#1  
Old 12-Jul-2004, 05:40
mas94010
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default relative clauses

1.When do you use "whom" and when do you use "who" in American English? Are they interchangeable in some cases? If so, is it a matter of being formal/informal or do you use "who" for speech and "whom" for writing?
2. When do you use "that" and "which"? Are they interchangeable? Is it a matter of being formal/ informal, or speech vs. writing?
3. Is it incorrect to say or write:
There's the man whom gave us a lift.
There's the man that gave us a lift.
  #2  
Old 12-Jul-2004, 08:51
Editor, UsingEnglish.com
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 34,371
Home Country: UK
Native Language: British English
Current Location: Philippines
Member Type: English Teacher
Default

1- I'm a British English speaker, so you'll have to wait for an American to check this, but 'who'is subject and'whom'object. However, 'whom'is often replaced by 'who', though when it comes directly after a preposition, it must be 'whom'. 'Whom' is more used in formal English. Many speakers never use it.

2- This is what an American poster said:
If you are asking about that versus which as relative pronouns, there is some difference bewteen American English and British English.

In AE, we tend to use "that" in restrictive/defining relative clauses -- those that are necessary for the sentence's meaning. We use "which" for non-defining/non-restrictive relative clauses -- those that simply add additional information. Non-defining/non-restrictive clauses are set off from the rest of the sentence with commas.

In BE, they use either "that" or "which" for restrictive clauses and only "which" for non-restrictive clauses.

AE: New York is the US city that hosts the United Nations.
BE: New York is the US city that/which hosts the United Nations.

Both: New York City, which has 8 million residents, hosts the United Nations.

3- They are both correct, but 'whom'is more formal.
  #3  
Old 14-Jul-2004, 02:09
MikeNewYork's Avatar
VIP Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,073
Member Type: Academic
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tdol
1- I'm a British English speaker, so you'll have to wait for an American to check this, but 'who'is subject and'whom'object. However, 'whom'is often replaced by 'who', though when it comes directly after a preposition, it must be 'whom'. 'Whom' is more used in formal English. Many speakers never use it.

2- This is what an American poster said:
If you are asking about that versus which as relative pronouns, there is some difference bewteen American English and British English.

In AE, we tend to use "that" in restrictive/defining relative clauses -- those that are necessary for the sentence's meaning. We use "which" for non-defining/non-restrictive relative clauses -- those that simply add additional information. Non-defining/non-restrictive clauses are set off from the rest of the sentence with commas.

In BE, they use either "that" or "which" for restrictive clauses and only "which" for non-restrictive clauses.

AE: New York is the US city that hosts the United Nations.
BE: New York is the US city that/which hosts the United Nations.

Both: New York City, which has 8 million residents, hosts the United Nations.

3- They are both correct, but 'whom'is more formal.
Thanks for citing me! :wink:
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Tags
relative, clauses


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
help!!! relative clauses Anonymous Ask a Teacher 1 23-Oct-2004 16:05
relative clauses fab54 General Language Discussions 3 05-Oct-2004 10:15
relative clauses ripley Ask a Teacher 1 26-Sep-2004 10:52
relative clauses Anonymous Ask a Teacher 2 26-Apr-2004 23:42
Relative clauses Anonymous Ask a Teacher 2 13-Jan-2003 17:34


All times are GMT. The time now is 00:46.



Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.