Take the 2-minute tour ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

In this case, the "you" is singular. Further, does adding a comma after "you" make a difference? Thanks.

share|improve this question
    
I think a singular you cannot take a restrictive relative clause with a singular verb; the You who VP construction is generic and plural, like zero noun derivations of human adjectives (the rich, the poor). –  John Lawler Oct 25 '13 at 19:11
    
@JohnLawler, how do you figure that a singular ‘you’ would make for a plural generic construction? I agree it is non-third-personal (like “I who am always right”, not “I who is always right”), but plural specifically? Applying that to the first singular would yield, “I who are always right”, which sounds even worse to me than with ‘is’. –  Janus Bahs Jacquet Oct 25 '13 at 21:28
    
@JanusBahsJacquet: I didn't say that, I think. What I intended to say was that it had to be a plural you in order to take a restrictive relative clause in which its third-person anaphor (who) was the subject, thus agreeing with a third person verb in the present tense, thus generating the structure you who Verb + 3plPres –  John Lawler Oct 25 '13 at 21:55
1  
@JohnLawler, ah, I see what you mean now! –  Janus Bahs Jacquet Oct 25 '13 at 22:10
    
Thanks very much. –  Anne Oct 26 '13 at 2:54
show 1 more comment

2 Answers 2

There is a prayer in the English translation of Mass:

Lord Jesus Christ, who said to your Apostles:
Peace I leave you, my peace I give you,
look not on our sins, but on the faith of your Church,
and graciously grant her peace and unity
in accordance with your will.
Who live and reign for ever and ever.

Ignoring the full-stop and capital letter, which are rather unfortunate, the form of the verbs live and reign is second-person singular, to match "you", the person being spoken to. Note that this is a translation from Latin.

It's been a matter of some debate, and there exist clergy who routinely "correct" it to lives and reigns, but one correspondent at that link persuades his correspondents with

And if some students figure out that there can be subordinate clauses in the second person singular—even though it's a bad idea to use these clauses because they leave the general public bemused—that shows thorough learning. I have lots of prescriptivist sympathies, but I think the composers of our new missal are flaunting correct grammar here rather than using it responsibly.

So second-person singular is correct, but probably archaic and almost certainly misguided.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Well there is a way to use the singular you in this way, but it would need an extra part of the sentence in front of "for".

Example: Books can never be sufficient, for you who loves kowledge can never be satisfied only with that which is written.

Though I guess this falls outside of the range of your question.

EDIT: Sorry I misread the question.

If the you is singular, and not plural, it should be For you who loves knowledge

share|improve this answer
    
Mind elaborating the reason for the downvote? –  MilanSxD Dec 10 '13 at 11:24
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.