Skip to main content
English Language & Usage

Return to Answer

added 125 characters in body
Source Link
apsillers
apsillers
  • 2.2k
  • 1
  • 13
  • 19

Either who or that would be a valid relative pronoun for the phrase. Either word can apply to people: that can apply to people or things, and who can apply only to people (or, if applied to a non-person, suggests personification).

They or those would both be appropriate as well, but those sounds much cleaner to my American ear. "They who..." or "they that..." sounds a bit archaic, but still grammatically valid.

Whom is not appropriate, because whom must be the object of its relative clause. Here, the predicate of the relative clause is "couldn't let go". The, so relative pronoun is the subject of the clause, not the object. (The relative pronoun here refers to the acting party that couldn't let go; it is not specified as the object of any action.)

Either who or that would be a valid relative pronoun for the phrase. Either word can apply to people: that can apply to people or things, and who can apply only to people (or, if applied to a non-person, suggests personification).

They or those would both be appropriate as well, but those sounds much cleaner to my American ear. "They who..." or "they that..." sounds a bit archaic, but still grammatically valid.

Whom is not appropriate, because whom must be the object of its relative clause. Here, the predicate of the relative clause is "couldn't let go". The relative pronoun is the subject of the clause, not the object.

Either who or that would be a valid relative pronoun for the phrase. Either word can apply to people: that can apply to people or things, and who can apply only to people (or, if applied to a non-person, suggests personification).

They or those would both be appropriate as well, but those sounds much cleaner to my American ear. "They who..." or "they that..." sounds a bit archaic, but still grammatically valid.

Whom is not appropriate, because whom must be the object of its relative clause. Here, the predicate of the relative clause is "couldn't let go", so relative pronoun is the subject of the clause, not the object. (The relative pronoun here refers to the acting party that couldn't let go; it is not specified as the object of any action.)

Source Link
apsillers
apsillers
  • 2.2k
  • 1
  • 13
  • 19

Either who or that would be a valid relative pronoun for the phrase. Either word can apply to people: that can apply to people or things, and who can apply only to people (or, if applied to a non-person, suggests personification).

They or those would both be appropriate as well, but those sounds much cleaner to my American ear. "They who..." or "they that..." sounds a bit archaic, but still grammatically valid.

Whom is not appropriate, because whom must be the object of its relative clause. Here, the predicate of the relative clause is "couldn't let go". The relative pronoun is the subject of the clause, not the object.