Teacher Discussion Forums

Hi all,

I'm a bit stumped by the following phrase, and too lazy to dig up my reference books, so I am turning to the font of all grammar knowledge, the applied linguistics community! It's also a way to introduce myself to you, since I am a fairly new member of "Dave's World."

"This is easier for me than for you, who HAVE several dependents."

I think that the choice of "have" is correct, since "who" is a demonstrative pronoun (?) which refers back to "you." However, it sounds awkward to me. Perhaps it would be better to render the idea as "this is easier for me than for you, since you have several dependents...."

Feedback, other than to go and read my Azar?

I agree that "have" is correct because "you" is the antecedent of the relative pronoun "who". When the antecedent is 3rdps, then so is "who", "He who laughs last, laughs best." http://www.bartleby.com/59/3/hewholaughsl.html

I think the idea is rendered more correctly with an adverbial dependent clause than with a non-restrictive adjective clause. A comma isn't necessary before the adverbial clause "since you have several dependents". I think the intent of the speech is to explain why it's easier, rather than who it's easier for, but either sentence is OK.

Perhaps the best style would avoid following pronouns with non-defining relative clauses? It works much better in the third person, but it still isn't very elegant to my ears.

It sounds fine if there's more than one of "you".

If "you" is (are?) singular then I might avoid it:


*"This is easier for me than for you, who has several dependents."

by putting "a person who " or "someone who " .

It's hard to explain the awkwardness of the "has" though.

I don't know, I think it just sounds slightly ugly in all such cases, with the degree of queasiness depending on the pronoun used. In the original example somehow the "who" seems to switch the "you" into a third person. Some extra clarification such as (a rude sounding) "you people" always seems to improve any such sentence that violates the general rule I gave.

"I who have nothing" is another awkward customer.

How about changing the examples with the verb 'to have' to examples with the verb 'to be'? They're even messier. And just think: if this is hard for you lot, just think what it's like for me who am much less learned.

I think perhaps the reason that these jolt a little is that if we say:

This is easier for me than for you, who have several dependents

or

I will give these to you, who are king

then since we are unused to such pronoun+non defining RC combinations our brains fill in the gap with a plausible element such as "the one", "the man" etc so we imagine ourselves to be hearing a truncated:

I will give these to you, the one who is king
This is easier for me than for you, the man who has several dependents

and thus with the original are/have the grammar seems wrong.

Thanks Forum for your interesting input to my query! I even understand most of it! Sorry, I can't manage any substantive comments right now, CUZ...

I have just been hired for my first TESOL job (here at home in Canada with French-speaking government employees) and am scurrying about organizing my student interview schedules and preparing lessons! Eeeeekk!

I will post more in the jobs forum in the coming days...

Be well, all.