questions about 'who' and 'where'

[Heidi]

Dear friends,

Would you please help me modify the following sentences to make them more natural? I feel a little strange about the layout of some of these sentences, for example, don't we usually put the word 'where' immediately after a place we're talking about? Such as, "the garden shed was the place where Mary kept a pig". And the word 'who' can be used to talk about animals? Thank you!

They really do focus on rescuing animals who are being abused by people, which is horrible. They also provide shelter for these animals where they're safe and they're being protected from being abused but also protected from the weather outside.

[5jj]

Dear friends,

don't we usually put the word 'where' immediately after a place we're talking about? Such as, "the garden shed was the place where Mary kept a pig"(1). And the word 'who' can be used to talk about animals? (2) Thank you!

They really do focus on rescuing animals who are being abused by people, which is horrible (3). They also provide shelter for these animals where they're safe and they're being protected from being abused but also (4) protected from the weather outside.

1. You are right, and a real purist might try to restructure your sentence: They also provide for those animals a shelter where... . However, most people would have no problems with the sentence as it is written.
2. Which is the correct pronoun for animals. However, some people anthropmorphise animals. In the context of this paragraph, who does not appear strange.
3. Although it is fairly clear what the writer intended, this sentence could be understood to mean that it is the focus on rescuing animals which is horrible. To avoid this misreading one could recast the sentence. One way would be: They really do focus on rescuing animals who are being abused by people; such abuse is horrible,
4.but also - and also. The writer is adding a thought here, not making a contrast. But also would be fine in: .. and they're not only being protected from being abused but also (4) protected from the weather outside. Or: ...and they're protected not only from being abused, but also from the weather outside.

[Heidi]

Thank you very much, fivejedjon. Your explanation is very helpful and useful. I'm so happy that I can get so much help here, and I wish someday I could give others a little help, too. Thanks again!

[Heidi]

Thanks to fivejedjon, I've tried to rewritten the original paragraph as follows:

They really do focus on rescuing animals who are being abused by people, such abuse is horrible. They also provide for these animals a shelter where they're safe and they're not only being protected from being abused but also being protected from the weather outside.

Now I have another question: what is the difference between '... who are being abused by people' and '...who are abused by people'? Would it be more natural to native speakers if the whole paragraph was recast as follows? Thank you!

They really do focus on rescuing animals who are abused by
people, such abuse is horrible. They also provide for these animals a shelter where they're safe and they're not only protected from being abused but also protected from the weather outside.

[5jj]

They really do focus on rescuing animals who are being abused by people, you need a semi-colon or a full stop (period) here, not a comma. such abuse is horrible. They also provide for these animals a shelter where they're safe and they're not only being protected from being abused but also being protected from the weather outside.

Now I have another question: what is the difference between '... who are being abused by people' and '...who are abused by people'? Would it be more natural to native speakers if the whole paragraph was recast as follows? Thank you!

They really do focus on rescuing animals who are abused by
people; such abuse is horrible. They also provide for these animals a shelter where they're safe and they're not only protected from being abused but also protected from the weather outside.

It's mainly a matter of what you have in your mind. The use of the present progressive gives a more immediate feel, the present simple is more general or permanent. If you are talking about a shelter that takes in animals until a home is found for them, then the progressive form may be more appropriate. If it's a permanent home for the animals, the simple form may be more appropriate.

Note that I wrote 'may be'. It's a subjective matter, decided at the moment of speaking.

[salkinad]

Regarding the use of "who" for animals
British say he or she for an animal if they know exactly if it is male or female, but if thy cannot determine its sex then they just say "it".

[Tdol]

Regarding the use of "who" for animals
British say he or she for an animal if they know exactly if it is male or female, but if thy cannot determine its sex then they just say "it".

We often use it when we know whether it's male or female- we could see a cow in a field, know the sex and still say it.