Hi Shizuka,

Yes you are correct on the first and second points.

On the third point, I suppose this is one of those areas where it depends on our purposes of defining terms, as people try to give words name as they are useful to fit into a pattern we’re trying to explain (i.e. it can be seen as an adverb to show one connection, or a pronoun to show another) – but in fact perhaps both definitions are a little lacking. I found this answer to the question that I think gives an interesting explanation you may find useful: https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/133792/is-where-a-relative-pronoun-or-a-relative-adverb
Phil

Just to confirm two things:

Firstly, relative clauses are introduced by relative pronouns, and these relative pronouns also serve as the subject or object of the relative clauses, correct?

Secondly, is it right to say that we may omit the relative pronoun only if it is serving as the object of the relative clause, for example in this sentence “the woman (that) the man loved was living in New York”, the relative pronoun “that” is optional and can be omitted because it is serving as the object of the relative clause “(that) the man loved”, correct?

And if the relative pronoun serves as the subject of the relative clause then removing it is not an option?

Thirdly, I note that the oxford Lexico Dictionary states “where” as a relative adverb, however some other grammar sources classify “where”, when used to introduced relative clauses, as a relative pronoun. So is “where” a relative adverb or relative pronoun? For example “he built her a house where she lived and raised their son” or “this is where I live”?

Regards,
Shizuka

Hi Shizuka,

Good question – you are absolutely correct that technically that should be ‘whom’, as it is an object; it’s probably something worth writing an article about, but essentially I’d say ‘whom’ is not really as commonly used in English as it should be. Natural usage has somewhat shifted away from it, so you’ll find English speakers (myself included) almost never using it even when it is grammatically correct. It’s technically an error, yes, but it’s so common now that ‘who’ is rather expected most of the time!

On the second question – I could be mistaken but I would see the whole phrase “to marry her” as the object of “want” (as the meaning would be incomplete as an object without “her”), but within that object, “her” is the object of “to marry”. So we’re breaking it down at different levels.

Phil

I have a query about the example you used in this article, i.e. “She is the girl who I want to marry”. Firstly, shouldn’t it be “whom” instead of “who” in this example?

Secondly, while I believe the answer should be “whom”, I can’t quite lay down the reason why. Grammatically speaking, “whom” is used when it serves as the object of the verb in the relative clause, however, for this example, how do I break down the sentence? Is it a case where “to marry” is the object of the verb “want”, and girl/who/whom is the indirect object (i.e. receiver of the object “to marry”)?

Appreciate your advice, thanks!

Regards,
Shizuka