Dec 20, 2006 15:55
17 yrs ago
English term
Sweden
Services from the Heart
Native in: Polish (Variant: Standard-Poland) 
Works in: English to Polish, Polish, Dutch to Polish
Who [here]
Non-PRO
English
Art/Literary
Linguistics
grammar
"(...) She will leave Her current Man if She meets a better one (Representing Deeper the One), Who She can share more to and can Hear Her better (...)"
Is the 'Who' after comma acceptable or is it necessary to change into:
(...) Whom She can share more to and Who can Hear Her better (...)"?
Please, give your feedback.
Is the 'Who' after comma acceptable or is it necessary to change into:
(...) Whom She can share more to and Who can Hear Her better (...)"?
Please, give your feedback.
Responses
| 3 +8 | whom, who (and 'more deeply') |
Caryl Swift
|
| 4 +1 | re: the comma |
Nedra Rivera Huntington
|
| 3 -1 | whom |
becktrad
|
Change log
Dec 20, 2006 17:04: RHELLER changed "Level" from "PRO" to "Non-PRO"
Responses
+8
46 mins
Selected
whom, who (and 'more deeply')
"(...) She will leave Her current Man if She meets a better one (Representing <More Deeply> the One) with <Whom> She can share more and Who can Hear Her better (...)"
In spoken English, 'who she can share more with' would be fine, as it would in informal written English. However, in neutral and particularly in formal registers of written English, 'with whom would be usual (the old rule is that a sentence, or a relative clause such as the one in your text, should never end with a preposition).
What's more, in the case of your text, I think that the more formal version might better suit the slightly elaborate style.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 5 days (2006-12-26 08:30:16 GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------
:-)
In spoken English, 'who she can share more with' would be fine, as it would in informal written English. However, in neutral and particularly in formal registers of written English, 'with whom would be usual (the old rule is that a sentence, or a relative clause such as the one in your text, should never end with a preposition).
What's more, in the case of your text, I think that the more formal version might better suit the slightly elaborate style.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 5 days (2006-12-26 08:30:16 GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------
:-)
Peer comment(s):
| agree |
Craig Meulen
: "(...) She will leave Her current Man if She meets a better one representing more deeply the One with Whom She can share more and Who can hear Her better (...)" I think the author has gone overboard with capitals!
21 mins
|
|
Perhaps the capitals are a stylistic device-difficult to judge without seeing more.I like your version,but I deliberatley left the brackets.Earlier today,I rewrote something so it didn't need them,but at the asker's reuest,they had to go back.Thank you:)
|
|
| agree |
RHELLER
: your version sounds good but there is supposed to be one question per kudoz
27 mins
|
|
You're quite right.However, to be fair, the asker only asked about the 'Who after the comma'.It was I who took it upon myself to get involved with the whole sentence and suggest other changes as well.Thank you :-)
|
|
| agree |
Ken Cox
: absolutely
34 mins
|
|
Thank you :-)
|
|
| agree |
kmtext
53 mins
|
|
Thank you :-)
|
|
| agree |
Tony M
3 hrs
|
|
Thank you :-)
|
|
| agree |
Sophia Finos (X)
10 hrs
|
|
Thank you :-)
|
|
| agree |
Hamid Sadeghieh
14 hrs
|
|
Thank you :-)
|
|
| agree |
Nedra Rivera Huntington
: Good explanation.
1 day 5 hrs
|
|
Thank you, Nedra :-)
|
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "Thank you very much for your comprehensive explanation and to others for their imput."
-1
10 mins
whom
Grammatically more correct would be WHOM, but nobody uses it nowadays
Peer comment(s):
| agree |
Cristián Bianchi-Bruna
: altough I would prefer 'with whom she can share more'
19 mins
|
| neutral |
peter mcloughlin
: yes it is used!
23 mins
|
| neutral |
Craig Meulen
: the two verbs in the relative phrase need different treatments
57 mins
|
| disagree |
RHELLER
: nobody uses it??!! - are you sure you speak English?
1 hr
|
| disagree |
Tony M
: I'm with Rita and Peter — lots of us native speakers DO still use it!!!!
3 hrs
|
+1
1 day 6 hrs
Nedra Rivera Huntington
United States
United States
Native in English
&
English
United States
Reliability, conscientiousness and style
Native in: English (Variants: UK, US)
Works in: Spanish to English, English
re: the comma
From the text included, I would say that this is a defining relative clause, this means that the information following who/whom defines the preceding noun. "A better one" does not refer to a specific noun, so the following relative cause is needed to define what man you're talking about. In these cases, NO comma is used.
It is absolutely NOT true that "who" and "whom" cannot be used after a comma in a defining relative clause. Compare:
My brother who lives in Philadelphia is a doctor. (It is clear that I have more than one brother, but that I am talking about the one in Philadelphia. This information is necessary to know what brother I'm talking about.)
My brother, who lives in Philadelphia, is a doctor. (I only have one brother, and the Philadelphia information is extra, and not required to tell you what brother I'm talking about.)
The second example is a non-defining relative clause, and is surrounded by commas. The only limit as to relative pronoun (which, who, whom, that, where, when) is that you cannot use "that" in non-defining relative clauses, regardless of whether you're talking about people or things. "That" is only grammatically correct in defining relative clauses.
It is absolutely NOT true that "who" and "whom" cannot be used after a comma in a defining relative clause. Compare:
My brother who lives in Philadelphia is a doctor. (It is clear that I have more than one brother, but that I am talking about the one in Philadelphia. This information is necessary to know what brother I'm talking about.)
My brother, who lives in Philadelphia, is a doctor. (I only have one brother, and the Philadelphia information is extra, and not required to tell you what brother I'm talking about.)
The second example is a non-defining relative clause, and is surrounded by commas. The only limit as to relative pronoun (which, who, whom, that, where, when) is that you cannot use "that" in non-defining relative clauses, regardless of whether you're talking about people or things. "That" is only grammatically correct in defining relative clauses.
Peer comment(s):
| agree |
Caryl Swift
: That's exactly as I've always understood it too. :-)
4 mins
|
|
Thanks, Caryl.
|
Discussion
-> Angela - yes, the author isn't native English speaker (neither am I), that's why I ask