+0
Is this correct?

It was I that (who) met his sisters in the park yesterday. = That (who) met his sisters in the park yesterday was I.
It was his sisters that (whom) I met in the park yesterday. = That (whom) I met in the park yesterday was his sisters.
It was in the park that I met his sisters yesterday. = That I met his sisters yesterday was in the park.
It was after he had returned from Leningrad that I told him the news. = That I told him the news was after he had returned from Leningrad.
It was not until (till) May that we received a letter from them. = That we received a letter from them was not until (till) May.

It was not until (till) she returned home that she learned the truth. = That she learned the truth was not until (till) she returned home.
+0
I don't know what you intend to convey by using the equal signs. The sentences after the equal signs are not grammatical, if that's what you're asking.

They all follow the same basic pattern, so let me do just the first.

It was I who met his sisters in the park yesterday.

can be rephrased as

I was the one who met his sisters in the park yesterday.

or

The person who met his sisters in the park yesterday was me.

or even

I met his sisters in the park yesterday.

CJ
+0
MoivileAre the rephrased sentences after the equal signs grammatically correct? Perhaps they are very awkward but grammatically correct, aren't they?
No. I'm sorry, but they are not. Not the first two (with who and whom), for sure. You can't use who (or whom) as both antecedent and relative pronoun. The one who met his sisters ..., The person who met his sisters ... is needed, so that one or person can serve as the antecedent of the relative pronoun who.

There may be people who would accept the ones with where and when, but probably not many. Again, you need to provide an antecedent word. It's The place ( [where / that] ) I met ..., The day ( [when / that] ) I told him the news was after ....

The ones with until can't be rephrased like that. They don't make sense as written. until is a tricky word, and not until is even trickier.

CJ
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
+0
MoivileThis example is from a textbook of English grammar:
Who has done it is unknown.
who in this sentence is a conjunctive pronoun.
Then why do you say that the follow sentence is incorrect?
Who met his sisters in the park yesterday was me.
Why can't who in this sentence be a conjunctive pronoun?

It's time to back up before we continue this discussion -- time to back up a great deal.

What textbook are you using? As far as I know, the term conjunctive pronoun is not used anymore in the study of Englsih grammar. Here are some books that use the term conjunctive pronoun. Note the dates.

John Mulligan, Grammatical Structure of the English Language, New York, 1857.
Gordon A. Southworth & F. B. Goddard, Elements of Composition and Grammar, Boston, 1889.
Fred Newton Scott & Gordon A. Southworth, Lessons in English, Boston, 1906.

If you are using a textbook that was written more than 30 years ago, you should throw it out and get a new one.

______

I don't know a lot about the very old methods of teaching English that might use this term conjunctive pronoun, but I do know that in modern English grammar such sentences as the following are ungrammatical.

*Who met his sisters in the park yesterday was me.

I base this on material in Huddleston's Introduction to the Grammar of English, 1984, where the author specifically quotes the following sentence as ungrammatical:

*Who wrote it was Max.

This sentence is structurally the same as the previous one (Who met his sisters ...).
______

Now, to get to the other sentence in your question: Who has done it is unknown.
This is a case of an indirect question, that is, a question embedded into a larger sentence. Semantically, that sentence means that the answer to the question "Who has done it?" is unknown. Careful: The answer is unknown, not the person. The sentence is not saying that the person who has done it is unknown. Here are other examples:

Who wrote that book is unknown.

Who stole the tarts is uncertain.
Who has done it is clear.

In the final example it is even easier to see that these sentences are not about the person indicated by who, but about the answer to the question. That is, it is not the person who is clear, it is the answer to the question "Who has done it?" that is clear.

Note that the only way to complete a sentence like this is to use an adjective that can describe an answer to a question, for example, is known, was not clear, is uncertain.
was me and was Max, as shown in the ungrammatical examples above, do not qualify as descriptions of an answer to a question.

Sentences with this sort of indirect question are usually said or written in inverted order with it at the beginning, thus:

It is unknown who wrote that book.
It is clear who has done it.

CJ
1 2
Comments  
Help, please.
Help, please.
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
 CalifJim's reply was promoted to an answer.
Thank you for answering!

But how would you rephrase the following sentences?

It was after he had returned from London that I told him the news.
It was not until (till) she returned home that she learned the truth.
Words in parentheses are optional.

I told him the news after he had returned from London.
After he had returned from London, I told him the news(, and not until then).
I didn't tell him the news until after he had returned from London.

He returned from London. After that, I told him the news.

She didn't learn the truth until she returned home.
She (first) learned the truth when she returned home(, and not before then).
She returned home. Until then, she hadn't (yet) learned the truth.

was when is a bit awkward, so I probably wouldn't say the following, though you might hear people use them:

After he had returned from London was when I told him the news.
When she returned home was when she first learned the truth.

CJ
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
the correct sentence should be....

It was me who met his sisters in the park yesterday.
Those were his sisters whom i met in the park yesterday.
Thank you very much!
Answer one more question, please.
Can I rephrase the sentences like this?
Are the sentences after the equal signs grammatical correct? Perhaps they are very awkward but grammatically correct, aren't they?

It was I that (who) met his sisters in the park yesterday. = Who met his sisters in the park yesterday was me.

It was his sisters that (whom) I met in the park yesterday. = Whom I met in the park yesterday were his sisters.

It was in the park that I met his sisters yesterday. = Where I met his sisters yesterday was in the park.

It was yesterday that I met his sisters in the park. = When I met his sisters in the park was yesterday.

It was after he had returned from London that I told him the news. = When I told him the news was after he had returned from London.

It was not until May that we received a letter from them. = When we received a letter from them was not until May. = When we did not receive a letter from them was until May. = When we received a letter from them was May (after April).

It was not until she returned home that she learned the truth. = When she learned the truth was not until she returned home = When she did not learn the truth was until she returned home. = When she learned the truth was when she returned home.

Many thanks!
 CalifJim's reply was promoted to an answer.
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Show more