+0
In the Murder of Roger Ackroyd is a line:

-Here are some visitors come to see you.

I think WHO ARE is not omittable:

We cannot, or should not, say

-There are three people come from China.

because if WHO ARE is omitted, idiomatically there should be adverbs:

eg There are three people JUST come from China.

eg Here is a pretty ugly boy RECENTLY come into his mother's estate.

Do you agree?
1 2
Comments  (Page 2) 
GPYI shall not dream of asking him who it was who arrived at his house early this morning.
I personally will never say something like this. Also, "shall" sounded really stiff in the sentence, compounded with the "double who" construction which made it sound aweful. To me, this is a case where the second "who" should be replaced by "that", which makes it sound much better.

I don't know what it was that made that noise -> I agree
I don't know what it was made that noise I am not sure if that is grammatically correct. That's all!
grammarfreak, are you from the US?
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
GPYgrammarfreak, are you from the US?
I am not sure what relevance this question has to the discussion. But to answer your question, yes, I am from the US, grew up, lived and educated in Calif for 30 years.
Relevant.

According to UK tradition in English grammar, many possible constructions sound bad to people on the other side of the Atlantic.

-This is the pen which I gave him.

I was told that Americans don't like WHICH when WHICH is the object, and they prefer THAT.
Johnson13Relevant.According to UK tradition in English grammar, many possible constructions sound bad to people on the other side of the Atlantic.-This is the pen which I gave him.I was told that Americans don't like WHICH when WHICH is the object, and they prefer THAT.
Of course we use "which" in the right context. " I live in Cupertino which is 50 miles south of San Francisco". I don't think that is accurate. I am not talking about high level of linguistics, just conversation English people commonly use. With the questions in discussion, it did sound awkward to me. Maybe I am not used to listening to certain usage of regional English in the UK, but I don't have any problem understanding people from UK in general. They speak the same language as far as I am concerned. In American English, the "double who" construction is not considered good practice in my opinion. I said maybe the second "who" should be replaced by "that", and I stand by it because "that" can be used on inanimate object, as well as people.
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
grammarfreakI am not sure what relevance this question has to the discussion. But to answer your question, yes, I am from the US, grew up, lived and educated in Calif for 30 years.
I believe that "shall" is generally used less in AmE than in BrE, which may be why it sounds particularly stiff to you. In fact, "shall" in this kind of use is becoming less common in BrE too in my estimation, but still acceptable, and you have to remember also that this is from a book written almost 100 years ago by a British author.

I originally chose "who" for the parallelism between two examples. "that" would be commonly used also, but "who" is in my opinion perfectly correct English.

Sentences with omitted relative pronoun such as "I don't know what it was made that noise" are quite commonly heard in these parts. I don't know whether this is another AmE/BrE difference.
GPYSentences with omitted relative pronoun such as "I don't know what it was made that noise" are quite commonly heard in these parts
The stress is more on "was" than "made", if that helps to visualise it.