You...Who!!
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
-
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 5:13 pm
- Location: Canada
You...Who!!
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'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.
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.
-
- Posts: 1303
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:14 am
- Location: London
-
- Posts: 947
- Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:30 am
- Location: Spain
-
- Posts: 1303
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:14 am
- Location: London
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.
-
- Posts: 947
- Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:30 am
- Location: Spain
-
- Posts: 1303
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:14 am
- Location: London
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 5:13 pm
- Location: Canada
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.
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.