 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2009relative pronoun used as a complement
1. She is the perfect accountant her predecessor was not. 2. She is the perfect accountant that her predecessor was not. 3. She is the perfect accountant who her predecessor was not. 4. She is the perfect accountant which her predecessor was not. 5. She is not the brilliant dancer she used to be. 6. She is not the brilliant dancer that she used to be. 7. She is not the brilliant dancer who she used to be. 8. She is not the brilliant dancer which she used to be. Which of the above sentences is not acceptable? >1. She is the perfect accountant her predecessor was not. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Which of the above sentences is not acceptable? You haven't defined "acceptable" so I'll construe it in the sense "acceptable to James Hogg". I find the examples with "who" (3 and 7) so unnatural as to be unacceptable. The perfect accountant and the brilliant dancer are not persons that she used to be but roles/functions that she used to perform. The ones with "which" sound stilted but may be acceptable to some people. James > 1. She is the perfect accountant her predecessor was not. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Which of the above sentences is not acceptable? For me, "who" doesn't work for the reasons James mentioned, and "which" doesn't work because it can't refer to a person (whether viewed in terms of a role or not). Numbers 1, 2, 5, and 6 are fine. Oddly enough, the fact that it's a subject complement does seem to make a difference. I don't feel anything wrong with "She's not the brilliant dancer who(m) I used to watch religiously" or "She's not the brilliant dancer who thrilled audiences last year." -- Jerry Friedman >1. She is the perfect accountant her predecessor was not. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Which of the above sentences is not acceptable? Only number six is acceptable, IMO.  SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland >> 1. She is the perfect accountant her predecessor was not. >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Only number six is acceptable, IMO. I like number five even better. Of the first batch, I might go with number one, although I would, most likely, rewrite the sentence. SignatureSkitt (AmE) >>> 1. She is the perfect accountant her predecessor was not. >>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Of the first batch, I might go with number one, although I would, most > likely, rewrite the sentence. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 are OK for me; but 4 must have a comma after "accountant". All are highly context-dependent: in the wrong place they approach gibberish, and I think I would usually, like Skitt, say them in other ways. SignatureMike. On 1月20日, 上午4時13分, "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >>> 1. She is the perfect accountant her predecessor was not. > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > - 顯示被引用文字 - http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~flohaas/QuirkEtAl_1244-62.pdf Please read pages 1248, 1249 and 1260. > On 1¤ë20¤é, ¤W¤È4®É13¤À, "Mike Lyle" > <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~flohaas/QuirkEtAl_1244-62.pdf > Please read pages 1248, 1249 and 1260. I'd prefer not to, thanks. But of course I'll read any comment you care to make based on those pages. SignatureMike. >>>> 1. She is the perfect accountant her predecessor was not. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > they approach gibberish, and I think I would usually, like Skitt, say > them in other ways. Agreed, and especially about the comma, though I'm not really keen on 1 (it's a little too garden-pathish without 'that'). SignatureRegards John for mail: my initials plus a u e at tpg dot com dot au >>>>> 1. She is the perfect accountant her predecessor was not. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Agreed, and especially about the comma, though I'm not really keen on 1 > (it's a little too garden-pathish without 'that'). I agree too, but I'm a little surprised that I agree, because unless my memory is at fault I'm agreeing with at least some people who claimed in the past that "that" couldn't be used to refer to a person. Doesn't anyone like 3 and 7? (I find them awful, but I've never pretended that "that" can't refer to a person.) Signatureathel >>>>>> 1. She is the perfect accountant her predecessor was not. >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >memory is at fault I'm agreeing with at least some people who claimed >in the past that "that" couldn't be used to refer to a person. <snip> Referring to that, a person can change his mind. What's the point of posting here, reading this or that and even living if we can't learn and change? SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland >>>>>> 1. She is the perfect accountant her predecessor was not. >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > claimed in the past that "that" couldn't be used to refer to a > person. I don't think "that" does refer to a person in the example, so much as to the attribute of being "the perfect accountant". Consider an alternative wording: She is what her predecessor was not: the perfect accountant. > Doesn't anyone like 3 and 7? (I find them awful, but I've > never pretended that "that" can't refer to a person.) They are awful. We are talking about _what_ she is/was, not _who_. There are times that "that" can be used where the referent is ultimately a person, though I think it only sounds right where it is this sort of indirect reference. What is really being referred to is a role or attribute or title that belongs to a person. And there are some times, for a given wording, that I think it can go either way (who/that) depending on just how you think about the referent in the sentence. (That's a little bit like the "goverment is/are" situation.) I don't think I've nailed that entirely, but I hope it's a step in the right direction to an explanation. SignatureRegards John for mail: my initials plus a u e at tpg dot com dot au >>>>>>> 1. She is the perfect accountant her predecessor was not. >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] >I don't think I've nailed that entirely, but I hope it's a step in the >right direction to an explanation. Nailed or not, you have made the reason why I preferred "that" clearer to me. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland >> There are times that "that" can be used where the referent is >> ultimately a person, though I think it only sounds right where it is [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Nailed or not, you have made the reason why I preferred "that" clearer > to me. Since "nailed" is causing some confusion in another thread, what I mean by it something like "pinned-down" and "hit the nail on the head". I hope you weren't intending to hit the nurse on the head. Nurses have enough to put up with already. SignatureRegards John for mail: my initials plus a u e at tpg dot com dot au >>> There are times that "that" can be used where the referent is >>> ultimately a person, though I think it only sounds right where it is [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >I hope you weren't intending to hit the nurse on the head. Nurses have >enough to put up with already. Yes, I know the expression. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland >>> 1. She is the perfect accountant her predecessor was not. >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >I like number five even better. You talked me into it. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.