clauses after pronouns/I, who have nothing,...

[navi tasan]

Can one use:
1) They who have had cancer it means.
instead of:
2) The people/those who have had cancer know what it means.

And are these correct:
3) We who have had cancer know what it means.

4) I who have nothing will do anything for you.

I don't like '1', '3' or '4'. I don't tend to use pronouns with restrictive clauses, but I was wondering if it was possible at all. I think this structure existed in English, but doesn't any longer.

 

[jutfrank]

Yes, one can. Yes, they're grammatical. It does still exist.

 

[tedmc]

A word is missing from 1.
I find "I who have nothing" most unnatural.
Why not just say "I have nothing but will do anything for you"?

 

[navi tasan]

Thank you very much Jutfrank.

So

3) We who have had cancer know what it means.
would mean:
5) Those of us who have had cancer know what it means.

Is that correct?

But what would this one mean:

6) He who had worked for our company for five years was dismissed without any compensation.

 

[jutfrank]

3) We who have had cancer know what it means.
would mean:
5) Those of us who have had cancer know what it means.

Is that correct?

Basically, yes.

But what would this one mean:

6) He who had worked for our company for five years was dismissed without any compensation.

That doesn't make sense. Forget about it.

Look at this well-known proverb:

He who laughs last laughs longest.

What do you think it means? Now look at this from one of my favourite science fiction books:

He who controls the spice controls the universe.

Can you work out what these two examples mean and find ways to paraphrase them?

An important point to bear in mind here: don't confuse restrictive with non-restrictive clauses. In the sentence They, who have had cancer, know what it means, the commas are there to show that the relative clause is just additional information, which may be removed from the sentence without changing the meaning of what remains.

 

[navi tasan]

Thank you very much, Jutfrank,

I knew that 'he' could be used instead of 'whoever' (as in 'He who laughs last laughs longest).

I am not well-versed in science fiction. I had to look up the quotation.

I think there are two movie versions of Dune. I've heard the second one is better.

Can we postmodify pronouns with clauses if they are the objects of the sentence?
(If you think I have to start a new thread for this question, let me know.)

Are these sentences correct:

6) I was talking to them who had had cancer.
7) I was talking to them, who had had cancer.

8) Fortune favors him who is brave.

 

[jutfrank]

Can we postmodify pronouns with clauses if they are the objects of the sentence?

I don't think there's anything ungrammatical about it, but most of the time you shouldn't do it. Be aware that using 'he who' in the sense of 'whoever' has a literary or poetic register.

Your sentences 6 and 7 are no good. Sentence 8, being proverbial, is okay. Here's a perhaps more familiar example:

Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.