Could you tell me if the relative pronoun ‘that’ and the following verb are abbreviated?
Productivity improvements are as important to the economy as they are to the individual business that’s making them.
In the sentence above, ‘that’ seems to be used as a relative pronoun. I’ve never seen the case where the relative pronoun and the following verb are abbreviated.
If acceptable, is it possible to apply to other relative pronouns with ‘be’ verb such as to ‘which’s and who’s’?
Is it naturally used in written English?
Top answer
Yes, it's a relative pronoun. There is no problem using "that's" for "that is" or "that has" in such cases (as with all contractions, it has an informal feel). "who's" for "who is" or "who has" is similarly possible, but "which's" is not (presumably because one can hardly say "which's" without saying "which is").
- Yes, it's a relative pronoun.
- There is no problem using "that's" for "that is" or "that has" in such cases (as with all contractions, it has an informal feel).
- "who's" for "who is" or "who has" is similarly possible, but "which's" is not (presumably because one can hardly say "which's" without saying "which is").
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
Yes, it's a relative pronoun. There is no problem using "that's" for "that is" or "that has" in such cases (as with all contractions, it has an informal feel).
"who's" for "who is" or "who has" is similarly possible, but "which's" is not (presumably because one can hardly say "which's" without saying "which is").
0
Related Questions