0
Hans51 Posted 14 years ago
Grammar

Omission of 'who and is who'

I know that we can omit 'that/which/who' or 'that/which/who is, am, are' in restrictive relative clauses.

For example,

I know people who speak English well. (I know people speaking English well)

There are many people who are studying English in the room. (There are many people studying English in the room)

And I also learned that even in non restrictive relative clauses, we can omit 'that/which/who' or 'that/which/who is, am, are'

For example,

My mom, who works for the company, is not coming now. ( My mom ,working for the company, is not coming now)

Tom, who is running the store, will come here. ( Tom, running the store, will come here)

I am sorry about the lame examples but my question is whether 'even in non restrictive relative clauses, we can omit 'that/which/who' or 'that/which/who is, am, are' is true or not, so those examples with omission of ',who and',who is' are okay to use? Thank you so much as always and have a good day.
  

Top answer

I know people who speak English well. OK I know people speaking English well. T his is not natural English.

— AlpheccaStars

  • I know people who speak English well.
  • OK I know people speaking English well.
  • T his is not natural English.
  • You can say: I know the people speaking English well.
  • However, it has a different meaning than the previous sentence.
Free · every Monday

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.

7 Answers
0
I know people who speak English well. OK
I know people speaking English well. This is not natural English. You can say: I know the people speaking English well. However, it has a different meaning than the previous sentence.

There are many people who are studying English in the room. (There are ma
0
0
Thank you and I agree with you but those kinds of sentences are often seen or can be seen in some areas? Right?
0
0
You can omit the relative pronoun in a restrictive clause only if the next word is a subjective pronoun (he, she, they, we, I, it, you).

The cake that he made tastes great!
The juggler who we hired was very skilled.

The relative pronoun in a nonrestrictive clause can't be removed without making the sentence ungra
0
0
Actually, what you said it is what I have known for a long time but we can see many sentences with omission of the relative pronouns and is, am, are so often in newspapers and in daily conversations although whether it is ungrammatical or not. I have spent so much time on this issue.
0
0
Aspara GusYou can omit the relative pronoun in a restrictive clause only if the next word is a subjective pronoun (he, she, they, we, I, it, you).
The cake that he made tastes great!
The juggler who we hired was very skilled.
The relative pronoun in a nonrestrictive clause can't be removed without making the sentence
0
0
Thanks. Nouns, too, of course. How that slipped my mind is beyond me.

Note that omissibilty is not a word.
0
0
Aspara GusNote that omissibilty is not a word
Obviously just a typo - we all make them. Omissibility is fine.

JMA
0

Related Questions