Children of parents who forbid them to eat fast food

glhf

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2017
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Korean
Home Country
South Korea
Current Location
South Korea
Children of parents who forbid them to eat fast food end up trying it but not eating it on a regular basis.

Shouldn't this sentence be 'Children that their parents forbit them to eat fast food end up...'?

Thank you in advance!

Source: English textbook
 

Charlie Bernstein

VIP Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2009
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
Children of parents who forbid them to eat fast food end up trying it but not eating it on a regular basis.

Shouldn't this sentence be 'Children that their parents forbid them to eat fast food end up...'?

No. It's a complicated sentence, but it's correct. Diagram it and you'll see. Your version is wrong.


Thank you! You're obviously thanking us in advance, since we can't answer your question before you ask it. So don't say "in advance."

It's a common error. You can say:


- Thank you!
- Thanks!
- Many thanks!
- Thanks so much!


Source: English textbook

You're welcome.
 

glhf

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2017
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Korean
Home Country
South Korea
Current Location
South Korea
Children that their parents forbid them to eat fast food end up trying it but not eating it on a regular basis.

Is this completely wrong? Then why? Cause it feels more natural and apprehensible to me.

Thank you.
 

Charlie Bernstein

VIP Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2009
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
Children that their parents forbid them to eat fast food end up trying it but not eating it on a regular basis.

Is this completely wrong? Then why? Because it feels more natural and comprehensible to me.

Thank you.

Yes, it's wrong. Again, try diagramming. You could say "Children whose parents forbid . . . ." or "Children who have parents who forbid . . . ."

1. The pronoun that is for things, not people:

- Wrong: She wanted a man that could cook.
- Right: She wanted a man who could cook.

- Wrong: He has a car who gets great mileage.
- Right: He has a car that gets great mileage.

2. Somehow, you need a possessive word connecting the children to the parents. I've given you three examples of how you might do that.

Again, it's a difficult sentence. Remember that what's natural in Korean might not be natural in English.

I hope this has helped a little.
 

Rover_KE

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Member Type
Retired English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
Children that their parents forbid them to eat fast food end up trying it but not eating it on a regular basis.

Is this completely wrong? Yes.

Then why? It's ungrammatical. You could start 'Children whose parents ...'

[STRIKE]Because[/STRIKE] It feels more natural and [STRIKE]apprehensible[/STRIKE] comprehensible to me.

[STRIKE]Thank you[/STRIKE].
You don't need to thank me in advance. Just click 'Thank' after you have received a useful answer.

I notice that your source is your 'English Textbook'. Please tell us the title and author, and also the grammar points that the quoted sentence is making or illustrating.

(EDIT: Cross-posted)
 

glhf

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2017
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Korean
Home Country
South Korea
Current Location
South Korea
It is just an example sentence from my writing TOEFL textbook. The author is David Cho. (The title is Hackers TOEFL Writing)
 

glhf

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2017
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Korean
Home Country
South Korea
Current Location
South Korea
1. The pronoun that is for things, not people:

- Wrong: She wanted a man that could cook.
- Right: She wanted a man who could cook.

- Wrong: He has a car who gets great mileage.
- Right: He has a car that gets great mileage.

I found this on the Internet. (Link)

Do you find it difficult to know when to use “who” vs. “that”? These two words are relative pronouns that tie together groups of words to nouns or other pronouns.Let’s take this sentence: “The runner who exercises regularly usually does the best.”
“Who” connects the subject, runner, to the verb “exercises.”
Many people will say “The runner that exercises usually does the best.”
Here’s the thing: “who” (and its forms) refers to people. “That” usually refers to things, but it can refer to people in a general sense (like a class or type of person: see “runner.”). Purdue Online Writing Lab says, “When referring to people, both that and who can be used in informal language. ‘That’ may be used to refer to the characteristics or abilities of an individual or a group of people.… However, when speaking about a particular person in for*mal language, who is preferred.”
That said, many people and some respected references prefer “people that,” and it’s not wrong. Think Chaucer. Shakespeare. Dickens.

And this

"Who" refers to people; "that" may refer to either people or things. Use "who" if doing so would help your reader identity the antecedent. That's not a problem with your text.
"... the only way to do this was by taking control ...."

from here

Also see here
 
Last edited:

Roman55

Key Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Italy
Current Location
France
1. The pronoun that is for things, not people:

- Wrong: She wanted a man that could cook.
- Right: She wanted a man who could cook.

I beg to differ. That has been used to refer to people for about a thousand years, and is perfectly acceptable in modern BrE. Who, on the other hand, can only be used with people and not things.
 

tzfujimino

Key Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
Japanese
Home Country
Japan
Current Location
Japan
Children that their parents forbid them to eat fast food end up trying it but not eating it on a regular basis.
If you delete "them" from the sentence above, it looks grammatical to me:

Children that/whom their parents forbid to eat fast food ...

I'm not sure if it's natural, though.
 

Tarheel

VIP Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2014
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
Perhaps:

Children whose parents forbid them to eat fast food end up trying it but not eating it on a regular basis.

"On a regular basis" can mean any of several things. It can mean daily. It can mean once or twice a week. It can mean once or twice a month. Perhaps "but eating it only occasionally" would work better.
 
Top