| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 13, 2004 2:40 pm
Post subject: relative clause |
|
|
(1)People ______ enjoy hiking always keep healthy.
"who" is the correct answer. how about "that"?
(2) He likes every movie _____ Tom Cruise is in.
are "which" and "that" correct answers? or only "that" because the word"every"?
--
來自: 暨大網路多媒體英語教室 ()
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Don Phillipson
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 13, 2004 3:02 pm
Post subject: Re: relative clause |
|
|
<huichen61@yahoo.com.tw> wrote in message
news:cn4vbd$2glu$1@apollo.ncnu.edu.tw...
| Quote: | (2) He likes every movie _____ Tom Cruise is in.
are "which" and "that" correct answers? or only "that" because the
word"every"? |
All these forms are grammatically correct.
Idiomatic usage uses simply:
He likes every movieTom Cruise is in.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
John Lawler
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 13, 2004 6:00 pm
Post subject: Re: relative clause |
|
|
<huichen61@yahoo.com.tw> writes:
| Quote: | (1) People ______ enjoy hiking always keep healthy.
"who" is the correct answer. how about "that"?
|
As it should say somewhere in your English textbook, in a restrictive
relative clause one may *always* use 'that' instead of 'who' or any other
relative pronoun. Therefore that's the one for English learners to learn
to use; all you have to do with 'who' is learn to understand it.
Note, by the way, that this relative pronoun is the subject of the
relative clause and therefore can't be deleted. So the blank does
have to be filled, either with 'who' or 'that'.
| Quote: | (2) He likes every movie _____ Tom Cruise is in.
are "which" and "that" correct answers?
|
Yes. Though here 'that' would be far more common that 'which', since
'which' is higher register than 'that', but in this case it's moved from a
prepositional phrase, stranding the preposition at the end of the clause,
which is lower register. So using 'which' results in a style conflict,
though it's not ungrammatical.
But, since this relative pronoun is *not* the subject of this relative
clause, it *can* be deleted, and ordinarily would be. So the sentence is
already correct without filling the blank at all.
| Quote: | or only "that" because the word "every"?
|
Wherever did you get the idea that that could possibly matter?
Incidentally, 'because' is a subordinating conjunction and must
introduce a clause; while many subordinating conjunctions can
also function as prepositions, 'because' can't, by itself.
You have to use 'because of' instead when it introduces a
noun phrase instead of a clause.
| Quote: | 來自: 暨大網路多媒體英語教室 ()
|
Use Pinyin when posting to alt.usage.english, please.
As you can see, characters don't work well here.
-John Lawler http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler Michigan Linguistics Dept
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"A dog is not considered good because of his barking, and a man is
not considered good because of his ability to talk." -- Chuang Tzu
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Skitt
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 14, 2004 12:00 am
Post subject: Re: relative clause |
|
|
John Lawler wrote:
| Quote: | huichen61@yahoo.com.tw> writes:
(1) People ______ enjoy hiking always keep healthy.
"who" is the correct answer. how about "that"?
As it should say somewhere in your English textbook, in a restrictive
relative clause one may *always* use 'that' instead of 'who' or any
other relative pronoun. Therefore that's the one for English
learners to learn to use; all you have to do with 'who' is learn to
understand it.
Note, by the way, that this relative pronoun is the subject of the
relative clause and therefore can't be deleted. So the blank does
have to be filled, either with 'who' or 'that'.
|
While all of the above is true, it should be noted that most people will use
"who" for the discussed sentence, and a "that", while not incorrect, will
raise the eyebrows of the many who prefer a "who" when referring to persons.
It is also correct that in a restrictive relative clause one may *always*
use 'who' instead of 'that' and be no less correct than when employing the
opposite suggestion. It's just one of those things that really doesn't
matter.
Me, I prefer a "who" when referring to persons, but there are some instances
when a "that" comes naturally. I don't fight it when that happens.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
R J Valentine
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 14, 2004 9:00 am
Post subject: Re: relative clause |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 12:58:35 -0800 Skitt <skitt99@comcast.net> wrote:
} John Lawler wrote:
}> <huichen61@yahoo.com.tw> writes:
}
}>> (1) People ______ enjoy hiking always keep healthy.
}>> "who" is the correct answer. how about "that"?
}>
}> As it should say somewhere in your English textbook, in a restrictive
}> relative clause one may *always* use 'that' instead of 'who' or any
}> other relative pronoun. Therefore that's the one for English
}> learners to learn to use; all you have to do with 'who' is learn to
}> understand it.
}>
}> Note, by the way, that this relative pronoun is the subject of the
}> relative clause and therefore can't be deleted. So the blank does
}> have to be filled, either with 'who' or 'that'.
}
} While all of the above is true, it should be noted that most people will use
} "who" for the discussed sentence, and a "that", while not incorrect, will
} raise the eyebrows of the many who prefer a "who" when referring to persons.
} It is also correct that in a restrictive relative clause one may *always*
} use 'who' instead of 'that' and be no less correct than when employing the
} opposite suggestion. It's just one of those things that really doesn't
} matter.
}
} Me, I prefer a "who" when referring to persons, but there are some instances
} when a "that" comes naturally. I don't fight it when that happens.
Like when you could leave it out?
Prof. Lawler may have touched on it on a snipped part of the quoted
posting when he mentioned that "which" is in a different register than
"that". Both "which" and "who" tend to get punched a little harder than
"that" would be. People who stress "that" tend to make it sound funny.
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:rj@smart.net> |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jordan Abel
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 14, 2004 9:00 am
Post subject: Re: relative clause |
|
|
John Lawler wrote:
| Quote: | 靘: 典之蝬脰楝憭慦擃梯摰 ()
Use Pinyin when posting to alt.usage.english, please.
As you can see, characters don't work well here.
|
Well, if he'd specify the charset in his post, it would work fine.
What's it mean? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Martin Ambuhl
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 14, 2004 9:00 am
Post subject: Re: relative clause [UTF8] |
|
|
John Lawler wrote:
| Quote: | huichen61@yahoo.com.tw> writes:
穡礎: 繙[瞻j繙繫繡繫礎h織C矇簫^罈y簣竄 ()
Use Pinyin when posting to alt.usage.english, please.
As you can see, characters don't work well here.
|
靘: 典之 蝬脰楝 憭慦擃 梯 摰
l獺iz穫: j穫d wngl羅 dum矇il y蘋ngy躑 jiosh穫
coming from (sender): huge network multimedia English classroom
Does that help? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Martin Ambuhl
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 14, 2004 9:00 am
Post subject: Re: relative clause [UTF8] |
|
|
John Lawler wrote:
| Quote: | huichen61@yahoo.com.tw> writes:
穡礎: 繙[瞻j繙繫繡繫礎h織C矇簫^罈y簣竄 ()
Use Pinyin when posting to alt.usage.english, please.
As you can see, characters don't work well here.
|
靘: 典之 蝬脰楝 憭慦擃 梯 摰
l獺iz穫: j穫d wngl羅 dum矇il y蘋ngy躑 jiosh穫
coming from (sender): huge network multimedia English classroom
Jinan University?
Does that help? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
R H Draney
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 14, 2004 6:01 pm
Post subject: Re: relative clause [UTF8] |
|
|
Martin Ambuhl filted:
| Quote: |
John Lawler wrote:
huichen61@yahoo.com.tw> writes:
穡礎: 繙[瞻j繙繫繡繫礎h織C矇簫^罈y簣竄 ()
Use Pinyin when posting to alt.usage.english, please.
As you can see, characters don't work well here.
靘: 典之 蝬脰楝 憭慦擃 梯 摰
l獺iz穫: j穫d wngl羅 dum矇il y蘋ngy躑 jiosh穫
coming from (sender): huge network multimedia English classroom
Jinan University?
Does that help?
|
The hanzi looks okay now, but there's a type slug at the end of your laizi
fragment corresponding to "multimedia"....r |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |