New answers tagged

0

The crown of the upstanding-female is golden: "she who is upstanding" belongs together and it does not become "her who is upstanding" in any case. Compare: We must not name he who must no be named. Offer it to he who must no be named.


3

It should be her, because it is the object of the preposition of. Her is not part of the relative clause: the relative clause only includes who and what follows. The role of who in the relative clause (subject) has no bearing on anything outside the relative clause. Antecedent (her) and relative pronoun (who) must normally agree in number, but their ...


1

The word which is used in relative clauses: That's the car which I bought yesterday. Notice that the relative clause which I bought yesterday is giving us more information about the car in question. So we have a noun car, which is being postmodified by a relative clause. We say that the noun car is the ANTECEDENT for the relative clause. The relative ...


2

The use of comma in the first sentence is not necessary. The sentence is correct and, in fact, is better off without it, to wit: “It’s no use repeating the obvious things that have been said by others and that can be found in any encyclopedia.” As for the second sentence, I find it grammatically correct. Per se, I consider the use of "that" as necessary ...


0

In the first sentence, omit both commas and omit the second "that". Now it reads: It's no use repeating the obvious things that have been said by others and can be found in any encyclopedia. In the second sentence omit the second "that." It will read: That is the person, if I'm not mistaken, we were talking about.


0

A relative pronoun phrase applies to the last 'valid' noun phrase. .. the man in my yard that is dirty .. (my yard is dirty) .. the man in my yard who is dirty .. (the man is dirty, because 'my yard' has an invalid gender for the relative pronoun 'who')


0

How about: "Last night I went for a spin with a handsome boy who went out with my friend." I don't think there is a hard and fast rule about placement of relative clauses but to avoid writing a confusing sentence (which I think there SHOULD be a rule about) it really needs to come before any other noun, otherwise you end up with a sentence like "A man ...


1

There is some confusion here about how relative clauses work. See McCawley's SPHE for a good description. Here are some notes: The antecedent of the relative pronoun in a restrictive relative clause is the entire noun phrase within which the relative clause occurs (not what the relative clause modifies). (In the preceding sentence, the antecedent of ...


0

I would use neither. The first sentence makes it sound as if you like only those sports that you are not in charge of (run meaning "to control, manage, or direct"), and the second fails, IMO, because where generally refers to place or location. Granted, many people speaking loosely do use where as you have, but, personally, I would say: I don't like ...


2

"Where" is fine, although informal. "In which I have to run" is more formal, but the "in" is essential. "That" is a no-go. "Where" may be a little controversial, but here's what Collins English Dictionary says: It was formerly considered incorrect to use where as a substitute for in which after a noun which did not refer to a place or position, but ...


0

The trick to knowing how to use of which, at which, in which, to which, from which is to analyse the prepositional phrases, phrasal verbs, verbs and prepositions: He /spoke of/ war and peace and many other topics that day. The topic /of which he spoke/ were complex. The verb here that means to speak about is /to speak of/: to mention The party /at which/ he ...


1

Probably easiest to explain through examples. Each phrase simply means "the thing that we've already mentioned", e.g. The box in which the books are kept The town of which we were speaking The time at which we will arrive The destination to which we were heading I'm sure there's a grammatically-correct term, but they're really just the correct forms of ...


3

When you replace where with that or which, sometimes you need to add a preposition. For example, This is the company where he works, becomes This is the company that he works at. How do you figure out which preposition? Rearrange the relative clause so it forms its own sentence. You can't say You were there the story, so you need a ...


4

In the first example (the story where...), 'story' is thought of as a place in which some events happened, and we want to talk about the events that happened in the story, not the story itself. That's what where does here: it ushers us into the story, (which is metaphorically thought of as a place,) to show us what goes on in there. That's why a where ...


1

The following relative clause "...who drove his car at another youth resulting in him being flung onto the roof of the car..." was used before the main verb "was given" in the sentence. Journalists are notorious for trying to cram as much information into their lead (often spelled "lede") as they possibly can, without much regard for whether the result ...


1

Good question. Resulting is a participle, and normally a participle modifies a specific noun, usually the subject of a clause. However, in this case you could say the participle modifies nothing specific, or it modifies the entire preceding clause (who drove his car at another youth). It says something about the event described in the clause as a whole: the ...


0

Based on my understanding of what you are trying to say you should actually use the past perfect "had fought" not the present perfect because FM is no longer fighting thus, you are talking about a finished time in the past or you can use the past simple "did FM fight..." Also, "Whom who" should never be used as such because "who" is used as the subject and ...


0

"I want to question whether Floyd Mayweather has fought any boxer during the boxer's best, so is it okay to use the relative clause 'who was in his prime' to describe the word 'whom?" No. It would be better to use some variation of TrevorD's suggestion, "Which boxers, if any, has Floyd Mayweather fought while they were in their prime?"



Top 50 recent answers are included