-1

My question is about using 'who' in a sentence. Compare,

...particularly children who are vulnerable...

vs.

...particularly children in Germany who are vulnerable..

Is the second sentence grammatically correct, even though 'who' is not directly placed next to the subject?

Majte
  • 109
  • 2
    But *who* IS directly placed next to the subject! In this case the subject is the compound noun phrase *children in Germany. The only issue is whether what follows is a restrictive* relative clause or not (is it mentioning in passing that all children in Germany are vulnerable, or specifically restricting the statement to those who are vulnerable?). – FumbleFingers Feb 04 '16 at 17:28
  • You know your context, but you haven't told us that. I'm sure there are far more than 10,000 German "children" in total, and they're probably all "vulnerable" to certain things. Note that vulnerable to X doesn't mean has experienced X - it means *might feasibly experience X*. – FumbleFingers Feb 04 '16 at 17:50
  • You're dribbling out fragments of the full context in comments, when they should be in the question (which I'm sure should be on English Language Learners anyway, not here). There's no particular limit on how long a noun phrase can be - providing the entire sequence of words collectively functions syntactically as a noun, it's an NP. – FumbleFingers Feb 04 '16 at 18:21
  • I am not learning English. I had a question on the general use of who and wanted to be very precise. You asked me about the context and I provided it for YOU only. I would have been fine otherwise. Time to delete this lengthy chat. – Majte Feb 04 '16 at 18:27
  • @FumbleFingers What exactly is the Subject in that sentence. I can't see it. – Araucaria - Him Feb 04 '16 at 21:44
  • @Araucaria: Despite the fact that OP calls them "sentences", they're obviously not. They're just clauses that contain neither a subject nor the associated verb. As OP points out, he's not learning English. – FumbleFingers Feb 04 '16 at 21:47
  • @FumbleFingers Yes, so there's no subjects or lions around in that fragment ;) But your comment's got two upvotes. Could you delete it. Please? – Araucaria - Him Feb 04 '16 at 21:52
  • @Araucaria: Lions? I think we're talking about refugee children in modern Germany, not Christians in ancient Rome. – FumbleFingers Feb 04 '16 at 21:54
  • @FumbleFingers Yep, no lions, Subjects, extrapositions or penguins. – Araucaria - Him Feb 04 '16 at 21:55
  • @FumbleFingers Or carrots either. – Araucaria - Him Feb 04 '16 at 21:56
  • They are sentences truncated by ellipsis --use your imagination and subsume your answer. If I had been more specific and provided the a random example, my question would be more suitable for the English Language Learners SE. I asked a question about general grammar (remembering my teacher that was saying it is bad practice to have a 'who' not immediately next to the subject) and the accepted answer has been very helpful to finish my article. There I have many instances of this problem. – Majte Feb 04 '16 at 22:52

1 Answers1

2

Yes, it is. "Children in Germany" is a noun phrase with children as the head word. The word who still refers to the children in the second version.

Lawrence
  • 38,640
  • 1
    Yes. If one said particularly children who, in Germany, are vulnerable it would mean almost the same thing, but perhaps add emphasis to the fact that it only affected children in Germany. – WS2 Feb 04 '16 at 17:22
  • That's a great comment. It adds more scope to my writing, thanks! – Majte Feb 04 '16 at 17:25
  • Children in Germany isn't a phrasal noun old bean. It's just a noun phrase. There's nothing idiomatic there, it's a straightforward noun being modified by a preposition phrase :( – Araucaria - Him Feb 04 '16 at 21:51
  • I rather hastily downvoted you, which I don't think I wanted to do. If you edited a full stop (or changed phrasal noun to noun phrase) I'd be able to undo my vote - which is currently locked in (so I can't undo it unless there's an edit) – Araucaria - Him Feb 04 '16 at 22:13
  • @Araucaria I've changed phrasal noun to noun phrase, which I prefer anyway. Thanks for letting me know. :) – Lawrence Feb 04 '16 at 23:48