Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Caravan]

Is this sentence grammatically correct? "He is the first man who came to this restaurant."

My Spidey senses tell me it's wrong and that the correct form should be "He is the first man TO COME to this restaurant."

"who came here" is a restrictive relative clause modifying the predicate nominative "man", which is also being modified by "first". And it's the word "first" that seems to be causing the problem because if you remove it, the sentence makes sense.

Why?

[Nierlisse]

I think it is grammatically correct, but a little awkward. Using "to come" sounds more natural to me.

[ArizonaBill]

Both are grammatically correct. The main difference is style, whether you want to add subtle emphasis to one thing or the other. Here's my interpretation of a number of the POSSIBLE interpretations of the two sentences. Note: I'm severely exaggerating the nuances of the styles for clarity's sake.

"He is the first man who came to this restaurant."
The topic of this sentence would be the restaurant's first customer in terms of having customers. One thing you can do with this sentence that you can't do with the other one is insert the word "ever," i.e.: "He is the first man who ever came to this restaurant." So there's a very subtle implication that the restaurant might never have had a customer if not for this man. Maybe the restaurant was about to close its doors but the man saved the day. Maybe not. The sentence doesn't preclude it.

"He is the first man to come to this restaurant."
The topic of this sentence is the man with respect to the restaurant. Contextually, it's the same thing, but you can interpret it a little differently. You can't insert the word "ever," so you're not implying that the restaurant might never have had customers if not for the man--just that, of the customers, the man was the first and that's all you care to comment about. Compared to the other sentence, there's also less of an emphasis on the past. That's why I think the first sentence might be used to refer to a story (restaurant struggling until the man came along, etc) and this sentence might be used as just a flat statement about the restaurant's first customer.

On a side note, if you wrote sentence #2 in past tense, you could use "ever." For instance, "He was the first man to ever come to this restaurant." Don't let the grammar Nazis tell you you can't split an infinitive either. Each variation on this sentence adds a new subtlety and saying either: "He was the first man to come to this restaurant, ever," or "He was the first man ever to come to this restaurant," though both correct, are quite extreme statements that I don't think your original sentence would equate with.

Short answer is, though, that they're both correct.

[greedy_bones]

I'm going with grammatically incorrect on this one. If you're saying that he's the first man here, than you'd say "to come in here".

"Who" is like "that" or "which" in that it's used to specify either which person or add more information about the person. For example: The first man, who came in here, is Bill.

This is similar to saying something like "The first book, which is on the table, is Bricks Reading 1.

When you use "who", it usually signifies an essential or non essential clause.

[T-J]

"He is the first man who came to this restaurant."

My two cents: grammatically correct, but awkward.

Better to state it as, "He is the man who first came to this restaurant."

First should modify the verb come, not the noun man. We infer that this is taking place because he is obviously not the first man.

The problem with your other solution of "He is the first man to come to this restaurant" is that it changes the tense and I read it as the man is coming to the restaurant now and is the first.

[Morning_Star]

He "was" the first man who came to this restaurant. "came" is past tense

[Caravan]

But if the clause "who came to this restaurant" modifies "first man", then without the clause the sentence would say: "He is the first man." Without any other context to surround that, it doesn't make much sense. That's the problem I've got. I think the word "first" is what's really messing up the original sentence. Take out "first" and everything is Kool and the Gang.

[T-J]

[Fox]

[Caravan]

Re: Adam is the first man... I see your point in that example, but I would imagine that's pretty much the one and only example where that sentence would be okay. In what other contexts, though, would it be safe to say "He is the first man?"

I agree with T-J that "first" should modify the verb in this sentence. Modifying then noun "man" seems to imply that Adam came into the restaurant. And maybe he did, but was turned away for the fig leaf jacket and tie.

[jinks]

[Caravan]

�Is� should be �was�. Got it.
But what about the following examples? These don�t look right to me either, and all because the word �first� is modifying the predicate nominative.

 Neil Armstrong was the first man who walked on the moon.
 Chuck Yeager was the first pilot who broke the sound barrier.
 Amelia Earhart was the first woman who flew solo across the Atlantic.

[Fox]

[Fox]

[lifeinkorea]

Both are ok. I have more of a hang up with using the word "man" in both sentences. Seems unnecessary.

A. "He is the first man who came to this restaurant."

He is home now, we should call him up and see if he will come again.

B. "He is the first man TO COME to this restaurant."

Since he was the first "to come" he chose one of the front tables. One of the waiters nearby should be able to point him out for you.