Look at these examples to see how defining relative clauses are used.
Are you the one who sent me the email?
The phone which has the most features is also the most expensive.
This is the video that I wanted to show you.
The person they spoke to was really helpful.
Try this exercise to test your grammar.
Read the explanation to learn more.
Relative clauses give us information about the person or thing mentioned.
Defining relative clauses give us essential information – information that tells us who or what we are talking about.
The woman who lives next door works in a bank.
These are the flights that have been cancelled.
We usually use a relative pronoun or adverb to start a defining relative clause: who, which, that, when, where or whose.
We can use who or that to talk about people. that is more common and a bit more informal.
She's the woman who cuts my hair.
He's the man that I met at the conference.
We can use which or that to talk about things. that is more common and a bit more informal.
There was a one-year guarantee which came with the TV.
The laptop that I bought last week has started making a strange noise!
when can refer to a time.
Summer is the season when I'm happiest.
where can refer to a place.
That's the stadium where Real Madrid play.
whose refers to the person that something belongs to.
He's a musician whose albums have sold millions.
Omitting the relative pronoun
Sometimes we can leave out the relative pronoun. For example, we can usually leave out who, which or that if it is followed by a subject.
The assistant [that] we met was really kind.
(we = subject, can omit that)
We can't usually leave it out if it is followed by a verb.
The assistant that helped us was really kind.
(helped = verb, can't omit that)
Do this exercise to test your grammar again.
The first option is grammatically correct, but the second one is not.
It's a bit unusual to using a 'having + past participle' clause in that position, i.e. in the middle of the sentence, though definitely possible. When it's there I suppose you could consider it a reduced relative clause, but to be honest I'm not completely sure.
More frequently such a clause is used at the beginning of a sentence ('Having finally voted, the MPs are leaving parliament'). In this position, it's not a reduced relative clause, but rather a participle clause indicating a sequence of actions ('The MPs finally voted and are now leaving ...').
I hope this helps.
All the best,
Hello, sir. I have a question. Are these 2 sentences acceptable?
a. Most people love pizza which is not healthy.
b. Pizza, which most people love, is not healthy.
Yes, they are both grammatically fine!
Could you please help me with the following:
Are both (if either) of these sentences acceptable:
1. I, who have lots of patience, was irritated with her behaviour.
2. I, who has lots of patience, was irritated with her behaviour.
I'm very very grateful for your important work and immense help and thank you very much indeed for answering this post beforehand!!!
Sentence 1 is grammatical. The verb ("have") should agree with what the relative pronoun refers to ("who" --> "I").
Sentence 2 is therefore not grammatical. But it may be considered acceptable, since it may be understood in the sense of: I, a person who has lots of patience ....
It is, however, a fairly uncommon and formal-sounding construction.
Before joining sentences together, is there a way to detemine which sentence should be the main clause and which sentence should be relative one?
Hello Rak Han,
The main clause generally contains the most important information which we want to convey. Relative clauses contain information about one particular item (a noun or noun phrase) in the sentence. Relative clauses are sometimes called 'adjective clauses' because they add descriptions in a similar way to adjectives.
The LearnEnglish Team
Thank you. It is helpful
Hello, the use of "who", "that", "which" etc. are clear to me in most cases. Well, until the moment which made me come here, there hadn't been any case of doubt. But I have come across a sentence in an English book which has confused me.
I am talking about the following sentence: "The term 'price sensitive' usually refers to customers or products who are highly sensitive to price changes."
I know that "who" or "that" is used for people and "which" or "that" for things. Therefore, I am surprised by this sentence and I am wondering if "customers or products who" is correct. I would never use it like that, instead, I would use "that" as "products" is the second noun used in the sentence. Normally "products who" would not fit together. I have not found a comparable sentence using a relative pronoun for both people and things in the same sentence. The explanations are always only adaptable for the clear cases referring to a person OR a thing. Of course such types of example sentences represent most of the cases.
Thank you in advance for your answer.
Hi Michaela M,
It's an interesting example. As you pointed out, the issue is with choosing a relative pronoun to match "customers and products". Strictly speaking, "who" should not be used in this way, and I agree that "that" would be a more grammatical choice. However, people do occasionally use "who" in this way, and I would consider it acceptable in contexts of informal language use such as conversation or informal writing, where people do not always speak/write in perfectly grammatical ways.
As an alternative, after each noun we can add a suitable relative pronoun: ... refers to customers who or products which ... . This sounds relatively more formal in style.
I hope that helps.