Can “who” serve as complement in a relative clause?
When Chris decided to graduate, it seems like he is no longer the person he is ten years ago.
One day: He will be no longer the person he was ten years ago. He will be removed from the world forever.
How authentic is the first sentence? Does “who” serve as a complement to a relative clause?
Thank you very much.
Can this serve as a complement in order to be used in an overall relative clause? How do you make sentences work?
I chose the one who was trying to talk to you.
In GrammarGirl you would write both “The Man” and “The Man Who HAD TO Talk to You.”
The word that as a particular pronoun to mention a person has been quite common among authors.
I’m going to go with GrammarGirl in this opinion of hers..,.Its very good to see GrammarGirl go.. I hate GrammarGirl. Why are there so many studies about it?
What’s the point in using that when you are talking about a person makes them seem less than human? I always think my friend who would only refer to his new stepmother as the woman that married my father, and he or she would be completely shocked at his or her presence. I think he was trying to express his animosity and you wouldn’t want to do that accidentally.
What do you think about the move from “apocalyptic” to a “normal”?
Can this serve as a complement in order to be used in an overall relative clause? How do you make sentences work?
I chose the one who was trying to talk to you.
In GrammarGirl you would write both “The Man” and “The Man Who HAD TO Talk to You.”
The word that as a particular pronoun to mention a person has been quite common among authors.
I’m going to go with GrammarGirl in this opinion of hers..,.Its very good to see GrammarGirl go.. I hate GrammarGirl. Why are there so many studies about it?
What’s the point in using that when you are talking about a person makes them seem less than human? I always think my friend who would only refer to his new stepmother as the woman that married my father, and he or she would be completely shocked at his or her presence. I think he was trying to express his animosity and you wouldn’t want to do that accidentally.
What do you think about the move from “apocalyptic” to a “normal”?
Both options listed by the original poster sound natural to my (American) ear. Which one is more natural to me than “who”? If a man did not accept what they were ten
years ago, he must have died.
I would avoid “who”. I try to avoid making decisions between “who” and “whom”. How will I distinguish between who and whom interrupt my thoughts, both when speaking a sentence (or writing) and when reading a sentence (see fig. 2.8)?
In other words, the choice between “who” and “whom” is consciously learned, not natural (in American English).
Both options listed by the original poster sound natural to my (American) ear. Which one is more natural to me than “who”? If a man did not accept what they were ten
years ago, he must have died.
I would avoid “who”. I try to avoid making decisions between “who” and “whom”. How will I distinguish between who and whom interrupt my thoughts, both when speaking a sentence (or writing) and when reading a sentence (see fig. 2.8)?
In other words, the choice between “who” and “whom” is consciously learned, not natural (in American English).
Can this serve as a complement in order to be used in an overall relative clause? How do you make sentences work?
I chose the one who was trying to talk to you.
In GrammarGirl you would write both “The Man” and “The Man Who HAD TO Talk to You.”
The word that as a particular pronoun to mention a person has been quite common among authors.
I’m going to go with GrammarGirl in this opinion of hers..,.Its very good to see GrammarGirl go.. I hate GrammarGirl. Why are there so many studies about it?
What’s the point in using that when you are talking about a person makes them seem less than human? I always think my friend who would only refer to his new stepmother as the woman that married my father, and he or she would be completely shocked at his or her presence. I think he was trying to express his animosity and you wouldn’t want to do that accidentally.
What do you think about the move from “apocalyptic” to a “normal”?
Both options listed by the original poster sound natural to my (American) ear. Which one is more natural to me than “who”? If a man did not accept what they were ten
years ago, he must have died.
I would avoid “who”. I try to avoid making decisions between “who” and “whom”. How will I distinguish between who and whom interrupt my thoughts, both when speaking a sentence (or writing) and when reading a sentence (see fig. 2.8)?
In other words, the choice between “who” and “whom” is consciously learned, not natural (in American English).
Both options listed by the original poster sound natural to my (American) ear. Which one is more natural to me than “who”? If a man did not accept what they were ten
years ago, he must have died.
I would avoid “who”. I try to avoid making decisions between “who” and “whom”. How will I distinguish between who and whom interrupt my thoughts, both when speaking a sentence (or writing) and when reading a sentence (see fig. 2.8)?
In other words, the choice between “who” and “whom” is consciously learned, not natural (in American English).
Both options listed by the original poster sound natural to my (American) ear. Which one is more natural to me than “who”? If a man did not accept what they were ten
years ago, he must have died.
I would avoid “who”. I try to avoid making decisions between “who” and “whom”. How will I distinguish between who and whom interrupt my thoughts, both when speaking a sentence (or writing) and when reading a sentence (see fig. 2.8)?
In other words, the choice between “who” and “whom” is consciously learned, not natural (in American English).
Both options listed by the original poster sound natural to my (American) ear. Which one is more natural to me than “who”? If a man did not accept what they were ten
years ago, he must have died.
I would avoid “who”. I try to avoid making decisions between “who” and “whom”. How will I distinguish between who and whom interrupt my thoughts, both when speaking a sentence (or writing) and when reading a sentence (see fig. 2.8)?
In other words, the choice between “who” and “whom” is consciously learned, not natural (in American English).
Both options listed by the original poster sound natural to my (American) ear. Which one is more natural to me than “who”? If a man did not accept what they were ten
years ago, he must have died.
I would avoid “who”. I try to avoid making decisions between “who” and “whom”. How will I distinguish between who and whom interrupt my thoughts, both when speaking a sentence (or writing) and when reading a sentence (see fig. 2.8)?
In other words, the choice between “who” and “whom” is consciously learned, not natural (in American English).
