How can I recongnize a relative pronoun as subject and object? Is there a clue that can help me to understand?
e.g. I'd prefer an organized boss. I can do my best for her. (Like in this example, how can I recognize if two sentences form a relative pronoun with subject or object?)
1) I'd prefer an organized boss who/that I can do my best for her.
2) I'd prefer an organized boss who/that I can do my best for.
3) I'd prefer an organized boss who/that can do my best for her.
(Which one is correct and why?)
e.g. Patty is a modest person. She never brags about her grades.
1) Patty is a modest person who/that never brags about her grades.
2) Patty is a modest person who/that she never brags about her grades.
3) Patty is a modest person who/that she never brags about grades.
e.g. Our coach can't stand egotistical players. He can't talk to them easily.
1) Our coach can't stand egotistical players who/that he can't talk to easily.
2) Our coach can't stand egotistical players who/that can't talk to easily.
3) Our coach can't stand egotistical players who/that he can't talk to them easily.
Could someone give me more examples, please? I don't get about Relative Pronouns with subjects and objects...
OK, the thing to remember is this: English hates redundant words. (Well... most of the time!) So we remove them.
<em>I'd prefer an organized boss who I can do my best for.</em>
"Who" starts the clause which tells us more information about the boss. However, you are performing the action (not the boss) so we still need I. However, her is redundant because it stands for the organized boss... which is already in the sentence.
<em>Patty is a modest person that never brags about her grades.</em>
In this case, the person is also the performer of the action in the relative clause. Again, it's redundant (incorrect, in fact) to add she. We already know who she is.
<em>Our coach can't stand egotistical players because he can't talk to them easily.</em>
Sorry, none of the three options sounded correct. The problem is the word "egotistical" - that explains everything, so we don't need a relative clause. For a relative clause, we can use <em>Our coach can't stand players who he can't talk to easily</em>. It works the same way as the sentence about the organized boss.
I have problems about RELATIVE PRONOUNS, I can not structure sentences with Subject and object in different times. Please, help me with more examples like these:
I like guys. They are gentleman.
As the subject of a clause: (I like guys who/that are gentleman)
They are looking for a secretary. She can speak English.
As the subject of a clause: (They are looking for a secfretary who/that can speak English)
That is a delicious cake. She baked.
As the subject of a clause: (That is a delicious cake that baked)
That's a man's name. I'll never forget.
As the subject of a clause: (That's a man's name that will never forget) Is is correct?
e.g. He is the man. I saved him.
As the object of a clause: (He is the man who/that saved)
They are going to back to Italy. They first visited it five years ago.
As the object of a clause: (They are going to back to italy Who/ that they first visited five years ago) I consider in this case I should use just (who) because it's about people... or can I use (that) too?
Are all these sentences good?
All those examples take 'who'. 'That' acually works for the personal as well as impersobal so is also acceptable.
who for persons, which/that impersonal.
