0

Here’s an example of a sentence I’ve come across — actually, part of a sentence. Is it necessary to use "who" a second time in the sentence, before "may" (see example below)? If not necessary, is it preferred to use "who" for each relative clause?

… for those who need access to these reports and papers, and may need more advanced resources.

… for those who need access to these reports and papers, and who may need more advanced resources.”

Community
  • 1
debbiesym
  • 1,044
  • But as a general rule — in any similar construction — you're saying the second "who" is not needed? – debbiesym Feb 13 '19 at 20:24
  • Do you see those two as mutually exclusive groups, somewhat overlapping groups, or part of the same group? – TaliesinMerlin Feb 13 '19 at 20:56
  • The way you phrased it, either use the second "who" or drop the comma after "papers". If you drop the comma, this introduces another issue of two "and" conjunctions, one belonging to "reports and papers", another to people. I suggest dropping "papers" because it is just a filler and provides no additional information. Then it will sound like: "for those who need access to these reports and may need more advanced resources". – Rusty Core Feb 13 '19 at 22:02
  • As this is developing into style advice, here is something else to consider. The problem is one clause has "need access" and the other "may need". Do you really need to make that distinction? When you sense a problem in a sentence, often the solution is to rewrite. Either simplify the sentence or break it into two. (I'd put this as an answer, but my last piece of advice on clear expression of ideas got four down votes! Infamy, infamy they all have it..." – David Feb 13 '19 at 23:45

1 Answers1

0

Either option is acceptable. There is a slight difference in how each of them may be read.

In the expanded option,

… for those

(1) who need access to these reports and papers, and

(2) who may need more advanced resources.

There is a slight tendency to read the repetition of relative clauses beginning with who as referring to two distinct subsets of the people you're talking about, (1) and (2). Some people may need access to reports, some may need more advanced resources, and some may need both.

Compare to an elided version:

for those who

(1) need access to these reports and papers and

(2) may need more advanced resources

We've shifted from a compound relative clause starting with who to a compound predicate with one who as the subject. Yes, it's also possible to read this as two relative clauses with an ellipsis omitting the second who, but there's no guarantee people will read it that way. The result is that there is no clue whether the two statements refer to the same people or not. The group referred to by "who" is possibly homogenous.

Community
  • 1
TaliesinMerlin
  • 40,528