Misplaced Pages

#447552

81-551: The pronoun who , in English , is an interrogative pronoun and a relative pronoun , used primarily to refer to persons. Unmarked, who is the pronoun's subjective form; its inflected forms are the objective whom and the possessive whose . The set has derived indefinite forms whoever , whomever , and whoseever, as well as a further, earlier such set whosoever, whomsoever , and whosesoever (see also " -ever "). The interrogative and relative pronouns who derive from

162-424: A non -restrictive relative clause and three short intonation curves, usually marked-off by commas. The second expression refers not to a single builder but to a certain category , also called a set , of builders who meet a particular qualification, or distinguishing property: the one explained by the restrictive relative clause. Now the sentence means: it is the builder who builds "very fine" houses who will make

243-553: A broad sense). Some occur as independent noun phrases: mine , yours , hers , ours , theirs . An example is: Those clothes are mine . Others act as a determiner and must accompany a noun: my , your , her , our , your , their , as in: I lost my wallet. ( His and its can fall into either category, although its is nearly always found in the second.) Those of the second type have traditionally also been described as possessive adjectives , and in more modern terminology as possessive determiners . The term "possessive pronoun"

324-511: A clause: "'He' ate the pie"); it makes no difference that its antecedent "(the) man" is the object of "saw". In the position of predicative expression , i.e. as the complement of forms of the copula "be", the form "who" is used, and considered correct, rather than "whom". (Compare the case of the personal pronouns, where the subjective form is traditionally considered correct, although the objective forms are more commonly used – see English personal pronouns § Case usage .) In

405-401: A determiner ("What book are you reading?"), but 'who' cannot. "Which", "who", and "what" as interrogatives can be either singular or plural ("Which is the highest hill?", "Which are the highest hills?", "Who was born in 1920?" or "Who were king and queen in 1920?"). "Who" and "what" often take a singular verb regardless of any supposed number. The questions "Who wants some cake?" and "What's in

486-425: A determiner, rather than the noun that follows it, is taken to be the head of the phrase. Cross-linguistically, it seems as though pronouns share 3 distinct categories: point of view, person, and number. The breadth of each subcategory however tends to differ among languages. The use of pronouns often involves anaphora , where the meaning of the pronoun is dependent on another referential element. The referent of

567-491: A direct relationship to an antecedent. The following sentences give examples of particular types of pronouns used with antecedents: Some other types, such as indefinite pronouns , are usually used without antecedents. Relative pronouns are used without antecedents in free relative clauses . Even third-person personal pronouns are sometimes used without antecedents ("unprecursed") – this applies to special uses such as dummy pronouns and generic they , as well as cases where

648-444: A direct relationship with its referent. This is called a C-command relationship. For instance, we see that John cut himself is grammatical, but Himself cut John is not, despite having identical arguments, since himself , the reflexive, must be lower in structure to John, its referent. Additionally, we see examples like John said that Mary cut himself are not grammatical because there is an intermediary noun, Mary , that disallows

729-458: A large profit. It conveys this very different meaning by providing a restrictive relative clause and only one intonation curve, and no commas. Commas are, however, often used erroneously, probably because the rule is taught based on logic and most people are not aware that they can trust their ear in deciding whether to use a comma. (English uses commas in some other cases based on grammar, not prosody.) Thus, in speaking or writing English prose ,

810-535: A nonsingular exclusive pronoun to refer to a group, the speaker will assess whether or not the members of the group belong to a common class of gender or kinship. If all of the members of the referent group are male, the MASCULINE form will be selected; if at least one is female, the FEMININE is selected, but if all the members are in a sibling-like kinship relation, a third SIBLING form is selected. In Arabana-Wangkangurru ,

891-448: A noun phrase (or determiner phrase), normally in a context where it is clear which noun it is replacing. For example, in a context in which hats are being talked about, the red one means "the red hat", and the ones we bought means "the hats we bought". The prop-word thus functions somewhat similarly to a pronoun, except that a pronoun usually takes the place of a whole noun (determiner) phrase (for example, "the red hat" may be replaced by

SECTION 10

#1732851239448

972-414: A restrictive clause is not. Compare the following sentences, which have quite different meanings and intonation, depending on whether the commas are inserted: The first expression refers to an individual builder (and it implies that we know, or know of, the builder, which is the referent). It says that he builds "very fine" houses, and that he will make a large profit. It conveys these meanings by deploying

1053-407: A restrictive rather than non-restrictive meaning (or vice versa) requires the correct syntax by choosing the appropriate relative clause (i.e., restrictive or non-restrictive) and the appropriate intonation and punctuation. To determine whether a relative clause is restrictive or non-restrictive a simple test can be applied. If the basic meaning of the sentence (the thought) is not changed by removing

1134-436: A single class, sometimes called "determiner-pronoun", or regarding determiners as a subclass of pronouns or vice versa. The distinction may be considered to be one of subcategorization or valency , rather like the distinction between transitive and intransitive verbs – determiners take a noun phrase complement like transitive verbs do, while pronouns do not. This is consistent with the determiner phrase viewpoint, whereby

1215-543: A slightly different set of personal pronouns, shown in the table. The difference is entirely in the second person. Though one would rarely find these older forms used in recent literature, they are nevertheless considered part of Modern English. In English, kin terms like "mother", "uncle", "cousin" are a distinct word class from pronouns; however many Australian Aboriginal languages have more elaborated systems of encoding kinship in language including special kin forms of pronouns. In Murrinh-patha , for example, when selecting

1296-451: A specialized restricted sense) rather than as pronominal elements. Under binding theory, specific principles apply to different sets of pronouns. In English, reflexive and reciprocal pronouns must adhere to Principle A: an anaphor (reflexive or reciprocal, such as "each other") must be bound in its governing category (roughly, the clause). Therefore, in syntactic structure it must be lower in structure (it must have an antecedent ) and have

1377-640: A treatise on Greek grammar attributed to Dionysius Thrax and dating from the 2nd century BC. The pronoun is described there as "a part of speech substitutable for a noun and marked for a person." Pronouns continued to be regarded as a part of speech in Latin grammar (the Latin term being pronomen , from which the English name – through Middle French – ultimately derives), and thus in the European tradition generally. Because of

1458-458: Is "no longer current in natural colloquial speech". Lasnik and Sobin argue that surviving occurrences of "whom" are not part of ordinary English grammar, but the result of extra-grammatical rules for producing "prestige" forms. According to Mair, the decline of "whom" has been hastened by the fact that it is one of relatively few synthetic ( inflected ) remnants in the principally analytical grammar of Modern English. It has also been claimed that

1539-456: Is a pronominal. Pronoun is a category of words. A pro-form is a type of function word or expression that stands in for (expresses the same content as) another word , phrase , clause or sentence where the meaning is recoverable from the context. In English, pronouns mostly function as pro-forms, but there are pronouns that are not pro-forms and pro-forms that are not pronouns. Examples [1 & 2] are pronouns and pro-forms. In [1],

1620-444: Is acquired in the educational system [, where it is taught]. [The use of "whom"] is highly restricted, but rather than disappear entirely, the form is likely to remain in use for some time to come because of its overt prestige in writing." Whom is also sometimes used by way of hypercorrection , in places where it would not even be considered correct according to traditional rules, as in "Whom do you think you are?" For more examples see

1701-467: Is dependent on an antecedent . For example, in the sentence That poor man looks as if he needs a new coat , the meaning of the pronoun he is dependent on its antecedent, that poor man . The adjective form of the word "pronoun" is " pronominal ". A pronominal is also a word or phrase that acts as a pronoun. For example, in That's not the one I wanted , the phrase the one (containing the prop-word one )

SECTION 20

#1732851239448

1782-659: Is grammatical because the two co-referents, John and him are separated structurally by Mary . This is why a sentence like John cut him where him refers to John is ungrammatical. The type of binding that applies to subsets of pronouns varies cross-linguistically. For instance, in German linguistics, pronouns can be split into two distinct categories — personal pronouns and d-pronouns. Although personal pronouns act identically to English personal pronouns (i.e. follow Principle B), d-pronouns follow yet another principle, Principle C, and function similarly to nouns in that they cannot have

1863-446: Is meant. In reference to a person, one may use who (subject), whom (object) or whose (possessive); for example, Who did that? In colloquial speech, whom is generally replaced by who . English non-personal interrogative pronouns ( which and what ) have only one form. In English and many other languages (e.g. French and Czech ), the sets of relative and interrogative pronouns are nearly identical. Compare English: Who

1944-437: Is more natural than prescriptivist. The possessive form whose is necessarily used with non-human as well as human antecedents because no possessive forms exist for which or that . Otherwise, to avoid, for example, using whose in "...the car whose engine blew up.." would require a periphrastic phrasing, such as "...the car the engine of which blew up", or "...the car of which the engine blew up". English also makes

2025-414: Is normal, and to replace it with 'whom' would be grammatically incorrect, since the pronoun is the subject of "was", not the object of "say". (One would write "You say [that] 'he' [not 'him'] was a great composer".) Nevertheless, "whom" is quite commonly encountered, and even defended, in sentences of this type. It may arise from confusion with a form like: In this case, "whom" is used correctly according to

2106-400: Is perfectly grammatical and has been used by the best writers for centuries, though it was, in the past, criticized by prescriptivist grammarians as being either ungrammatical or informal. The grammatical case of a relative pronoun governed by a preposition is the same as when it is the direct object of a verb: typically the objective case. When the relative pronoun follows the preposition,

2187-414: Is sometimes restricted to the first type. Both types replace possessive noun phrases. As an example, Their crusade to capture our attention could replace The advertisers' crusade to capture our attention. Reflexive pronouns are used when a person or thing acts on itself, for example, John cut himself . In English they all end in -self or -selves and must refer to a noun phrase elsewhere in

2268-448: Is stranded, or dangled, ("Jack built the house that we live in," or "Jack built the house we live in.") Relative clauses headed by zeros are frequently called contact clauses in TEFL contexts, and may also be called "zero clauses". (If that is analyzed as a complementizer rather than as a relative pronoun the above sentences would be represented differently: Jack built the house that I

2349-417: Is that? (interrogative) and I know the woman who came (relative). In some other languages, interrogative pronouns and indefinite pronouns are frequently identical; for example, Standard Chinese 什么 shénme means "what?" as well as "something" or "anything". Though the personal pronouns described above are the current English pronouns, Early Modern English (as used by Shakespeare, for example) use

2430-458: Is the corresponding objective form (just as "him" is the objective form corresponding to "he"). It has long been common, particularly in informal English, for the uninflected form "who" to be used in both cases, thus replacing "whom" in the contexts where the latter was traditionally used. In 1975, S. Potter noted in Changing English that, "nearly half a century ago Edward Sapir predicted

2511-426: Is the practice either of most or of the best writers." Linguists, according to Stanford linguist Arnold Zwicky , generally regard the proposed rule on not using which in restrictive relative clauses as "a really silly idea". Which cannot correctly be replaced by that in a restrictive relative clause when the relative pronoun is the object of a non-stranded (or non-dangling) preposition . In this case which

Who (pronoun) - Misplaced Pages Continue

2592-460: Is used as a verb subject , while "whom" is used as an indirect or direct object of a verb or as the object (complement) of a preposition . Examples: Notice that in a relative clause, the form depends on the role of the pronoun in the relative clause, not that of its antecedent in the main clause. For example, "I saw the man who ate the pie" – not "whom", since "who" is the subject of "ate" (original sentence, before being changed to

2673-566: Is used with both human and non-human antecedents. Some writers and style guides recommend reserving that for non-human cases only, but this view does not reflect general use. Counter-examples can be found in literature: Shakespeare ( the man that hath no music in himself , in The Merchant of Venice ), Mark Twain ( The Man that Corrupted Hadleyburg ), and Ira Gershwin ( The Man that Got Away ); and informal English, especially speech, follows an actual practice (in using that and which ) that

2754-573: Is used, as in "We admired the skill with which she handled the situation." (The example is taken from The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language .) English, unlike other West Germanic languages, has a zero relative pronoun (denoted below as Ø)—that is, the relative pronoun is implied and not explicitly written or spoken; it is "unvoiced". This measure is used in restrictive relative clauses (only) as an alternative to voicing that , which or who , whom , etc. in these clauses: In other words,

2835-493: The Old English singular interrogative hwā , and whose paradigm is set out below: It was not until the end of the 17th century that who became the only pronoun that could ask about the identity of persons and what fully lost this ability. "The first occurrences of wh-relatives date from the twelfth century (with the possible exception hwær (see Kivimaa 1966: 35)). The wh- form does not become frequent, however, until

2916-453: The § Ambiguous cases section below. Retention of the 'who'–'whom' distinction often co-occurs with another stylistic marker of formal or "prestige" English – avoidance of the stranded preposition . This means that "whom" can frequently be found following a preposition, in cases where the usual informal equivalent would use who and place the preposition later in the sentence. For example: In relative clauses, movement of

2997-438: The "restrictive" relative clause is removed from either of the above sentences, the antecedent ("the father" and "the clergyman") is not placed in question. In the first example, for instance, there is no suggestion that the narrator has two fathers because the relative clause does not express a distinguishing property of the subject. Instead, the relative clause is integrated but is not truly restrictive. The distinction between

3078-520: The 16th edition of The Chicago Manual of Style , recommend generally avoiding which in restrictive relative clauses. This prescriptive "rule" was proposed as early as 1851 by Goold Brown . It was championed in 1926 by H. W. Fowler , who said: "If writers would agree to regard that as the defining [restrictive] relative pronoun, and which as the non-defining, there would be much gain both in lucidity and in ease. There are some who follow this principle now, but it would be idle to pretend that it

3159-449: The bag?" do not presuppose anything about number in possible responses: "I want some cake", or "All of us want some"; and "A rabbit is in the bag", or "Five coins and a bus ticket". The other chief use of "who" and its derivatives are in the formation of relative clauses : The corresponding form for non-humans is "which", although "whose" can be used as a possessive in relative clauses even when referring to non-humans: "I will have to fix

3240-663: The car whose engine I ruined." In restrictive relative clauses , when not preceded by a preposition , both "who(m)" and "which" can be replaced by "that", or (if not the subject of the clause) by zero . In relative clauses, "who" (like other relative pronouns) takes the number (singular or plural) of its antecedent. "Who" also takes the person (first, second or third) of its antecedent: "Who" and "whom" can also be used to form free relative clauses (those with no antecedent). The emphatic forms are often used for this purpose: informal: "I'll take whoever you choose"; formal: "I'll take whomever/whomsoever you choose". This corresponds to

3321-417: The decline of "whom" is more advanced in the interrogative case than in the relative case, this possibly being related to the degree of complexity of the syntax. Some prescriptivists continue to defend "whom" as the only "correct" form in functions other than the subject. Mair notes that: "'whom' is moribund as an element of the core grammar of English, but is very much alive as a style marker whose correct use

Who (pronoun) - Misplaced Pages Continue

3402-474: The demise of "whom", showing at great length that it was doomed because it was 'psychologically isolated' from the objective pronouns me, us, him, her, them on the one hand, and the invariables which, what, that and where, when, how, why on the other." By 1978, the 'who'–'whom' distinction was identified as having "slipped so badly that [it is] almost totally uninformative". According to the OED (2nd edition, 1989), "whom"

3483-553: The distinction between human vs. thing in personal pronouns ( he, she vs. it ) and certain other pronouns (such as someone, somebody vs. something ); but some particular things—such a navy ships and marine vessels—are described with female pronouns, and pets and other animals are frequently addressed in terms of their gender or their (anthropomorphic) ‘personhood’. Typically, it is when these things-as-human become antecedents to relative clauses that their relative pronouns tend to revert to that or which —for things—rather than taking

3564-486: The emphatic ones) are used to make indirect questions : The corresponding form when referring to non-humans is "what" (which has the emphatic form "whatever", and no possessive form). Another similar interrogative is "which" – this can refer to either humans or non-humans, normally implying selection from a particular set, as either interrogative pronoun ("Which do you prefer?") or interrogative determiner (adjective) ("Which man should I choose?"). 'What' can also be used as

3645-427: The examples that follow, notice how, when the verb is a form of "be", the question "Who is the captain of the team?" or the noun clause "who the captain of the team is" (we know it is a noun clause because it replaces the word "something") is the same regardless of whether the original placement of the unknown person was before or after "be" (is): A problem sometimes arises in constructions like this: Use of "who" here

3726-569: The fourteenth century." Today, relative whose can still refer to non-persons (e.g., the car whose door won't open ). The spelling 'who' does not correspond to the word's pronunciation /huː/ ; it is the spelling that represents the expected outcome of hwā , while the pronunciation represents a divergent outcome – for details see Pronunciation of English ⟨wh⟩ . The word is cognate with Latin quis and Greek ποιός . "Who" and its derived forms can be used as interrogative pronouns , to form questions: The same forms (though not usually

3807-400: The front-page of United Kingdom newspaper The Sun on 11 April 1992 in the headline " It's The Sun Wot Won It ." Standard Englishes proscribe the use of what as a relative pronoun, preferring who or that . A relative pronoun often appears as the object of a preposition, both in restrictive and non-restrictive clauses, as in or It is not unusual to place the preposition at the end of

3888-793: The largest group of pronouns, refer to one or more unspecified persons or things. One group in English includes compounds of some- , any- , every- and no- with -thing , -one and -body , for example: Anyone can do that. Another group, including many , more , both , and most , can appear alone or followed by of . In addition, Relative pronouns in English include who , whom , whose , what , which and that . They rely on an antecedent, and refer back to people or things previously mentioned: People who smoke should quit now. They are used in relative clauses . Relative pronouns can also be used as complementizers . Relative pronouns can be used in an interrogative setting as interrogative pronouns. Interrogative pronouns ask which person or thing

3969-437: The many different syntactic roles that they play, pronouns are less likely to be a single word class in more modern approaches to grammar. Linguists in particular have trouble classifying pronouns in a single category, and some do not agree that pronouns substitute nouns or noun categories. Certain types of pronouns are often identical or similar in form to determiners with related meaning; some English examples are given in

4050-414: The most common distribution of the forms of pronouns in relative clauses follows: The word that , when used in the way described above, has been classified as a relative pronoun; however, according to some linguists it ought to be analyzed instead as a subordinating conjunction or relativizer . This is consistent with that used as a conjunction in ( I said that I was tired ), or implied in ( I said I

4131-431: The objective case is required , as in while is ungrammatical. In the case of the construction with a stranded preposition, however, the subjective form (e.g. "who") is commonly used, as in especially in informal style. Use of the objective case with a stranded preposition, as in is somewhat rare, but occasionally found, even in informal style. Variations may be encountered in the spoken and informal English, but

SECTION 50

#1732851239448

4212-407: The other hand, Whomever you choose will suit me is correct, since whomever is now the object of choose (despite the fact that the entire relative clause is the subject of will suit ). Similarly: In sentences of this type, as with the "subject whom " examples above, use of whom(ever) is sometimes found in places where it would not be expected grammatically, due to the relative complexity of

4293-477: The preposition further allows "who" to be replaced by "that" or removed entirely: In the types of English in which "whom" is used (which are generally the more formal varieties, as described in the section above), the general grammatical rule is that "who" is the subjective (nominative) form, analogous to the personal pronouns "I", "he", "she", "we", "they", while "whom" is the objective (oblique) form, analogous to "me", "him", "her", "us" and "them". Thus, "who"

4374-399: The pronoun it "stands in" for whatever was mentioned and is a good idea. In [2], the relative pronoun who stands in for "the people". Examples [3 & 4] are pronouns but not pro-forms. In [3], the interrogative pronoun who does not stand in for anything. Similarly, in [4], it is a dummy pronoun , one that does not stand in for anything. No other word can function there with

4455-547: The pronoun "it".) Finally, in [5 & 6], there are pro-forms that are not pronouns. In [5], did so is a verb phrase that stands in for "helped", inflected from to help stated earlier in the sentence. Similarly, in [6], others is a common noun , not a pronoun, but the others probably stands in for the names of other people involved (e.g., Sho, Alana, and Ali ), all proper nouns . Pronouns ( antōnymía ) are listed as one of eight parts of speech in The Art of Grammar ,

4536-550: The pronoun is often the same as that of a preceding (or sometimes following) noun phrase, called the antecedent of the pronoun. The grammatical behavior of certain types of pronouns, and in particular their possible relationship with their antecedents, has been the focus of studies in binding , notably in the Chomskyan government and binding theory . In this binding context, reflexive and reciprocal pronouns in English (such as himself and each other ) are referred to as anaphors (in

4617-419: The pronouns such as what ("I like what you've done"), and who and whoever . Modern guides to English say that the relative pronoun should take the case (subject or object) which is appropriate to the relative clause, not the function performed by that clause within an external clause. The basic grammatical rules for the formation of relative clauses in English are given here. More details can be found in

4698-620: The referent is implied by the context. English pronouns have often traditionally been classified as different from nouns, but at least one modern grammar defines them as a subclass of nouns. English personal pronouns have a number of different syntactic contexts (Subject, Object, Possessive, Reflexive) and many features: English also has other pronoun types, including demonstrative, relative, indefinite, and interrogative pronouns: Personal pronouns may be classified by person , number , gender and case . English has three persons (first, second and third) and two numbers (singular and plural); in

4779-424: The regular who , whom , etc., for human referents. See Gender in English . The distinction between restrictive , or integrated , relative clauses and non-restrictive , or supplementary , relative clauses in English is made both in speaking (through prosody ), and in writing (through punctuation ): a non-restrictive relative clause is surrounded by pauses in speech and usually by commas in writing, whereas

4860-624: The relative clause, the relative clause is not essential to the basic thought and is non-restrictive. Alternatively, if the essential meaning of the thought is disturbed, the relative clause is restrictive. Restrictive relative clauses are also called integrated relative clauses, defining relative clauses, or identifying relative clauses. Conversely, non-restrictive relative clauses are called supplementary, appositive, non-defining, or non-identifying relative clauses. Also, some integrated clauses may not be truly restrictive; see integrated clauses , and for more information see restrictiveness . Although

4941-442: The relative clause, while the relative pronoun that it governs is placed at the beginning of the clause or omitted, so is also possible. A preposition is never placed in front of the relative pronoun that , but preposition stranding is possible when there is an explicit that , or when the relative pronoun representing the object of the clause is omitted. So and are possible but is ungrammatical. Such preposition-stranding

SECTION 60

#1732851239448

5022-404: The relative pronoun should take the case appropriate to the relative clause, not the function performed by that clause within an external clause. For example, it is correct to write I'll talk to whoever [not whomever ] will listen , since whoever is the subject of will listen (regardless of the fact that the entire clause whoever will listen serves as the object of the preposition to ). On

5103-571: The relative pronouns that and which to introduce restrictive relative clauses with non-human antecedents is a frequent point of dispute. For clarity, we can look at the case of non-human antecedents using the previous example: Of the two, it is consensus that only which is commonly used in non -restrictive clauses. Equivalently, the two cases would be applied where the statements are logically: The dispute concerns restrictive clauses . Both that and which are commonly used. However, for "polished" prose, many American style guides, such as

5184-695: The same clause. Reciprocal pronouns refer to a reciprocal relationship ( each other , one another ). They must refer to a noun phrase in the same clause. An example in English is: They do not like each other . In some languages, the same forms can be used as both reflexive and reciprocal pronouns. Demonstrative pronouns (in English, this , that and their plurals these , those ) often distinguish their targets by pointing or some other indication of position; for example, I'll take these . They may also be anaphoric , depending on an earlier expression for context, for example, A kid actor would try to be all sweet, and who needs that ? Indefinite pronouns,

5265-414: The same meaning; we do not say "the sky is raining" or "the weather is raining". A prop-word is a word with little or no semantic content used where grammar dictates a certain sentence member, e.g., to provide a "support" on which to hang a modifier. The word most commonly considered as a prop-word in English is one (with the plural form ones ). The prop-word one takes the place of a countable noun in

5346-414: The second type. Examples of this apparently ungrammatical usage can be found throughout the history of English. The OED traces it back to the 15th   century, while Jespersen cites even earlier examples from Chaucer . More examples are given below: Doubts can also arise in the case of free relative clauses, formed with who(m) , who(m)ever or who(m)soever . Modern guides to English usage say that

5427-660: The sections below, and in the article on who . The words used as relative pronouns have other uses in English grammar: that can be a demonstrative or a conjunction , while which , what , who , whom and whose can be interrogatives . For other uses of whoever etc., see -ever . The choice of relative pronoun typically depends on whether the antecedent is human or non-human: for example, who and its derivatives ( whom , whoever , etc.—apart from whose ) are generally restricted to human antecedents, while which and what and their derivatives refer in most cases to things, including animals. The relative pronoun that

5508-668: The speaker will use entirely different sets of pronouns depending on whether the speaker and the referent are or are not in a common moiety. See the following example: Pulalakiya 3DU . KIN panti-rda. fight- PRES Pulalakiya panti-rda. 3DU.KIN fight-PRES They two [who are in the classificatory relationship of father and son] are fighting. (The people involved were a man and his wife's sister's son.) See Australian Aboriginal kinship for more details. Some special uses of personal pronouns include: English relative clauses English also uses free relative clauses , which have no antecedent and can be formed with

5589-459: The syntax. In fact in Middle English it was standard for the form of the pronoun to depend on the function in the external clause; the modern rule came about through re-analysis of the pronoun as primarily an element of the internal clause. "Whose" is the genitive case of "who". Unlike the other forms of "who", relative "whose" (but not interrogative "whose") can still refer to non-persons, in

5670-434: The table. This observation has led some linguists, such as Paul Postal , to regard pronouns as determiners that have had their following noun or noun phrase deleted. (Such patterning can even be claimed for certain personal pronouns; for example, we and you might be analyzed as determiners in phrases like we Brits and you tennis players .) Other linguists have taken a similar view, uniting pronouns and determiners into

5751-484: The term "restrictive" has become established as joined with integrated clauses, there are integrated clauses that do not necessarily express a distinguishing property of the referent. Such a (so-called) restrictive clause, actually a non-restrictive clause, is so completely integrated into the narrative and the intonation of the main sentence that it falsely appears to be restrictive. These examples of integrated relative clauses in that sense are not truly restrictive: When

5832-539: The third person singular there are also distinct pronoun forms for male, female and neuter gender. Principal forms are shown in the adjacent table. English personal pronouns have two cases, subject and object . Subject pronouns are used in subject position ( I like to eat chips, but she does not ). Object pronouns are used for the object of a verb or preposition ( John likes me but not her ). Other distinct forms found in some languages include: Possessive pronouns are used to indicate possession (in

5913-452: The traditional rules, since it is now the object of the verb "believe". (One would write "You believe him [not 'he'] (to be) a great composer.") The use of "whom" in sentences of the first type ("Beethoven, whom you say was a great composer...") – referred to as "subject 'whom'  – can therefore be regarded as a hypercorrection , resulting from awareness of a perceived need to correct "who" to "whom" in sentences of

5994-436: The two referents from having a direct relationship. On the other hand, personal pronouns (such as him or them ) must adhere to Principle B: a pronoun must be free (i.e., not bound) within its governing category (roughly, the clause). This means that although the pronouns can have a referent, they cannot have a direct relationship with the referent where the referent selects the pronoun. For instance, John said Mary cut him

6075-411: The unvoiced zero pronoun nor that can be used in non-restrictive relative clauses (that is, yes: "Jack, who builds houses, built the house she lives in", but never: "Jack, that builds houses, built … "), nor in any relative clause with a fronted preposition (yes: "Jack built the house in which we live", but never: "Jack built the house in that we live"). But either can be used when the preposition

6156-449: The use of "what(ever)" when referring to non-humans. (For the choice between "who(ever)" and "whom(ever)" in formal English, see § Ambiguous cases below.) The emphatic forms can also be used to make adverbial clauses, as in "Whomever/Whoever you choose, I'll be satisfied". For more details, see English relative clauses . According to traditional prescriptive grammar , "who" is the subjective (nominative) form only, while "whom"

6237-407: The variety of functions they perform cross-linguistically. An example of a pronoun is "you", which can be either singular or plural. Sub-types include personal and possessive pronouns , reflexive and reciprocal pronouns, demonstrative pronouns , relative and interrogative pronouns , and indefinite pronouns . The use of pronouns often involves anaphora , where the meaning of the pronoun

6318-445: The way that all forms of the word could in Old and Middle English. Pronoun In linguistics and grammar , a pronoun ( glossed PRO ) is a word or a group of words that one may substitute for a noun or noun phrase . Pronouns have traditionally been regarded as one of the parts of speech , but some modern theorists would not consider them to form a single class, in view of

6399-473: The word "that" (or "who" or "which", etc.) as a relative clause connector is optional when it would not be the subject of the relative clause; even when it would be required in other languages. The zero relative pronoun cannot be the subject of the verb in the relative clause; that is, that or who , etc., cannot be omitted (unvoiced) if the zero pronoun would be a subject. Thus one may say: but never (except in some varieties of colloquial English): Neither

6480-510: Was born in Ø ; Jack built the house I was born in Ø ; He is the person I saw Ø . ( see §  That as relativizer instead of relative pronoun ) Some varieties of English use what as a relative pronoun. For example, in Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 , a Ravager says, "For it is a name what strikes fear into the hearts of anyone what hears it." What as a relative pronoun appeared on

6561-415: Was tired ). According to Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey Pullum , that is not a relative pronoun but a subordinator, and its analysis requires a relativized symbol R as in ( The film that I needed [R] is not obtainable ). Here R is the covert direct object of the verb "needed" and has "the film" as an antecedent. A similar analysis is required when that is omitted and implied, as in ( The film I needed

#447552