You can use either of those two sentences . I do think that the second one is perhaps a little more elegant and literary, though. ( making the prosecutor's...http://www.englishforums.com/English/RelativePronouns/2/klhvv/Post.htm#892560Tue, 08 Sep 2009 17:31:00 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:892560grammar geekIn sentence The police found the weapon ,which made prosecutor's job easier . My friend says which is refering to weapon and hence this construcion is wrong .He says it should be The police found the weapon,making prosecutpr's job easier. What i am trying to ask is that whether Which is correct in the first sentence since noun Weapon is creating ambiguity or not?? I don't know how I could have been more clear in my answer: There is no ambiguity here... . The "which" refers to the entire sense of finding the murder weapon. CJ said the same thing: Also, in the case of a final which clause preceded by a comma, there might not be any single noun that...http://www.englishforums.com/English/RelativePronouns/klhvv/post.htm#892161Tue, 08 Sep 2009 11:03:49 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:892161cool breezeThe police found the murder weapon,which made the prosecutor's job much easier As others have said, the sentence is correct (if you add a space after the comma and a full stop / period at the end). In theory, which can refer to both the entire main clause (The police found the murder weapon) or just the murder weapon since there is no relative pronoun in English whose sole purpose is to refer to an entire clause. Common sense must be used to determine the correct antecedent, which in this case is probably the entire main clause. Nothing grammatical substantiates this, though. CBhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/RelativePronouns/klhvv/post.htm#892082Tue, 08 Sep 2009 09:36:48 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:892082rahul2689yes I was mixing nouns with antecedent . I was trying to say if their are several candidates(nouns) that can serve as an antecedent . In sentence The police found the weapon ,which made prosecutor's job easier . My friend says which is refering to weapon and hence this construcion is wrong .He says it should be The police found the weapon,making prosecutpr's job easier. What i am trying to ask is that whether Which is correct in the first sentence since noun Weapon is creating ambiguity or not??http://www.englishforums.com/English/RelativePronouns/klhvv/post.htm#891602Tue, 08 Sep 2009 01:13:56 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:891602califjimDo relative pronouns follow the nearest antecedent ??? You are speaking as if there were several antecedents, and one of them is nearest the relative pronoun, where in fact there is always only one. You are confusing "noun" with "antecedent". There may be several nouns which are candidates for being antecedents, but there is only one antecedent. And the antecedent need not be the noun nearest to the relative pronoun. The relative pronoun probably follows its antecedent directly 98% of the time, but it does not have to. As in the example above, the verb form within the relative clause may help to locate the antecedent, but in other cases you have to resort to common sense. Also, in the case of a final which clause...http://www.englishforums.com/English/RelativePronouns/klhvv/post.htm#891507Mon, 07 Sep 2009 23:49:56 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:891507rahul2689Do relative pronouns follow the nearest antecedent ???http://www.englishforums.com/English/RelativePronouns/klhvv/post.htm#891470Mon, 07 Sep 2009 23:20:20 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:891470grammar geekThere is no ambiguity here and only someone without much better to do with take exception to this sentence. The "which" refers to the entire sense of finding the murder weapon.http://www.englishforums.com/English/RelativePronouns/klhvv/post.htm#891467Mon, 07 Sep 2009 23:11:59 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:891467rahul2689The police found the murder weapon,which made the prosecutor's job much easier wht about thishttp://www.englishforums.com/English/RelativePronouns/klhvv/post.htm#891450Mon, 07 Sep 2009 22:59:05 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:891450anonymousWhen a relative pronoun is separated from its antecedent, it is called a REMOTE RELATIVE. Usage experts suggest that the sentence be rephrased so that the relative pronoun immediately follows the antecedent. This makes it easier for the listener/ reader to understand the meaning. In fact, some usage experts suggest breaking a confusing sentence into two sentences, if necessary.http://www.englishforums.com/English/RelativePronouns/klhvv/post.htm#891402Mon, 07 Sep 2009 22:14:12 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:891402cool breezeThe use of lie detectors is based on the assumption that lying produces emotional reaction s in an individual that , in turn, create unconscious physiological responses. I have never heard of a rule about the antecedents of reltive pronouns. You example is as clear as can be: reactions is plural and so is create. Therfore the singular an individual cannot be the antecedent. CBhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/RelativePronouns/klhvv/post.htmMon, 07 Sep 2009 21:09:51 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:891348rahul2689hello teachers I suppose relative pronouns follow the nearest antecedent The use of lie detectors is based on the assumption that lying produces emotional reactions in an individual that , in turn, create unconscious physiological responses. But that here doesn't refer to indviduals .then is this sentence correct. when does a relative pronoun not refer to nearest antecedent Please explain Thank youhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/SubjectAndObject/kwvcr/post.htm#878973Sat, 29 Aug 2009 17:41:40 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:878973ukbilThanks CalifJim, i think ive got a better understanding of relative pronouns - objective/subjective 'The chef who won the competition insulted the judge's wife' So the object of the relative clause is ' the competition ,' and the object of the main clause is the wife . It being dependent on what part of the sentance you are refering to (relative clause or main clause). Does this mean the main clause supercedes the relative clause, i.e: Q) find the subject and object in the following sentance. ' The chef who won the competition insulted the judge's wife' (whole sentance) The answer being: the subject, the chef (he insulted the wife) (initiated the action) the object, the...http://www.englishforums.com/English/SubjectAndObject/kwvcr/post.htm#877968Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:24:41 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:877968ukbilI have briefly read through all the replys but i find it difficult to read, take-in the infomation from a computer screen, concentrating on one gives me a head ache. But i have copied & printed and i just wanted to say thanks CalifJim and to the anonymous user/s. I'll reply to let you know if this makes clear my doubts about the subject and object of a sentance, complete sentance and or a phrase and then how the relative pronouns relate cheershttp://www.englishforums.com/English/SubjectAndObject/kwvcr/post.htm#876138Wed, 26 Aug 2009 21:11:24 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:876138califjimhow and when the relative pronouns are the object and when they are the subject. who is a subject; whom is an object. There are several steps to learning how to use them. Let's start with the first. You've got to know a verb when you see it, or this won't work, so be sure you know what a verb is before you even start to learn this. Subject. WHO + verb the chef who won the competition the man who saw me leave plumbers who fix pipes the guy who was wearing the blue tie the lady who gave Susan a lift home people who are curious about it Object. WHOM + non-verb journalists whom some consider people whom I know well the guy whom you met previously the lady whom Lucy admired very much the girl whom ...http://www.englishforums.com/English/SubjectAndObject/kwvcr/post.htmWed, 26 Aug 2009 14:47:21 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:875704anonymousi need help defining the difference between 'subjective relative pronouns' and 'objective relative pronouns' For example: subject 'The chef who won the competition studied in Paris' object 'This is the approach taken by journalists, whom some consider to be objective' can someone explain how and when the relative pronouns are the object and when they are the subject. i just dont get it. thanksinadvancehttp://www.englishforums.com/English/AboutGirlPuppyPet/kzrxz/post.htm#860039Thu, 13 Aug 2009 11:48:50 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:860039cool breezeVincent, you write very short sentences. If you used conjunctions and relative pronouns a little more often, your sentences wouldn't sound so abrupt. My suggestion: One day when Susan was walking home , she saw a puppy in front of the gate of her house. She picked it/him/her up and went into the house. She showed it/him/her to her mother, who allowed her to keep the puppy. She felt/was happy because she had a pet. The last sentence still sounds a little awkward to me, but it is grammatical. CBhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/AnAdjectiveClauseComplexGrammatical-Sutructures/kvvlb/post.htm#856586Tue, 11 Aug 2009 03:53:50 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:856586anonymousFrankly, I cannot work through all your analysis, but 1a and 1b are good, 2a is of course bad, and 2b is still find grammatically, as 'them' is the object of a preposition. Would you prefer that it read ' their idiomatic use and right understanding'? The pronoun in either case may be redundant, but not uncalled for if the writer considers it necessary to maintain clarity-- which s/he probably does in this complex composition. Yes, it is better to use "their" and even better, I believe, to use no pronouns at all. My theory is that if this "them" which is first used as the object of the preposition "with" is in conflict with the relative pronoun of the clause in (2a), then why is it not...http://www.englishforums.com/English/RelativePronouns/jxxrc/post.htm#824602Sat, 18 Jul 2009 03:24:26 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:824602yoong liatI would use the simple past tense ( passed ) rather than the present perfect ( have passed ) since you specify a past time ( last year ). I agree with you. I did not spot the part of the sentence relating to time.http://www.englishforums.com/English/RelativePronouns/jxxrc/post.htm#824597Sat, 18 Jul 2009 03:20:37 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:824597yankeeI would use the simple past tense ( passed ) rather than the present perfect ( have passed ) since you specify a past time ( last year ).http://www.englishforums.com/English/RelativePronouns/jxxrc/post.htm#824579Sat, 18 Jul 2009 03:03:56 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:824579yoong liatI would use the second sentence.http://www.englishforums.com/English/HelpConfusedRelativePronouns/jlbvk/post.htm#806139Sat, 04 Jul 2009 16:28:30 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:806139sunsailHello Easy way to figure out this is asking question like this? Question:In which cases have people complained about the new restaurant? Answer2. I know several cases in which people have complained about the new restaurant. Best Regardshttp://www.englishforums.com/English/HelpConfusedRelativePronouns/jlbvk/post.htm#806136Sat, 04 Jul 2009 16:20:22 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:806136yankeeTo me, sentence 2 sounds the best and also the most formal. Sentence 3 might also be used, especially in more informal English, I'd say. I doubt that I would use sentence 1 myself, but I imagine some people might. It defines the word "cases".http://www.englishforums.com/English/HelpConfusedRelativePronouns/jlbvk/post.htm#806119Sat, 04 Jul 2009 16:10:21 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:806119califjimI find them all acceptable. I usually use "cases where" myself. I don't like "cases when" very much. Some people may find it wrong. "cases in which" is too formal for everyday conversation. They are all defining. CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/HelpConfusedRelativePronouns/jlbvk/post.htmSat, 04 Jul 2009 15:55:27 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:806099renan torres-riveroPlease dear teachers, Can you help me with this? Which of the sentences has the right use of relative pronouns? And why? 1. I know several cases when people have complained about the new restaurant. 2. I know several cases in which people have complained about the new restaurant. 3. I know several cases where people have complained about the new restaurant. Which is the right relative pronoun? And, is it defining or non-defining? Thanks to you all.http://www.englishforums.com/English/RelativePronoun/jkncv/post.htmFri, 03 Jul 2009 15:37:53 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:804614renan torres-riveroPlease dear teachers, Can you help me with this? Which of the sentences has the right use of relative pronouns? And why? 1. I know several cases when people have complained about the new restaurant. 2. I know several cases in which people have complained about the new restaurant. 3. I know several cases where people have complained about the new restaurant. Which is the right relative pronoun? And, is it defining or non-defining? Thanks to you all.http://www.englishforums.com/English/SubjectVerbAgreement/jwxvn/post.htm#799151Sun, 28 Jun 2009 11:41:07 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:799151takaJon or his friends who live in a big house are planning the trip. Jon or his friend who drives the flashy hot rod is planning the trip. Did you use those relative pronouns as the modifiers of both 'Jon' and 'his friend(s)', AS?http://www.englishforums.com/English/ADoubtInASentence/jhljj/post.htm#789426Sun, 21 Jun 2009 21:43:02 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:789426philipThat (which) = relative pronouns to introduce a subordinate (relative) clause. Those = demonstravie adjective or pronoun - others are these, this, that (which happens to look like the relative pronoun0 The sentence you started with is correct.http://www.englishforums.com/English/MeaningOfThisInASentence/jgrzv/post.htm#789296Sun, 21 Jun 2009 19:15:12 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:789296mr wordyIn your original example about the suppliers, "this" (or, if you used it, "that") are demonstrative pronouns. They substitute for a noun or a noun phrase that has been specifically mentioned or is implied by context, or they refer in a slightly vaguer way to the situation in which one finds onself or the circumstances under discussion. Your original example was: "Suppliers are required to comply with XX's code of conduct. This requires a commitment to strong basic principles of business ethics and good judgment. To assist with this , the company has ..." When we hit the first "this" we look back at the prior context to find the thing that "this" refers to. Here it...http://www.englishforums.com/English/CauseCauses/jrvxq/post.htm#755992Sat, 30 May 2009 10:33:36 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:755992nusdundaPaste those into MSWord and see which one has been underlined. I wouldn't recommend MSWord for checking grammar. Bill Gates's grammarians have a rather weak command of English grammar - relative pronouns, for instance. CB MS Word can do just simple checking, I don't expect it than human sense. I believe that the robot or software still can't make masterpiece.http://www.englishforums.com/English/CauseCauses/jrvxq/post.htm#755968Sat, 30 May 2009 10:27:10 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:755968anonymousPaste those into MSWord and see which one has been underlined. I wouldn't recommend MSWord for checking grammar. Bill Gates's grammarians have a rather weak command of English grammar - relative pronouns, for instance. CB MS Word can do just simple checking; I don't expect it much, it's not perfect than human sense. Some grammar checker program I ever used made non-sense and stupidly kept telling me to change. I believe that the robot or software can't make masterpiece.http://www.englishforums.com/English/CauseCauses/jrvxq/post.htm#753920Fri, 29 May 2009 09:04:21 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:753920cool breezePaste those into MSWord and see which one has been underlined. I wouldn't recommend MSWord for checking grammar. Bill Gates's grammarians have a rather weak command of English grammar - relative pronouns, for instance. CBhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/WheresTheConjuction/wnqwv/post.htm#737074Tue, 19 May 2009 03:50:21 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:737074califjimIs there a rule that allows an understood "that is" or "that are" Yes. It's even got a name: Whiz Deletion. The restrictive relative pronouns who, which or that followed by a form of be ( is, are , etc.) can be deleted. The lady who is speaking to Lucy is Mrs. Brown. = The lady speaking to Lucy is Mrs. Brown. Mr. Winfield read the document which was found yesterday in the barn. = Mr. Winfield read the document found yesterday in the barn. There may be some restrictions on this transformation, because it doesn't always work. For example, you can say The door that was closed was made of wood but not The door closed was made of wood . Apparently if you're left with just an adjective, you have to move...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PronounAdjectiveNoun/wnbzv/post.htm#733591Sat, 16 May 2009 21:06:16 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:733591mr wordyso you can have two pronouns back to back? Well, you could say "... writing about the man whom I admire", where "man" is a noun and "whom" is a relative pronoun, and I don't see any fundamental difference with "someone" being a pronoun in "... someone whom we admire". is that considered a pronoun phrase? It seems reasonable to me to call "... someone whom we admire" a pronoun phrase, but I'm not 100 sure about the terminology here.http://www.englishforums.com/English/PronounAdjectiveNoun/wnbzv/post.htmSat, 16 May 2009 05:54:09 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:732415anonymousIn the sentence, " Most of us are writing about someone whom we admire." Can you please help me identify the nouns, pronouns, and adjectives? I get: Most-pronoun us-pronoun someone-adjective whom-pronoun i'm guessing whom is a relative pronoun by deduction. what exactly is a relative pronoun? i know it has to do with subordinate clauses but that part isn't until later.http://www.englishforums.com/English/RelativePronouns/wmxgk/post.htmFri, 15 May 2009 14:11:30 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:731282holybratHi, which relative pronoun do I use in this case: "The moments when(?)/in which(?)/that(?) something good happens ..." Thanks!http://www.englishforums.com/English/TheSameAs/wmbhj/post.htm#727677Wed, 13 May 2009 04:15:09 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:727677califjimUsing the subject/object-case pronoun analysis, one can explain: I like her as much as he . I like her as much as him. No, because yours (and all other such pronouns) does not change from one case to another. Yours is better. (subject) Henry likes yours. (object) why it is grammatically incorrect? It means something absurd. Compare: My cats have the same weight as you. = My cats have the same weight as the weight that you have. = Both my cats and you weigh the same. My cats have the same weight as yours. = My cats have the same weight as the weight that your cats have. = Both my cats and your cats weigh the same. Thus: I have the same book as yours. = I have the same book as the book that your book has. ...http://www.englishforums.com/English/Who/3/wkxwk/Post.htm#723437Sun, 10 May 2009 07:46:02 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:723437cool breezeYes, initially I also thought that was the difference. But as you can see the comments I've gotten, it seems that you don't have to have at least three even when you use the first sentence. Yes, I do know full well how people actually use those relative pronouns and commas - or don't use commas . I just gave my opinion about how they should be used correctly . Not using a comma before a nonrestrictive relative clause only serves to make English unnecessarily inexact in cases where no inexactness is induced by the nature of English syntax or grammar. I know I'm fighting a losing battle but if I were a dictator in an English Language Academy, I would require people to distinguish between restrictive and nonrestrictive...http://www.englishforums.com/English/MainlyPronounQuestion/wkcrw/post.htm#718078Wed, 06 May 2009 07:39:32 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:718078califjimWould you say we can use both relative pronouns (are they?) "which" and "that" with restrictive clauses? Yes. Or would you say that only the use of the pronoun "that" (for human and non-human) is correct for a restrictive clause? No. CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/MainlyPronounQuestion/wkcrw/post.htmWed, 06 May 2009 05:03:18 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:717884anonymousHi. Would you say we can use both relative pronouns (are they?) "which" and "that" with restrictive clauses? Or would you say that only the use of the pronoun "that" (for human and non-human) is correct for a restrictive clause? I think it sounds better to use the pronoun "which" for animals. eg, 1.This is something that/which is different than others. 2. Carefully hold that puppy which/that is on the chair. Also, would you say the commas are placed here to allow what is in them a breathing space to a reader? They called for greater effort help the needy , and those down-and-out, from hardships.http://www.englishforums.com/English/RelativePronounsRelateBack-Something/wdxlb/post.htm#687214Mon, 16 Mar 2009 09:18:01 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:687214askshameerLet me try to explain this in a different way... "Relative pronouns always relate back to something or somebody else." Take the example: This is the bank that accepted my identification. Here the word "that" relates back to "bank". Here "bank" is the "something" that the definition talks about. /Sameerhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/RelativePronounsRelateBack-Something/wdxlb/post.htm#687207Mon, 16 Mar 2009 08:57:27 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:687207darcyThanks.. askahsmeer I wanna ask again.. Does 'relate back' mean that "A relative pronoun mentions a noun and its position is behind the noun"? Actually I don't need the inforamtion about the grammar, 'relative pronouns'. I just asked to make sure the meanig of the word phrase 'relate back' used in the sentence.http://www.englishforums.com/English/RelativePronounsRelateBack-Something/wdxlb/post.htmMon, 16 Mar 2009 06:15:24 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:687141darcyWhat is the meaning of the verb 'relate' in the following sentence? "Relative pronouns always relate back to something or somebody else." Thanks in advance.http://www.englishforums.com/English/QuickQuestions/wbdmw/post.htmTue, 17 Feb 2009 02:34:14 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:674160postmodernblissHello, I have a few quick questions. First, c an someone please help me understand why the following answers to an online adjective and adverb quiz are incorrect?: Question #: 1: It is very easy. Here, very is an adjective. User's answer: True Correct answer: False Additional Notes: Is the answer incorrect because the word 'very' modifies 'is', and is therefore an adverb, and not 'easy' which is an adjective? Question #: 5: It was likely to happen. Here, likely is an adverb. User's answer: True Correct answer: False Additional Notes: How is that 'likely' does not modify the infinitihttp://www.englishforums.com/English/WhoeverWhateverWherever/wrqdm/post.htm#672881Sun, 15 Feb 2009 11:09:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:672881mister micawber. No, they do not work in the same semantic ways, but they are similarly relative pronouns. The '-ever' words are mostly restricted to the meaning that the main clause holds true for all general or inclusive conditions indicated in the subordinated '-ever' clause. .http://www.englishforums.com/English/CasesOptionalNot/hnpjw/post.htm#653049Sat, 24 Jan 2009 07:31:54 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:653049califjimYou are focusing on that as a relative pronoun. The relative pronoun is required only if it serves as the subject of the relative clause. ... fish that people eat ... People eat that fish. fish is not the subject. people is the subject. that is optional. ... crowd that showed up ... The crowd showed up. crowd is the subject. that is required. ... crowd that was having fun ... = crowd having fun . Yes. This is called Whiz Deletion. It is the deletion of the relative pronoun and a form of to be . The term comes from wh -- the letters that most relative pronouns begin with -- and iz -- the pronunciation of the most used form of to be -- is . CJ