Grammar check

Question

1. The girl whom I saw was talkative.2. The girl I saw was talkative.Can who and that be used for number 1? Is number 2 a zero relative clause? Thanks, Fulvio

Deadrat · Accepted Answer

1. Correct, although in informal communications (especially conversation), you'll find "who I saw."

2. is a ZRC by definition: the relative pronoun has been omitted. No, technically you can't use "that" because you need a personal pronoun to refer to a girl.

Fivejedjon · Answer

yellowstarstruckCan who and that be used for number 1?

'That' can be used in British English.

Cool Breeze · Answer

deadrat No, technically you can't use "that" because you need a personal pronoun to refer to a girl.

That, who and whom are relative pronouns in the OP's sentences. She would be a personal pronoun referring to a girl. As a relative, that has been used for hundreds of years longer than who and whom to refer to people.

CB

Deadrat · Answer

Yes, I stand corrected. I should have said "personal relative pronouns." Perhaps this is merely a relatively personal preference or maybe its a result of pedagogy in AmE. And even speakers of AmE don't make the distinction in informal communications. According to the OED, "who" has been a relative pronoun referring to people at least since it was first spotted in print around 1300. Hundreds of years before that and we're talking onbutan aelde Englisc.

It's a tool English provides to keep antecedents straight.

Cool Breeze · Answer

deadrat According to the OED, "who" has been a relative pronoun referring to people at least since it was first spotted in print around 1300. Hundreds of years before that and we're talking onbutan aelde Englisc.

Yes, that's what I meant. That was the only word used as a relative pronoun in Old English. I'm a retired teacher of English, and in Finland taking a course in Old English is one of the requirements for students of English Philology at any Finnish university - or at least it used to be when I was young.

Naturally one also had to study Middle English and acquaint oneself with the writings of Chaucer.

CB

Deadrat · Answer

I'm sorry to be dense, but I'm missing the point.  Perhaps I'm distracted by the thought of studying Old English in Finnish.  Doesn't Old English inflect pronouns for gender?

Cool Breeze · Answer

deadrat Perhaps I'm distracted by the thought of studying Old English in Finnish.

Old English is studied in English in Finland. I still have Sweet's Anglo-Saxon Primer in my bookshelf. 'Anglo-Saxon' is another term sometimes used to mean Old English.

deadratDoesn't Old English inflect pronouns for gender?

Yes, but that, which wasn't spelled that way in Old English, was uninflected. As there were no other relative pronouns, it was a great disadvantage and the language was really lacking something. Fortunately language can take care of itself, which in this case meant that which and who began to be used as relatives. They had been used in other roles before that.

My only point was that that had been used for hundreds of years as a relative pronoun when who was introduced as a relative. I knew full well that it assumed that role about 700 years ago. By the way, I have never heard of personal relative pronouns.

CB

Deadrat · Answer

I am unconvinced that an archaic inflected German language is a useful guide. In any case, given the table below, what am I missing? I'm no student of Old English.

"Se (þe)" - "who, which, that"
Case Masculine Neuter Feminine Plural all genders
Nominative se (þe) þæt (þe) seo (þe) þa (þe)
Accusative þone (þe) þæt (þe) þa (þe) þa (þe)
Genitive þæs (þe) þæs (þe) þ?re (þe) þara (þe)
Dative þ?m (þe), þam (þe) þ?re (þe) þ?m (þe), þam (þe)

And: http://www.grammar.com/relative-pronoun/

Fivejedjon · Answer

deadratI am unconvinced that an archaic inflected German language is a useful guide.

I think CB's point was simply that that (or its earlier versions) has a longer history than who(m) and which.

Cool Breeze · Answer

deadratCase Masculine Neuter Feminine Plural all gendersNominative se (þe) þæt (þe) seo (þe) þa (þe)Accusative þone (þe) þæt (þe) þa (þe) þa (þe)Genitive þæs (þe) þæs (þe) þ?re (þe) þara (þe)Dative þ?m (þe), þam (þe) þ?re (þe) þ?m (þe), þam (þe)

These are what Anglo-Saxon Primer calls forms of 'demonstrative and definite article' (page 23). The declensions are correct, though. I'll quote what Anglo-Saxon Primer says about relative pronouns in Old English: "There is no separate relative pronoun. The commonest relative is the particle þe, which is indeclinable and serves for all genders and numbers." (page 24) That is derived from þe.

I had forgotten that þe wasn't even called a relative pronoun. It was just used as one. However, in a way you are also right since the book goes on to say that the 'demonstrative and definite article' could be used with se, which is declinable. It's been such a long time since I studied these things that I have forgotten many details.

I haven't said a word about German. I have talked about Old English, which is a Germanic language. Nor have I said that Old English is a useful guide. As fivejedjon mentions, I have just said that that has a longer history as a relative pronoun than which and who. As for guides, I have yet to see a modern grammar book that says using that as a relative referring to people is incorrect.

CB

Grammar check

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions