# The majority of people that wear it are men



## Revere_MA

*The majority of people that wear it are men.*
I need help translating the phrase above. My guess was - 

La maggior parte delle persone che lo porta e' uomini.

However, I did not know if "e'" should agree with "la maggior parte" (and thus be singular) or if it should agree with "uomini" (and thus be the plural sono).

Thanks in advance for your help!


----------



## Necsus

I'd suggest 'lo indossano per lo più/soprattutto (gli) uomini'.


----------



## Revere_MA

Grazie necsus!


----------



## stevenvh

"The majority of people *that *wear it" sounds strange to me; I would say "people *who* wear it". Is the latter wrong?


----------



## Arrius

"The majority of people *that *wear it" is also perfectly alright. Compare _the man that/who married my daughter _or _the people that/who live next door._
You may be thinking of *which*, which is not suitable here.


----------



## stevenvh

Thanks, Arrius. So both "that" and "who" are ok. Is one preferred over the other?


----------



## Einstein

On the question of singular or plural raised by *Revere MA* (and cleverly avoided by *Necsus*) we need to say two things:
1) logically in English we should say "is" because "majority" is singular, but it sounds very pedantic and we often tend to use a plural verb with singular nouns referring to a body consisting of a number of people. Another example: the government _are_ considering the question. This is more so with a word like "majority", which is usually followed by a plural (here "people") which then governs the verb.
2) there is a similar flexibility in Italian with words like "maggioranza" or "maggior parte", but here there is another factor: when the verb is "essere" it tends to be governed by what follows: "il problema _sono_ i vicini".
For this reason there is no problem in saying, in Italian, "la maggior parte... sono uomini".

I hope that's clear!


----------



## stevenvh

Einstein said:


> when the verb is "essere" it tends to be governed by what follows: "il problema _sono_ i vicini".



Vero, ma in questo caso "i vicini" è il soggetto! "I vicini sono il problema". Il verbo segue il numero del soggetto. Non è un'eccezione.


----------



## Arrius

_That _is a little more colloquial than _who_. Recall Frank Sinatra's "_The girl that I marry will have to be..."_


----------



## stevenvh

Nothing against Frank Sinatra, and it's perfectly alright here as well, but I wouldn't take song lyrics as a reference; they're prone to poetic liberty.


----------



## Alxmrphi

stevenvh said:


> Thanks, Arrius. So both "that" and "who" are ok. Is one preferred over the other?


 
Quando sono intercambiabili, per la maggioranza (99%) uso "that".... non mi piace "who".. non so perché...



> but I wouldn't take song lyrics as a reference; they're prone to poetic liberty.


----------



## Einstein

stevenvh said:


> Vero, ma in questo caso "i vicini" è il soggetto! "I vicini sono il problema". Il verbo segue il numero del soggetto. Non è un'eccezione.


Non sono convinto da questa spiegazione. Nella frase "Il problema è grave", "Il problema" è l'unico sostantivo e quindi è per forza il soggetto. Nella frase "Il problema sono i vicini", perché "problema" non può più essere il soggetto?
La mia spiegazione è che in italiano c'è un certo interscambio di soggetti, non che "vicini" deve essere il soggetto.


----------



## You little ripper!

stevenvh said:


> "The majority of people *that *wear it" sounds strange to me; I would say "people *who* wear it". Is the latter wrong?


Steven, this is the grammar rule when it comes to *who* versus *that*:

_If your noun means something that is inanimate, use "that." _
_Example: The building that burned down was insured. _
_But if your noun is animate, a person or persons, use "who." _
_Example: The farmers who attended the meeting learned a lot. _..........................................................

(check the link for exceptions to the rule - it's close to the end of the page)


----------



## miri

Er ... I thought that both "that" and "who" could refer to people ...
I believe the difference is between defining and non-defining relative clauses..


----------



## Einstein

For a non-defining relative clause (between commas), "who" is obligatory.
For a defining relative clause (no commas), if the relative pronoun is the subject, both "who" and "that" are possible, "that" being less formal.


----------



## Arrius

*"that" being less formal. Einstein*... which is why Frankie didn't sing "The girl _whom _I marry..."


----------



## Einstein

Arrius said:


> *"that" being less formal. Einstein*... which is why Frankie didn't sing "The girl _whom _I marry..."


But he could also have sung "The girl I marry...".


----------



## Arrius

That was precluded by the exigencies of the metre.


----------



## miri

Right, because in that case the relative pronoun is not the subject and can be omitted. But the only instance where "who" cannot be replaced by "that" is in non-defining relative clauses, otherwise both are fine referring to people. What do you think?


----------



## You little ripper!

miri said:


> Er ... I thought that both "that" and "who" could refer to people ...
> I believe the difference is between defining and non-defining relative clauses..


How things have changed since I learned English grammar! "That" in that sentence used to be considered incorrect in my day, and I still wouldn't use it. I find it strange that the link I provided earlier makes no reference to defining relative clauses as an exception to the rule. It's a relatively recent webpage (2005).


----------



## miri

Maybe it was talking about the use of "that" and "who" in defining relative clauses, Charles. It is strange because here there is also a difference between AE and BE. Maybe your version is AuE ?


----------



## You little ripper!

miri said:


> Maybe it was talking about the use of "that" and "who" in defining relative clauses, Charles. It is strange because here there is also a difference between AE and BE. Maybe your version is AuE ?


Miri, we normally follow the Brits when it comes to language. I don't know what they teach nowadays in Australia as far as that rule goes, but it was always *who *for humans and *that* for animals and inanimate objects, and that also went for defining and non-defining relative clauses. You do hear young people here use *that* when refering to humans occasionally, but I don't know whether it's because they've been taught that or it's because they've heard it on American or British TV shows or movies. 

Digging around the Internet I came across this interesting discussion on the subject. 

This particular grammarian, who prefers to always use *who* for humans and *that* for inanimate objects says:

"To me, using _that_ when you are talking about a person makes them seem less than human. I always think of my friend who would only refer to his new stepmother as _the woman that married my father_. He was clearly trying to indicate his animosity and you wouldn't want to do that accidentally."


----------



## ToscanoNYC

Charles Costante said:


> Steven, this is the grammar rule when it comes to *who* versus *that*:
> 
> _If your noun means something that is inanimate, use "that." _
> _Example: The building that burned down was insured. _
> _But if your noun is animate, a person or persons, use "who." _
> _Example: The farmers who attended the meeting learned a lot. _..........................................................
> 
> (check the link for exceptions to the rule - it's close to the end of the page)



This was the rule I learned when I was a child from a very strict (and old) British teacher. As with all the rules you learn as a child, I am still fond of it, and I prefer to use "that" when referring to an inanimate object and "who" for a person (or an animal: this is my own liberty, as that teacher -- and his grammar textbook -- used "that" for animals as well). Obviously, this rule is nowadays largely forgotten, and nobody could claim that using "that" for a person is incorrect. Still, I believe that in a formal situation it is far preferable to follow this rule.
Going back to the original object of this thread (the majority of men that wear it are men), I am perplexed by the amount of posts that keep popping up about it. It has been discussed in two or three threads in the last couple of weeks, if I am not wrong. Both forms, "construtio ad formam" and "ad sensum" are correct.


----------



## Einstein

Earlier I was a bit permissive, giving in to those around me. To tell the truth I tend to agree with Charles and Toscano. When speaking casually I might well use "that" for a person (the man that called yesterday...), but I wouldn't write it, or even say it when speaking slowly and deliberately.
The discussion about defining and non-defining relative clauses is probably more appropriate in relation to the difference between "that" and "which".


----------



## miri

If an Australian, an American and an Englishman  share the same point of view, I'll retire in good order! 
However I swear that all the grammar books, old and new, Italian and English, I've read in my life never reported it. So, thank you Charles and the other dear mates: you've opened up a brave new world before my eyes


----------



## Arrius

_He that hath ears to hear; let him hear_ (St Luke 8:8, King James Version). 
There seems to be a pretty long tradition about this!


----------



## pask46

Non si potrebbe dire:
"The majority of people to wear/wearing it are men"?


----------



## stevenvh

pask46 said:


> Non si potrebbe dire:
> "The majority of people to wear/wearing it are men"?



"to wear it": credo di sì
"to wearing it": credo di no


----------



## Arrius

_to wear it_  may be used in expressions like _the first to wear it,_ but not here.

_wearing it_ is grammatically correct, but most likely refers to the present time and the prevailing fashion, i.e. _wearing it *these days*_.


----------



## pask46

stevenvh said:


> "to wear it": credo di sì
> "to wearing it": credo di no


 Ovviamente _wearing it_ era alternativo a _to wear it!_
_To wearing it_ è come dire "a me mi"!!!


----------



## stevenvh

Ah, sono un idiota! Scusa. Ma è ancora presto, no? 

Arrius, I don't understand this.
"The first to wear it" is OK, but that means "The first (people) to wear it", right?
Then how is "The first people to wear it" different from "The majority of people to wear it"?


----------



## pask46

stevenvh said:


> Ah, sono un idiota! Scusa. Ma è ancora presto, no?


 Sabato mattina è presto anche a mezzogiorno!



stevenvh said:


> Arrius, I don't understand this.
> "The first to wear it" is OK, but that means "The first (people) to wear it", right?
> Then how is "The first people to wear it" different from "The majority of people to wear it"?


 Sì, ecco... me lo chiedevo anche io.
Anche se, in italiano, le tradurrei differentemente:

"E' stato il primo *a* vestire..."
"La maggiorparte delle persone *che* veste..."


----------



## Einstein

pask46 said:


> Sì, ecco... me lo chiedevo anche io.
> Anche se, in italiano, le tradurrei differentemente:
> 
> "E' stato il primo *a* vestire..."
> "La maggior parte delle persone *che* veste..."


Ma è proprio così, anche in inglese.

Però c'è da dire un'altra cosa: "La maggior parte delle persone che veste vestono...."
Sono in tanti a fare questo errore, ma considera se "che" vuol dire "la quale" o "le quali".


----------

