# two elder sisters who/whom/that I love (pronoun omission)



## eba

Hi,

I thought I knew how to use the relative pronouns, but I found something that is really puzzling me. I will apreciate if someone could help me out understanding it.

I thought you can leave out the relative pronoun in a defining sentence, as far as it wasn't the subject of it.

Then I found this:

"I have two elder sisters who/whom/that I love very much"

I am told I cannot leave out the pronoun, but I do not see why. It is a defining sentence and the relative pronouns are not its subject...

Thanks


----------



## boadicea7

You're not supposed to omit the relative pronoun ever , preferably, it's very informal.
But in daily use people speak like that, but I suppose a teacher wouldn't approve


----------



## inib

I don't agree *in the least* that omitting the pronoun is excessively informal. I would put it more or less on a par with using contractions, or even above it. The omission is considered correct when, as eba says, the clause is defining and the pronoun is not the subject of the following verb. (And I assure you, I'm a stickler for grammar!). That's not to say that it's wrong to use it always. But in a multiple choice test, a student may have to opt between an incorrect pronoun and omission.
It may depend to a certain point on context, because sometimes the same sentence can be expressed as defining or non-defining, with different messages, but I would classify the above as non-defining.
Therefore the possibilities are: I have two elder sisters, who/whom I love very much.
Omission of the pronoun and the usage of "that" have been eliminated as possibilities. I support the idea that the clause is non-defining, because it only gives us extra information about my two elder sisters, it does not identify them (unless, of course, I have more than 2 *elder* sisters......I have two elder sisters I love, and another two whose guts I hate!!).
What puzzles me is that the teacher accepted "that", but not the omission of the pronoun. 
I hope to read more opinions.


----------



## SevenDays

eba said:


> Hi,
> 
> I thought I knew how to use the relative pronouns, but I found something that is really puzzling me. I will apreciate if someone could help me out understanding it.
> 
> I thought you can leave out the relative pronoun in a defining sentence, as far as it wasn't the subject of it.
> 
> Then I found this:
> 
> "I have two elder sisters who/whom/that I love very much"
> 
> I am told I cannot leave out the pronoun, but I do not see why. It is a defining sentence and the relative pronouns are not its subject...
> 
> Thanks


Some people feel the relative pronoun plays _a key role_ in connecting the dependent to the independent clause and therefore shouldn’t be deleted.

_I have two elder sisters whom I love very much._
Look at the relative clause and the relative pronoun in isolation:
_*whom* I love very much_
If you remove the relative pronoun “*whom*,” you end up with_ I love very much_, but _I love very much_ is an incomplete relative clause because it is not clear whom you love. In other words, _I love very much_ doesn’t mean the same as _I love my two elder sisters very much_; that’s why you need the relative pronoun: it connects the two clauses and clarifies your meaning.
By comparison, consider this sentence, with a nominal _that_ clause:
_You know that I have two elder sisters whom I love very much._
Now, look at _*that* I have two elder sisters whom I love very much_.
If you remove "*that*", you end up with _I have two elder sisters whom I love very much_, which means the same as the original nominal clause (it is still clear whom I love: my two elder sisters); therefore, you may delete "_*that*_":
_You know I have two elder sisters whom I love very much_.

I would add that, in my opinion, _I have two elder sisters whom I love very much _is a restrictive relative clause; the relative clause is essential to the intended meaning. By contrast, _I have two elder sisters*,* whom I love very much_ is a non-restrictive relative clause. By adding a comma, we signal that _whom I love very much_ is incidental; it adds additional but not essential information. The comma also tells you that I only have two sisters; not adding a comma suggests that I have more than two sisters and how many of my elder sisters I love (two).

Cheers


----------



## mhp

I met two guys who wanted... (usual)
I met two guys that wanted... (unusual, but possible)
I met two guys wanted... (impossible)


----------



## Spug

mhp said:


> I met two guys wanted... (impossible)



True, but this structure is not parallel to the structure that eba is asking about.

To make it parallel, one could use the example "I met two guys I wanted to talk to about doing some work at my house." For this sentence, you can refer to inib's post, which addresses the pronoun issue nicely.

Saludos...


----------



## mhp

Spug said:


> True, but this structure is not parallel to the structure that eba is asking about.


Granted. Perhaps you can generalize. 
(I only gave an exception)


----------



## chileno

I think EBA wants to know if these are correct or not, and why.

I have two elder sisters *whom* I love very much.

I have two elder sisters *that* I love very much.

Am I understanding correctly?


----------



## inib

SevenDays said:


> Hi SevenDays, I hope you don't mind my querying some of your statements.
> 
> _You know that I have two elder sisters whom I love very much._
> _Of course you can remove "that" here, but it is a conjunction, nothing to do with a relative pronoun. _
> 
> I would add that, in my opinion, _I have two elder sisters whom I love very much _is a restrictive relative clause; the relative clause is essential to the intended meaning. By contrast, _I have two elder sisters*,* whom I love very much_ is a non-restrictive relative clause. By adding a comma, we signal that _whom I love very much_ is incidental; it adds additional but not essential information. The comma also tells you that I only have two sisters; not adding a comma suggests that I have more than two sisters and how many of my elder sisters I love (two).
> I agree with this, and said something very similar, presuming that what you call "restrictive" and I call "defining" are the same thing. I believe so. But that brings me back to square one. If the writer wants to say that she loves only two of her several elder sisters, I can't see why we can't use "that" or omit the pronoun: I have two sisters I love very much, and two I don't get on with.


----------



## matthews028

As a native English speaker, I cannot say the phrase "I have two elder sisters I love very much" without automatically including the relative pronoun "that" (though "whom" would work as well, I suppose). I just can't bring my mouth to utter those words without putting "that" in there. I think it's just too wordy of a sentence to not include the relative pronoun so that the listener/reader doesn't get lost.


----------



## SevenDays

inib said:


> SevenDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi SevenDays, I hope you don't mind my querying some of your statements.
> 
> _You know that I have two elder sisters whom I love very much._
> _Of course you can remove "that" here, but it is a conjunction, nothing to do with a relative pronoun. _
> 
> ...[edit]...presuming that what you call "restrictive" and I call "defining" are the same thing. I believe so. But that brings me back to square one. If the writer wants to say that she loves only two of her several elder sisters, I can't see why we can't use "that" or omit the pronoun: I have two sisters I love very much, and two I don't get on with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hello
> Yes, _that _is a conjunction (that’s why I called the “you know” sentence a _nominal-that clause_, and not a relative clause).  I was just making the point that sometimes deleting a single word changes the original meaning, or leaves it incomplete, which is what some find objectionable. Maybe it would have made more sense to use the same word (_that)_:
> 
> (A) I have to sisters _that _I love very much
> (B) You know _that_ I have two sisters that I love very much
> If you drop _that_ in (B), what remains is exactly the same idea as before (_I have two sisters that I love very much_).  Dropping _that _in (A) leaves an ambiguous thought: _who(m) do I love, then?_ Of course, some don’t see any ambiguity because *context *tells you _I love very much _means _I love two sisters very much,_ and therefore don’t see any problem deleting _that_.
> 
> Yes, “restrictive” and “defining” are the same thing. The use of “that” is interesting. To avoid worrying whether “_who_” or “_whom_” should be used (it should be “whom,” according to traditional grammar), some recommend, and many simply use, “_that_.” Then, you may justify such use by arguing _that_ introduces the declarative sentence _I love very much._ You may also say _that _points to a complement clause _(I love very much_), which completes the meaning of “sisters.” I think this may be interesting (or not) to linguists and grammarians only. If you have two or more sisters, be nice and say _that_ you love all of them; you might get more presents for your birthday.
> 
> Cheers
Click to expand...


----------



## inib

SevenDays said:


> inib said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hello
> Yes, _that _is a conjunction (that’s why I called the “you know” sentence a _nominal-that clause_, and not a relative clause). I was just making the point that sometimes deleting a single word changes the original meaning, or leaves it incomplete, which is what some find objectionable. Maybe it would have made more sense to use the same word (_that)_:
> 
> (A) I have to sisters _that _I love very much
> (B) You know _that_ I have two sisters that I love very much
> If you drop _that_ in (B), what remains is exactly the same idea as before (_I have two sisters that I love very much_). Dropping _that _in (A) leaves an ambiguous thought: _who(m) do I love, then?_ Of course, some don’t see any ambiguity because *context *tells you _I love very much _means _I love two sisters very much,_ and therefore don’t see any problem deleting _that_.
> 
> Yes, “restrictive” and “defining” are the same thing. The use of “that” is interesting. To avoid worrying whether “_who_” or “_whom_” should be used (it should be “whom,” according to traditional grammar), some recommend, and many simply use, “_that_.” Then, you may justify such use by arguing _that_ introduces the declarative sentence _I love very much._ You may also say _that _points to a complement clause _(I love very much_), which completes the meaning of “sisters.” I think this may be interesting (or not) to linguists and grammarians only. If you have two or more sisters, be nice and say _that_ you love all of them; you might get more presents for your birthday.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SevenDays, I appreciate your long and patient explanation. I have no time now to follow it up, but if you don't object, I may catch up with you again via private message.
> Cheers too.
Click to expand...


----------



## iskndarbey

"I have two elder sisters I love very much", leaving out the relative pronoun, is absolutely correct and standard. If you include the pronoun, which is also absolutely correct and standard, I prefer _who_ or _whom_ over _that_. If you add a comma, you have to include the pronoun: "I have two elder sisters, who(m) I love very much."

Incidentally, the far more common usage is _older sisters_.


----------



## eba

Hello,

I'm sorry I didn't reply before but I haven't been able to get into internet in the last few days.

I got the sentence from an exercise in an Oxford Grammar book, in the key appeared as a defining clause with no possibility to omit the pronoun, and that/who/whom being all correct.

Even though English is not my mother tongue, I agree with Matthews028, the sentence sounds bad leaving out the pronoun, but because I'm not native nor grammarian, I have no idea why. As I was doing a grammar exercise, I tried to stick to the rules and grammatically it should be possible, that's why I'm so puzzled...

Anyway, thanks to everybody for your replies
Eba


----------



## inib

Cheers Eba. I'm just as puzzled as you. I won't deny that "whom" is definitely the best-sounding option here, and there are all the perfect reasons to use it, but as you can see, there are very varied opinions about the other variants.
My apologies to SevenDays because I never sent that private message.
And just to put another spanner in the works, I regret to disagree with Iskndarbey that "older" is better than "elder".
Looking forward to hearing from you all again.


----------



## Quiensepa

iskndarbey said:


> "I have two elder sisters I love very much", leaving out the relative pronoun, is absolutely correct and standard. If you include the pronoun, which is also absolutely correct and standard, I prefer _who_ or _whom_ over _that_. If you add a comma, you have to include the pronoun: "I have two elder sisters, who(m) I love very much."
> 
> Incidentally, the far more common usage is _older sisters_.


 
Here's another native English speaker who sees no problem with "I have two elder/older sisters I love very much". It also sounds fine with "that" or "whom". Technically, "who" is not allowed, though you hear this grammatical error all the time.

I also agree that "older" is more common and natural sounding than "elder". This might be an American thing, though. To me, "elder" is too formal or literate for normal use, though it does not sound unnatural.


----------



## iskndarbey

Of course 'whom' is the most "technically correct", if you're the kind of person who cares about when to use 'whom', but 90% of people no longer make this distinction except immediately following a preposition.

"Elder" is far more used in Britain than in America, and at least in the US it has definite connotations of being elderly rather than just being the older of the sisters.


----------



## eba

Quiensepa said:


> Here's another native English speaker who sees no problem with "I have two elder/older sisters I love very much". It also sounds fine with "that" or "whom". Technically, "who" is not allowed, though you hear this grammatical error all the time.



Why is not technically allowed? Every grammar book I have says it is right (For instance, I would expect Oxford University Press not to publish grammar books teaching grammatical errors)


Also, the original sentence is with "older". I realized it was wrong after I post it, then, as I don't know how to edit them, I post a second one with an aclaration, but it got deleted by a moderator...


----------



## Spug

Hello eba,



eba said:


> Why is not technically allowed? Every grammar book I have says it is right (For instance, I would expect Oxford University Press not to publish grammar books teaching grammatical errors)...



What you're seeing is an excellent example of a living language and a grammar rule in flux.

Quiensepa is correct with respect to traditional English grammar. Traditional grammar requires that you use _whom _when the relative pronoun refers to the direct objective of a verb or to the object of a preposition. In your sentence, the sisters are the direct object of the verb _to love_, so _whom _is the traditionally correct form to use - and the _only _traditionally correct form to use.

What has happened over the last fifty years or so is that the use of _whom_ in everyday speech has almost disappeared. Many people never use the word; many find it pedantic and archaic. As a result, today you can find sources that maintain that _who _can now be used in situations in which whom used to be mandatory. This could well be the case with the Oxford University Press source that you've mentioned.

Just to give you additional context, one of the primary sources that I consult, the Chicago Manual of Style, continues to implicitly recommend the use of _whom _as it was used traditionally.

One more thing: _elder _is by no means wrong. It's a question of style and regional variations. It is not true that _elder _is exclusively British, nor does it always have the connotation of _elderly_. I grew up in the American South, and I use _elder _all the time, as do many Southerners. For us, it is simply a synonym of _older _- you can use them interchangeably.

For example: "I'm 12 years old, and my elder sister is 16." (obviously, she is not elderly.) But... "My grandmother is getting elderly these days." Do you see the difference?

I hope this will be of some help to you... y un saludo.


----------



## chileno

Maybe some clarification is in order, according to me...

Who = Quién/Quiénes

Whom = *A* quién/quiénes


----------



## eba

Thank you Spug, in fact it rings the bell, I think that back in school, I was taught that way (so long ago  )

But going back to my original question, has anyone any idea why the Oxford guys would say that the pronoun could not be left out, given that it is not the subject of a defining clause?

Just to be clear, they are all up for leaving them out whenever is possible.


----------



## inib

Once again, my apologies for going off the original subject (I expect the moderators will tell me off this time!). First of all, I would like to point out that "elder" and "older" are not used totally interchangeably, as Spug suggested, though I appreciate his/her support. I would never say (and don't think anyone else would) "She's elder than I thought", or "Sarah is elder than Anne". We use "elder" and "eldest" normally only within family situations (or possibly some other type of limited group: an elder _(ie: senior)_ partner in the company etc), but I think, never with "than".
And now, just a reflection: I am increasingly surprised at just how different American and British English are. We all know the typical examples of gas/petrol, diapers/nappies, faucets/taps, got/gotten, center/centre and hundreds more, but the more I read posts in WR, the more aware I am that the same sentence or expression can have different interpretations, or that the same meaning  is expressed in very different ways. And that the same correctness is considered "ok" or too "posh", and the same errors are considered "evolution of the language" or just plain "wrong".
How interesting. I always wanted to study more languages. Now I realise that it will be a lifetime's entertainment getting to know my own!


----------



## iskndarbey

eba said:


> Thank you Spug, in fact it rings the bell, I think that back in school, I was taught that way (so long ago  )
> 
> But going back to my original question, has anyone any idea why the Oxford guys would say that the pronoun could not be left out, given that it is not the subject of a defining clause?
> 
> Just to be clear, they are all up for leaving them out whenever is possible.



Are you sure the quoted sentence doesn't have a comma? ("I have two older sisters, whom I love very much.") This would make it a non-restrictive clause, which always requires an explicit pronoun. Without the comma it is a restrictive clause, and thus pronoun-optional.


----------



## iskndarbey

Spug said:


> What has happened over the last fifty years or so is that the use of _whom_ in everyday speech has almost disappeared. Many people never use the word; many find it pedantic and archaic. As a result, today you can find sources that maintain that _who _can now be used in situations in which whom used to be mandatory. This could well be the case with the Oxford University Press source that you've mentioned.



This isn't fully accurate -- in most modern varieties of colloquial standard English, 'whom' is still alive and kicking immediately following prepositions (to whom, from whom, for whom) but absent everywhere else.


----------



## inib

iskndarbey said:


> This isn't fully accurate -- in most modern varieties of colloquial standard English, 'whom' is still alive and kicking immediately following prepositions (to whom, from whom, for whom) but absent everywhere else.


Exactly! A lovely, short, explicit comment, but I would insist on the word ALMOST everywhere else


----------



## Spug

Hello inib,



inib said:


> First of all, I would like to point out that "elder" and "older" are not used totally interchangeably, as Spug suggested, though I appreciate his/her support. I would never say (and don't think anyone else would) "She's elder than I thought", or "Sarah is elder than Anne".



Yes, or course, you're right. I hadn't considered those uses of _elder_. btw, it's _he_. 

@iskndarbey: "This isn't fully accurate -- in most modern varieties of *colloquial*  standard English, 'whom' is still alive and kicking immediately  following prepositions (to whom, from whom, for whom)" (my emphasis)

Well, you and I must speak to entirely different populations of English speakers in colloquial English. "Whom" and colloquial English are virtually mutually exclusive in my neck of the woods (NYC metropolitan area). Honestly... are you telling us that you hear people say "for whom" and "to whom" in _colloquial_ speech?

Hypothetical example: I have bought a book for my brother for his birthday. I tell my friend. He doesn't hear me well, and asks me to clarify. In colloquial speech, which is he most likely to ask me?

 - "Who did you buy a book for?", or

 - "For whom did you buy a book?"

Another: I'm on my cell phone, and my girlfriend wants to know *who I'm talking to *. Is she more likely to ask me:

- "Who are you talking to?", or

- "To whom are you talking?"

Again, we're talking about colloquial speech.

I cannot imagine anybody using the latter constructions in colloquial speech. In formal, written English, yes. But in colloquial speech? No way. They sound absurdly pedantic.

Saludos desde las afueras de la gran manzana.


----------



## iskndarbey

I didn't say "To whom did you give it" replaces "Who did you give it to", I said that when the pronoun follows a preposition it becomes whom. In my dialect, for example, "Do you remember the name of the man to whom I sent that package last week?" sounds perfectly normal, especially if the speaker is choosing his words carefully or deliberately, and coexists peacefully with "Do you remember the name of the man I sent that package to last week?"


----------



## mhp

iskndarbey said:


> Do you remember the name of the man to whom I sent that package last week?



I am not is disagreement with you. But it is much more likely that I'd say: Do you remember the name of the guy I sent that package to last  week?
or "you voted for _who_?" (expressing surprise). "Whom" is not a word that comes out of my mouth often. At least, I don't think it does.


----------



## eba

iskndarbey said:


> Are you sure the quoted sentence doesn't have a comma? ("I have two older sisters, whom I love very much.") This would make it a non-restrictive clause, which always requires an explicit pronoun. Without the comma it is a restrictive clause, and thus pronoun-optional.



Pretty sure, plus, if it were non-defining, "that" would not be possible...


----------



## Spug

iskndarbey said:


> I didn't say "To whom did you give it" replaces "Who did you give it to", I said that when the pronoun follows a preposition it becomes whom.



I understand, and that was precisely my point: when, in colloquial speech, does _whom _follow a preposition? In colloquial speech, the preposition _ends_ the sentences; therefore, nothing follows it. Please refer to the two examples I posted earlier...



iskndarbey said:


> In my dialect, for example, "Do you remember the name of the man to whom I sent that package last week?" sounds perfectly normal, especially if the speaker is choosing his words carefully or deliberately, and coexists peacefully with "Do you remember the name of the man I sent that package to last week?"



Well, once again, the only thing I can say is that you and I must speak very different varieties of colloquial American English. By the way, lest anybody conclude otherwise, I speak daily with quite well-educated people, who know that the grammar rule says that _whom _must be used in certain situations, and that we're not supposed to end sentences with preopsitions. The larger point is that we don't follow these rules any more in colloquial speech.

I apologize if I'm sounding stubborn, but I don't think it's fair to leave the impression with native Spanish speakers who are trying to improve their English that the constructions _to whom_ and _for whom_ are commonly heard in today's colloquial American speech. They are not.

Thank you for the stimulating discussion.


----------

