who and that

[Nightmare85]

Hello friends

It seems that which is not recommendable for such sentences:
This is a problem which everyone knows.
It's the movies which makes them think this way.
Some members suggested to use that instead of which.

Okay, but what about who?
You are a guy who can perfectly speak English.
A person who is rich is also famous.
Those who try their best will have most success.
Do you think it's better to use that in such sentences?
If not, would you please give me an example where you would use who (but where that would be possible, too.)?
I know that "I know who it did" cannot be "I know that it did" ;-)

Thank you!

Cheers!

 

[corum]

It is the movies which/that make (not makes)... .
Use 'who' for humans; even so, 'that' is not incorrect.

 

[Nightmare85]

"Makes" is correct because it belongs to "it"

OK yes, in that context "It's the movies that makes them think that way" is correct. If you are using "the movies" as singular, you should be consistent.

Cheers!

 

[corum]

"Makes" is correct because it belongs to "it"



Cheers!

It's the movies [which makes them think this way]. :cross:
It's the movies [which make them think this way]. :tick:

The subject in the bracketed subordinate clause is 'which'. The main verb in the bracketed subordinate clause is 'make'. 'think' is the non-finite bare infinitive which shows no person and tense. The subject-verb agreement in the subordinate clause means this:

which = movies (the relative pronoun refers back to the closest NP to it --> which = plural --> make

QED.

 

[corum]

It's the movies [which makes them think this way]. :cross:
It's the movies [which make them think this way]. :tick:

The subject in the bracketed subordinate clause is 'which'. The main verb in the bracketed subordinate clause is 'make'. 'think' is the non-finite bare infinitive which shows no person and tense. The subject-verb agreement in the subordinate clause means this:

which = movies (the relative pronoun refers back to the closest NP to it --> which = plural --> make

QED.

I think I have taught myself something today. Consider this sentence:

It's the movies [which make them think this way].

If the bracketed part is a relative clause, it means the sentence without it is still grammatical, (but suffers a little loss in meaning, which is peripheral to my present concern).

It is the movies.

It = empty subject
the movies = true subject

This is not a sentence: Nothing is predicated of the subject. Something is not right. Which way shall I turn now? I think I have the answer. Substitute 'that' for 'which' and think of the subordinate clause as not being a relative clause but a that-complement clause . Thus I get these:

It's the movies [that make them think this way]. :tick:
It's the movies [which make them think this way]. :cross:

 

[bhaisahab]

I think I have taught myself something today. Consider this sentence:

It's the movies [which make them think this way].

If the bracketed part is a relative clause, it means the sentence without it is still grammatical, (but suffers a little loss in meaning, which is peripheral to my present concern).

It is the movies.

It = empty subject
the movies = true subject

This is not a sentence: Nothing is predicated of the subject. Something is not right. Which way shall I turn now? I think I have the answer. Substitute 'that' for 'which' and think of the subordinate clause as not being a relative clause but a that-complement clause . Thus I get these:

It's the movies [that make them think this way]. :tick:
It's the movies [which make them think this way]. :cross:

In your opinion, is "movies" a plural noun?

 

[Trance Freak]

In your opinion, is "movies" a plural noun?

Maybe s/he thought it was movies (films) not movies (cinema)?!

 

[Nightmare85]

I also thought it's films but it belongs to "it" :-?

Cheers!

 

[TheParser]

Hello friends

It seems that which is not recommendable for such sentences:
This is a problem which everyone knows.
It's the movies which makes them think this way.
Some members suggested to use that instead of which.

Okay, but what about who?
You are a guy who can perfectly speak English.
A person who is rich is also famous.
Those who try their best will have most success.
Do you think it's better to use that in such sentences?
If not, would you please give me an example where you would use who (but where that would be possible, too.)?
I know that "I know who it did" cannot be "I know that it did" ;-)

Thank you!

Cheers!

***NOT A TEACHER***

Nightmare, good afternoon.

(1) I checked my books regarding your very important question.

(2) "That" was the first (relative) pronoun that the English people used hundreds and hundreds of years ago when they referred to people.
(3) Today, however, most native speakers feel more "comfortable" using "who" to refer to people.
(4) There is a "special rule" that you may already know about: when you are NOT referring to a particular person or you are using a superlative adjective (such as "tallest," "fastest," etc.), some people think "that" is "better": Happy is the man that findest (finds) wisdom./It is the wife that decides./ This world is a tragedy to those that feel./He's the kind of person that will never let you down./I'm looking for someone that could give me a ride./Bach is the GREATEST composer that has ever lived.
(5) You ask whether your three sentences would be "better" with "that."
I don't know the answer. I think that some people --using the "special rule"-- would say YES, especially your second and third sentences.

(5) Here are some sentences in which either relative pronoun is "correct": There are people who/that believe everything they read./The girl who/that married dear old dad..../ The man who/that lives next door is friendly./Anyone who/that wants to take the exam must sign up./He who/that would do such a thing would not deserve respect./The boy who/that broke the window..../The person who/that phoned me last night....

(6) I think that most native speakers would advise that you use "who" whenever it is possible. Many people think using "that" for a human being is very insulting. (Although they may perhaps accept the "special rule" sometimes.)

Have a nice day!!!

 

[IHIVG]

Many people think using "that" for a human being is very insulting.

When I first started learning English I thought nothing is more insulting than calling a person a "thing" :lol:. I've seen and heard that pretty often, like: 'Poor thing' or 'You're the most beautiful thing I've ever seen'. It made me think that it's considered to be completely normal (or is it actually NOT:?

 

[corum]

In your opinion, is "movies" a plural noun?

[C] mainly US for a cinema film
My favourite movie is 'Casablanca'.

movie - Definition of movie noun from Cambridge Dictionary Online: Free English Dictionary and Thesaurus

Can 'movies' in the sentence not be the plural of this 'movie'? Why not?

It's the movies which makes them think this way.

Reading out the sentence loud, the last thing I would associate with movies is the place we go. movies means films in this sentence and not cinema.

 

[corum]

but it belongs to "it" :-?

Cheers!

And? The true subject need not agree with the empty subject in number.

 

[corum]

It is the informal meetings and exchanges that shape outcomes.

.

 

[Nightmare85]

What about these:
Q: What makes them think this way?
A: It's the movies.
Q: What is it that makes them think this way?
A. It is the movies that makes them think this way.

I can also understand your logics, but let's see what our teachers (will :? say.

Cheers!

 

[corum]

What about these:
Q: What makes them think this way?
A: It's the movies.
Q: What is it that makes them think this way?
A. It is the movies that makes them think this way.

I can also understand your logics, but let's see what our teachers (will :? say.

Cheers!

Q: What makes them think this way?
A: It's the movies (that makes them think this way).

Here the that clause is replaced by a null proform. The null proform is invisible to the naked eye, but it does not mean it is not there. Context, Nightmare. If I enter a room and I say to people there "It is the movies," it will not mean anything to them.

 

[bhaisahab]

If you are taking "movies" to be the plural of "movie", that is to say "films", it is different from "the movies" meaning "the cinema". British English is much clearer in this respect (and others), in that we go to the cinema (s) to see films (p) whereas Americans go to the movies (s) to see movies (p).

 

[corum]

If you are taking "movies" to be the plural of "movie", that is to say "films", it is different from "the movies" meaning "the cinema". British English is much clearer in this respect (and others), in that we go to the cinema (s) to see films (p) whereas Americans go to the movies (s) to see movies (p).

I go to the pictures to see a film. ;-) I think what we are discussing here is a bit off-topic; all the same, interesting. Nightmare meant the plural of films, as he had already stated that.

 

[bhaisahab]

I go to the pictures to see a film. ;-) I think what we are discussing here is a bit off-topic; all the same, interesting. Nightmare meant the plural of films, as he had already stated that.

He didn't say that in his original post.

 

[Nightmare85]

...but I mentioned it later:

Maybe s/he thought it was movies (films) not movies (cinema)?!

I also thought it's films but it belongs to "it" :-?

Cheers!

Cheers!

 

[Nightmare85]

Okay, can we summarize, please?
It is the film that makes them feel this way. film = singular
It is the films that make them feel this way. films = plural
It is the movies that makes them feel this way. movies = cinema = singular

Is everything okay?
bhaisahab, I expect you're opinion as well ;-)

Cheers!