you who has/have

[Tan Elaine]

It is you who has/have eaten all the food.

Should I use 'has' or 'have'?

Thanks in advance.

 

[bhaisahab]

It is you who has/have eaten all the food.

Should I use 'has' or 'have'?

Thanks in advance.

It depends on whether you are talking to one person or to a group of people.

 

[Tan Elaine]

It depends on whether you are talking to one person or to a group of people.

Thanks, Bhaisahab.

It is you who has eaten all the food. (one person)

It is you who have eaten all the food. (more than one person)

Am I right to conclude that the above are what I need to write?

Many thanks.

 

[bhaisahab]

Thanks, Bhaisahab.

It is you who has eaten all the food. (one person)

It is you who have eaten all the food. (more than one person)

Am I right to conclude that the above are what I need to write?

Many thanks.

Yes, that's right.

 

[philo2009]

It depends on whether you are talking to one person or to a group of people.

Sorry, but I have to disagree violently!
There are no circumstances under which it would ever be grammatical to say

*you who has

any more than there would ever be to say

*you has

The pronoun 'you', irrespective of the number of people to whom it refers, takes one, and only one, verb form in the present tense, to wit the uninflected base form of the verb. Thus

It is you who have...

is the only possibility.

 

[kfredson]

Sorry, but I have to disagree violently!
There are no circumstances under which it would ever be grammatical to say

*you who has

any more than there would ever be to say

*you has

The pronoun 'you', irrespective of the number of people to whom it refers, takes one, and only one, verb form in the present tense, to wit the uninflected base form of the verb. Thus

It is you who have...

is the only possibility.

This is indeed a tricky sentence but I have to agree with Mr. Bhaisahab. The phrases in question here are "who has" (a single person) and "who have" (a group of people.) What comes before them is quite irrelevant.

It is Henry who has eaten the food.
It is those two boys who have eaten the food.
It is you (singular) who has eaten the food.
It is you (plural) who have eaten the food.

Or so it seems to me.

 

[Raymott]

I agree with singular 'has'.

I would instinctively say: It's you that's eaten all the food! Certainly not: It's you that've eaten all the food. So, I guess the same applies if you use 'who' rather than 'that'.

[Note, I'm making no claims to grammatical correctness here. But that's normal AusE.]

 

[2006]

There are no circumstances under which it would ever be grammatical to say

*you who has

any more than there would ever be to say

*you has

But, as kfredson notes, the presence of "who" is not irrelevant.

To you who has the winning number, I say congratulations.
To (the rest of) you who have nothing but a worthless piece of paper, I say better luck next time.

2006

 

[corum]

who = you --> have

Philo, our master, is dead right. :up:

 

[corum]

The phrases in question here are "who has" (a single person) and "who have" (a group of people.)

Relative pronouns in English govern, and have always governed, the verb according to their antecedent. A first-person antecedent requires a first-person verb, a second-person antecedent a second-person verb, and so forth.

.

 

[corum]

To you who has the winning number, I say congratulations. :cross:

The antecedent of who is you. :tick: In the English language, it is the antecedent of the relative pronoun that governs the verb. you = who --> have

 

[Raymott]

The antecedent of who is you. :tick: In the English language, it is the antecedent of the relative pronoun that governs the verb. you = who --> have

I guess if you say something three times in a row, that makes it true. :-D

 

[mmasny]

Why couldn't we agree that both are correct and 'has' is used? :-D

 

[corum]

I guess if you say something three times in a row, that makes it true. :-D

Guess in the same manner as you did with regard to 'has' being the correct form? :-D;-)

 

[corum]

Why couldn't we agree that both are correct and 'has' is used? :-D

That would be tantamount to saying English does not need grammar. Catch-as-catch-can situation, if you catch my drift.

 

[Raymott]

Guess in the same manner as you did with regard to 'has' being the correct form? :-D;-)

I'll have to defer to you. Perhaps you have the bigger grammar book. bhaisahab and I have only been speaking the language for over 100 years between us (and that's not counting kfredson and 2006), so what would we know?

 

[mmasny]

That would be tantamount to saying English does not need grammar. Catch-as-catch-can situation, if you catch my drift.

No, it would not mean that. It would only mean that it does not need your grammar, because it has its own.

 

[corum]

No, it would not mean that. It would only mean that it does not need your grammar, because it has its own.

Thanks for your pearls of wisdom. :-D;-)

 

[corum]

I'll have to defer to you. Perhaps you have the bigger grammar book. bhaisahab and I have only been speaking the language for over 100 years between us (and that's not counting kfredson and 2006), so what would we know?

If I yielded to all of you, would that make you happy. I quit this game. Mind you, it was you who have started applying sarcasm in this thread. I just played your game a little. True, however, I am not one of the big boys like you here.

 

[mmasny]

Thanks for your pearls of wisdom. :-D;-)

I apologize for my sarcasm, I got irritated.