# Who, conjugation



## Blixa

Hi Everybody!

What is the rule to conjugate the pronoun "Who" in the following sentences?

- You are the one who makes me happy
- You are the one who make me happy

I would say that the second one is correct as it refers to the second person in singular, it means, you.

I couldn't find a proper reference on the internet regarding this topic, so I would really appreciate if someone enlightens me 

Thanks in advance!


----------



## Peterdg

The first one (who makes) is correct. The second one isn't.


----------



## Blixa

Does it mean that "who" is always conjugated as third person in singular, regardless the previous reference?

For instance:

- He is the one who always gets late
- You are the one who always gets late


----------



## Peterdg

Blixa said:


> Does it mean that "who" is always conjugated as third person in singular, regardless the previous reference?
> 
> For instance:
> 
> - He is the one who always gets late
> - You are the one who always gets late


Yes. And also: "I'm the one who always gets late"


----------



## Blixa

Thank you very much!!


----------



## abb1025

Blixa said:


> Does it mean that "who" is always conjugated as third person in singular, regardless the previous reference?



Unless I'm misunderstanding the question, Blixa, I think the answer to your question is no. Who does not agree with the third person singular; who is a relative pronoun, like which, that does not have the property of being singular or plural.

In your examples, the verb agrees with the pronoun one, not with you or he. 

The verb will be plural form if the pronoun is ones: For example They/we/you (plural) are the ones who always arrive late.

Who are you?/ who am I? who is he? etc.


----------



## Blixa

Nope, you are not misunderstanding the question at wall 

I thought I had to conjugate "who" with the same rules of the personal pronouns according to the preceding reference in the sentence.

But you have completed the answer, it is a relative pronoun and the verb will take the form singular or plural depending only on the pronoun (singular or plural)

Thank you very much!!!


----------



## Blixa

So, if I got it right:

- I am the one who always arrives late
- She is the one who always arrives late
- You are the one who always arrives late
- We are the ones who always arrive late
- You all guys are the ones who always arrive late
- They are the ones who always arrive late


----------



## Peterdg

Blixa said:


> So, if I got it right:
> 
> - I am the one who always arrives late
> - She is the one who always arrives late
> - You are the one who always arrives late
> - We are the one who always arrive late
> - You all guys are the ones who always arrive late
> - They are the ones who always arrive late


----------



## Blixa

Thank you Peterdg and abb1025, you enlightened me


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

A little point in terminology, if I may.
You do not conjugate pronouns; what you conjugate is verbs.

Best 

GS


----------



## gengo

Blixa said:


> - I am the one who always arrives late
> - She is the one who always arrives late
> - You are the one who always arrives late
> - We are the ones who always arrive late
> - You all guys are the ones who always arrive late
> - They are the ones who always arrive late



"All you guys," not "you all guys."  But better still would be just "You guys."


----------



## Chris K

gengo said:


> "All you guys," not "you all guys."  But better still would be just "You guys."



Or "y'all are the ones," if you're from the US South.


----------



## Thomas Veil

When an entire clause is performing some role in a sentence, words within that clause are modified according to what's happening within that clause, not according to what they are relative to the entire sentence.  For instance: "I would like to thank he who came".  The entire phrase "he who came" is the object of "thank", but "he" is the subject of "came", so it's put in subjective form.  Similarly, the entire phrase "the one who makes me happy" is the object of the verb "are" (or subject complement, to be more precise).  The word "makes", however, has the subject "one".  The verb "makes" is therefore conjugated according to its subject "one", rather than the subject of the overall sentence "you".


----------



## Blixa

Thomas Veil said:


> When an entire clause is performing some role in a sentence, words within that clause are modified according to what's happening within that clause, not according to what they are relative to the entire sentence.  For instance: "*I would like to thank he who came*".  The entire phrase "he who came" is the object of "thank", but "he" is the subject of "came", so it's put in subjective form.  Similarly, the entire phrase "the one who makes me happy" is the object of the verb "are" (or subject complement, to be more precise).  The word "makes", however, has the subject "one".  The verb "makes" is therefore conjugated according to its subject "one", rather than the subject of the overall sentence "you".



Your explanation is pretty clear too, but I have another question regarding your example about how to conjugate verbs with this relative pronoun (who), why can't it be "I would like to thank him, who came..." instead of " I would like to thank he who came" ?  I didn't understand it


----------



## gengo

Blixa said:


> Your explanation is pretty clear too, but I have another question regarding your example about how to conjugate verbs with this relative pronoun (who), why can't it be "I would like to thank him, who came..." instead of " I would like to thank he who came" ?  I didn't understand it



Blixa, you are correct, and Thomas is incorrect.  The correct pronoun is "him," because it is the indirect object of "to thank."

Here is a grammar site that discusses this mistake, which is fairly common among even educated native speakers of English.  Search for "Let he who."


----------



## Blixa

gengo said:


> Blixa, you are correct, and Thomas is incorrect.  The correct pronoun is "him," because it is the indirect object of "to thank."
> 
> Here is a grammar site that discusses this mistake, which is fairly common among even educated native speakers of English.  Search for "Let he who."



Thank you very much


----------



## Thomas Veil

The fact that some website disagrees does not, in my mind, settle the issue.  The person writing to the website says that "the case of a pronoun is determined by its function in the sentence".  That is simply not true.  For instance, in the sentence, "I got there before he did", "he" is the object of the preposition "before", yet it is in the subjective case because it is the subject of "did".  Pronouns take their case from their function within their clause, not the function of that clause within the sentence as a whole.  Would you say "I would like to thank whomever came"?  If "he" belongs in the objective case, then so does "who".​


----------



## gengo

Thomas Veil said:


> Would you say "I would like to thank whomever came"?  If "he" belongs in the objective case, then so does "who".​



Grammatically speaking, it should be whomever, although I agree that it sounds odd.  However, that is just because English is rather mixed up, and we don't always follows our own rules.  For example, in the following exchange, the subject pronoun is correct, but sounds stilted.

Who is it?
It is I.

As to your original sentence ("I would like to thank he who came"), good writers avoid such problems by rewriting.

I would like to thank the one who came...
He who came deserves my thanks...
etc.


----------



## FromPA

I'm with Tom on this one. The linked web site does not seem very authoritative to me.


----------



## gengo

FromPA said:


> I'm with Tom on this one. The linked web site does not seem very authoritative to me.



Is William Safire, of the New York Times, authoritative enough for you?  I quote:

During halftime at Super Bowl XL (Extra Large? No; 40), Mick Jagger and the Rolling Stones performed "Satisfaction," their 1965 hit. He pointed out in his introduction to the song that it could have been sung at Super Bowl I, adding, "Everything comes to he who waits."
That was a verbal malfunction more shocking than a previous Janet Jackson halftime. Because he is the subjective case of the third-person male pronoun, it cannot be the object of the preposition to. The pronoun must be the objective case _him._ Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, in an 1863 poem that called up the image of a patient falcon carved in wood, had it right: "All things come round to him who will but wait."


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hola, Tomas,

afraid you'll have to accept the fact that you are wrong. 

Your statement  " (in) "I got there before he did", "he" is the object of the preposition "before" is gravely mistaken: 

1. "before" is not a preposition but a conjunction which, like all conjunctions, connects sentences, phrases or clauses
2. the function of "before" here is to connect "I got there" with "he did"
3. schematically, you have [I got there] before [he did]. Certainly not [I got there] [before he/him ] did

Bestest.

GS


----------



## SevenDays

Thomas Veil said:


> The fact that some website disagrees does not, in my mind, settle the issue.  The person writing to the website says that "the case of a pronoun is determined by its function in the sentence".  That is simply not true.  For instance, in the sentence, "I got there before he did", "he" is the object of the preposition "before", yet it is in the subjective case because it is the subject of "did".  Pronouns take their case from their function within their clause, not the function of that clause within the sentence as a whole.  Would you say "I would like to thank whomever came"?  If "he" belongs in the objective case, then so does "who".​



_I got there before *him*_
If that's all we have, then "*him"* is the proper choice; "*him*" is the object of the preposition "before."

_I got there before ___ did
_If we add a verb (here, "did," conjugated), then the correct choice becomes "he," which functions as the subject of the verb "did:"
_I got there before *he *did_
The preposition "before" remains transitive in nature (it needs a complement to complete its meaning). The complement of the preposition "before" becomes "he did" (those two words). There is always a fancy name for everything, and this type of complement (or object, if you wish) is called "sentential complement/object." The fancy names means that the complement/object of the preposition is a sentence, which here is made up of two words (the subject "he" plus the verb "did").
"Before" is a preposition in *form*; in *function*, "before" is as a _conjunction_ that links two clauses: "he got there" and "he did."

_I would like to thank *whoever* came first
_All verbs need subjects. Here, there are three verbs: "like," "to thank," and "came." The subject of "like" and "to thank" is "I," but "I" is not the subject of "came." The subject of "came" is *whoever*, which is why it needs to be in the subjective case. In other words, the subject of "came" can't be "who*m*ever." The infinitive "to thank" is transitive (it needs a complement/object). The complement/object of "to thank" is "whoever came first."
Cheers


----------



## macame

What about all the proverbs beggining with "He who..."? Aren't they redundant?


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

They are not.

In certain languages, such as mine, the literal translation into English of our normal form would be, eg, "Who doesn't love animals doesn't love humans". We should not underestimate the fact, though, that in a sentence of this sort "who" fulfills two functions at the same time: that of a *noun phrase* (the person, the man, the woman, the people, all those, etc) _and_ that of a *relative pronoun* (that, who, que, etc). 
In English, on the other hand, each of the two functions has one word to represent it: 
He who
She who
The guy who
People who
Those who (in this case the noun phrase is an indefinite pronoun)

Best.

GS


----------



## Chris K

macame said:


> What about all the proverbs beginning with "He who..."? Aren't they redundant?



Not in current English. When Shakespeare was alive things were different: "Who steals my purse steals trash." Today we would have to say "_He_ who..." (or use another pronoun).


----------



## gengo

Chris K said:


> Not in current English. When Shakespeare was alive things were different: "Who steals my purse steals trash." Today we would have to say "_He_ who..." (or use another pronoun).



Agreed.  Another modern way to do this is to say "Anyone who..."  Or we would use the impersonal "you," as in "If you steal my wallet, you steal trash."

Using a subject pronoun (such as "he who...") sounds extremely formal.  Too formal, in fact, for most contexts.


----------



## warren4184

> I thought I had to conjugate "who" with the same rules of the personal  pronouns according to the preceding reference in the sentence.
> 
> But you have completed the answer, it is a relative pronoun and the verb  will take the form singular or plural depending only on the pronoun  (singular or plural)



I had always thought this to be the case, but recently I thought of something that made me question that. If you were brought up as a Christian as I was (I'm pleased to say I no longer am), you'll probably know the Lord's Prayer. Here are the first two lines:

"Our Father, who art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy name."

You can see here that the verb following the "who" agrees with the pronoun (in this case there is no pronoun, but it is clear that the prayer is addressed to God and therefore the verb agrees with "thou".

So I started wondering if "who" needs to match entirely with its antecedent . By this logic, I should say:

"It is I who am here to show you the way." 

This sounds a bit strange, but I believe it to be correct. Can anyone shed any light?

To further support this, in my "Oxford Guide to English Usage", I found the following:

*"The verb following a personal pronoun (I, you, he, etc.) + who should agree with the pronoun and should not be in the third person singular unless the third person singular precedes who:

I, who have no savings to speak of, had to pay for the work.

This remains so even if the personal pronoun is in the objective case:

They made me, who have no savings at all, pay for the work (not who has).


*I suppose this is referring to formal contexts though.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.


----------

