Relative pronouns and their lexico-grammatical characteristics. Relative pronoun

Among the numerous categories of pronouns, two are usually separated into a single group - this is interrogative And relative pronouns. In terms of spelling and sound, they are exactly the same, but they have different meanings in a sentence - that is, they are homonyms in relation to each other.

How not to confuse the categories? To do this, you need to understand what their essence is.

Relative pronouns - what is characteristic of them and what do they serve?

Words from this category of pronouns can express the ownership of any objects, their quantity and the objects themselves. Relative pronouns include such pronouns as “how many”, “whom”, “what”, “whose”, “which”, “which” and “whose”. Usually in speech they are used as connecting links. For example:

• He liked that closet better which was white.
• I asked Which the bus goes to the metro.
• Nobody knew whose this is a scarf.

Relative pronouns can be inflected in all basic ways. However, we must remember that in the words “what”, “how many” and “who” only the case changes - for example, “whom” or “what”, “how many”. But the rest of the pronouns are declined, including by gender and number. For example - “which”, “which”, “which”, or “whose”, “whose”, “whose”. In addition, for the word “what” there is also short form"what".

Interrogative pronouns - the essence and main difference from the previous group

Interrogative pronouns are very similar to relative pronouns - it’s not for nothing that they are so often confused. They sound and are written exactly the same - “who”, “what”, “how much”, “which” and so on. The rules for their declension are similar - “what”, “who” and “how many” change only in accordance with cases, the rest of the words - according to numbers, genders and cases.

But there is one fundamental difference. The interrogative pronoun can only be used in sentences that ask a question. In either case, it emphasizes that the questioner does not know something - and turns to someone or something to find out.

Examples of interrogative pronouns would be:

• How many kilograms of potatoes in this bag?
• Whose is this a coat?
• Who opened the window in the room?

Thus, distinguishing the two groups of pronouns is very simple. For example, in the phrase “Who forgot the book on the windowsill?” we are dealing with an interrogative pronoun because we see a question. But in the phrase “I asked who forgot the book on the windowsill,” the word “who” will already be a relative pronoun - since the question is not asked, the sentence only tells that it was asked.

Where the declension of nouns has the categories of gender, number, and case, the relative pronoun agrees in gender and number with the antecedent, while case shows its relationship to the verb in the subordinate or main clause. In some languages, the relative is an unchangeable word (cf. English. that).

Words used as relative pronouns often originally had other functions. So, for example, in English which is also a question word. This suggests that relative clauses are perhaps comparatively late development in many languages. Some languages ​​(cf. Welsh) do not have relative pronouns.

Relative pronouns in the languages ​​of the world

Relative pronouns in Russian

Relative pronouns in Russian are the words which, Which, whoa, Who, What, How many, whose, what. Thus, relative pronouns are the same as interrogative pronouns.

• Pronoun Who indicates animate nouns. Pronoun Who can be combined with words in the singular and in plural: I don't know who told you. But those who did this will answer for their words. Who used in the masculine gender: I don't know who told you that.
• Pronoun What indicates inanimate nouns. Pronouns What used in the singular: You can't hear what the noise is. Words associated with pronoun What used in the neuter gender: No matter what happens, people will help.
• Who, What, How many- have no number and gender, change according to cases;
• Which, whose, which- change according to gender, number and cases according to the type of adjectives.

In terms of grammatical and semantic features, relative pronouns generally do not differ from interrogative pronouns, but some differences are still found. For example, the pronoun whoa will have no shape nominative case singular feminine, and when it acts as a subject, it is declined as a possessive adjective.

Relative pronouns in English

The train was late, which annoyed him greatly“The train was late, which annoyed him greatly.”

In a free relative clause, the relative has no antecedent; the subordinate clause plays the role of a coreferent element in the main clause. Relative pronoun, used in this way is often called fusional relative pronoun, since the antecedent merges with the pronoun:

I like what you did"I like what you did"

Relative pronouns and relativization

A construction is considered a relative clause if it is a clause that, either alone or in combination with a noun, designates some object and if this designated object has a semantic role within the relative clause. If there is a noun outside the relative clause that defines the object and is also defined by the clause, then that noun will be considered top relative clause.

There are classes of languages ​​with different strategies relativization.

The 2 main types of relative clauses are

• 1) languages ​​in which the relative clause follows the noun:

a. English the book N Rel "The book I am reading" b. Maybrat Aof sago ‘the sago tree that they felled’

• 2) languages ​​in which the relative clause precedes the noun:

alamblak yima-r person-3SG.M ‘a man who would have followed you’

Special type - correlational relative clauses, as in Bambara:

bambara, o ye fini san 3SG PST cloth buy ‘The woman who left bought the cloth.’ “The woman who left bought the cloth.”

Correlative clauses are, strictly speaking, a subtype of internal-vertex relative clauses, since the vertex noun is also inside the relative clause, but differ in that the relative clause is outside the main clause and is anaphorically related to the noun phrase in the main clause.

Relativization of subjects

For subjects, the first strategy is the so-called relative pronoun strategy: the relativized position is marked within the relative clause by a pronominal element, and this pronoun is case marked to show the role of the vertex noun within the relative clause.

German language: Der Mann, war ein Deutscher. man.NOM REL.NOM me greet.PTCP has be.3SG.PST one German ‘The man who greeted me was a German.’ “The man who greeted me was a German.”

However, it should be noted that the presence of a relative pronoun is not enough to count a case as a relative pronoun strategy, since the relative pronoun may, for example, be case marked not to indicate its role in the relative clause, but to agree with the case of the vertex noun in the main sentence.

Another important strategy for subject relativization is the pronoun preservation strategy. In languages ​​with this strategy, the relativized position is explicitly indicated by a generalizing personal pronoun.

babungo mǝ̀ yè wǝ́ ntɨ́ǝ ƒáŋ ŋwǝ́ sɨ́ sàŋ ghɔ̂ I see.pfv person that who he pst2 beat.pfv you ‘I have seen the man who has beaten you.’ “I saw the man who beat you”

Relativization of indirect objects

The first group of languages ​​are languages ​​with a relative pronoun strategy. One of these languages ​​is Russian:

Russian language: I lost the knife I used to cut bread.

Another important strategy for relativizing indirect objects is the pronoun preservation strategy:

Persian mardhâi men that books-acc to them were given-2sg ‘the men that you had given the books to’

Relativization of other syntactic positions

Other arguments can be relativized with the help of relative pronouns, namely:

• Subordinate clause: Hunter is the boy who kissed Jessica. Hunter is the boy who kissed Jessica.

• Indirect addition: Hunter is the boy to whom Jessica gave a gift. Hunter is the boy that Jessica gave the gift to.

• Prepositional complement: Jack built the house in which I now live. Jack built the house I live in now.

• Possessor: Jack is the boy whose friend built my house. Jack is the boy whose friend built my house.

Write a review about the article "Relative pronouns"

Notes

Literature

Bernard Comrie, Tania Kuteva.

Matthew S. Dryer. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. - Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, 2013.

Bruce, Les. The Alamblak Language of Papua New Guinea (East Sepik). - Canberra: Australian National University, 1984. Dol, Philomena. A Grammar of Maybrat: A Language of the Bird's Head, Irian Jaya, Indonesia. - University of Leiden, 1999. Bird, Charles and Kante, Mamadou. An Kan Bamanakan Kalan: Intermediate Bambara. - Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club, 1976.

Schaub, Willi. Babungo. - London: Croom Helm, 1985.

Comrie, Bernard. Rethinking the typology of relative clauses. - Language Design, 1998.

Excerpt characterizing Relative Pronouns

His last days and hours passed as usual and simply. And Princess Marya and Natasha, who did not leave his side, felt it. They did not cry, did not shudder and lately, feeling this themselves, they no longer walked after him (he was no longer there, he had left them), but after the closest memory of him - his body. The feelings of both were so strong that the external, terrible side of death did not affect them, and they did not find it necessary to indulge their grief. They did not cry either in front of him or without him, but they never talked about him among themselves. They felt that they could not put into words what they understood.
They both saw him sink deeper and deeper, slowly and calmly, away from them somewhere, and they both knew that this was how it should be and that it was good.
He was confessed and given communion; everyone came to say goodbye to him. When their son was brought to him, he put his lips to him and turned away, not because he felt hard or sorry (Princess Marya and Natasha understood this), but only because he believed that this was all that was required of him; but when they told him to bless him, he did what was required and looked around, as if asking if anything else needed to be done.
When the last tremors of the body, abandoned by the spirit, took place, Princess Marya and Natasha were here.
– Is it over?! - said Princess Marya, after his body had been lying motionless and cold in front of them for several minutes. Natasha came up, looked into the dead eyes and hurried to close them. She closed them and did not kiss them, but kissed what was her closest memory of him.
“Where did he go? Where is he now?..”

When the dressed, washed body lay in a coffin on the table, everyone came up to him to say goodbye, and everyone cried.
Nikolushka cried from the painful bewilderment that tore his heart. The Countess and Sonya cried out of pity for Natasha and that he was no more. The old count cried that soon, he felt, he would have to take the same terrible step.
Natasha and Princess Marya were also crying now, but they were not crying from their personal grief; they wept from the reverent emotion that gripped their souls before the consciousness of the simple and solemn mystery of death that had taken place before them.

For human mind the totality of causes of phenomena is inaccessible. But the need to find reasons is embedded in the human soul. And the human mind, without delving into the innumerability and complexity of the conditions of phenomena, each of which separately can be represented as a cause, grabs the first, most understandable convergence and says: this is the cause. In historical events (where the object of observation is the actions of people), the most primitive convergence seems to be the will of the gods, then the will of those people who stand in the most prominent historical place - historical heroes. But you just have to delve into the essence of each historical event, that is, in the activities of the entire mass of people participating in the event, to make sure that the will historical hero Not only does she not direct the actions of the masses, but she herself is constantly led. It would seem that it is all the same to understand the significance of the historical event one way or another. But between the man who says that the peoples of the West went to the East because Napoleon wanted it, and the man who says that it happened because it had to happen, there is the same difference that existed between the people who argued that the earth stands firmly and the planets move around it, and those who said that they do not know what the earth rests on, but they know that there are laws governing the movement of it and other planets. There are no and cannot be reasons for a historical event, except for the only cause of all reasons. But there are laws that govern events, partly unknown, partly groped by us. The discovery of these laws is possible only when we completely renounce the search for causes in the will of one person, just as the discovery of the laws of planetary motion became possible only when people renounced the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe affirmation of the earth.

After the Battle of Borodino, the enemy’s occupation of Moscow and its burning, historians recognize the most important episode of the War of 1812 as the movement of the Russian army from the Ryazan to the Kaluga road and to the Tarutino camp - the so-called flank march behind Krasnaya Pakhra. Historians attribute the glory to this feat of genius to various persons and they argue about who actually owns it. Even foreign, even French historians recognize the genius of the Russian commanders when speaking about this flank march. But why military writers, and everyone after them, believe that this flank march is a very thoughtful invention of some one person, which saved Russia and destroyed Napoleon, is very difficult to understand. In the first place, it is difficult to understand wherein lies the profundity and genius of this movement; for in order to guess what is most better position An army (when it is not attacked) to be where there is more food does not require much mental effort. And everyone, even a stupid thirteen-year-old boy, could easily guess that in 1812 the most advantageous position of the army, after the retreat from Moscow, was on the Kaluga road. So, it is impossible to understand, firstly, by what conclusions historians reach the point of seeing something profound in this maneuver. Secondly, it is even more difficult to understand exactly what historians see as the salvation of this maneuver for the Russians and its detrimental nature for the French; for this flank march, under other preceding, accompanying and subsequent circumstances, could have been disastrous for the Russians and salutary for the French army. If from the time this movement took place, the position of the Russian army began to improve, then it does not follow from this that this movement was the reason for this.
This flank march not only could not have brought any benefits, but could have destroyed the Russian army if other conditions had not coincided. What would have happened if Moscow had not burned down? If Murat had not lost sight of the Russians? If Napoleon had not been inactive? What if the Russian army, on the advice of Bennigsen and Barclay, had given battle at Krasnaya Pakhra? What would have happened if the French had attacked the Russians when they were going after Pakhra? What would have happened if Napoleon had subsequently approached Tarutin and attacked the Russians with at least one tenth of the energy with which he attacked in Smolensk? What would have happened if the French had marched on St. Petersburg?.. With all these assumptions, the salvation of a flank march could turn into destruction.
Thirdly, and the most incomprehensible, is that people who study history deliberately do not want to see that the flank march cannot be attributed to any one person, that no one ever foresaw it, that this maneuver, just like the retreat in Filyakh, in the present, was never presented to anyone in its entirety, but step by step, event by event, moment by moment, flowed from a countless number of very diverse conditions, and only then was presented in all its entirety when it was completed and became the past.
At the council in Fili, the dominant thought among the Russian authorities was a self-evident retreat in a direct direction back, that is, along the Nizhny Novgorod road. Evidence of this is that the majority of votes at the council were cast in this sense, and, most importantly, the well-known conversation after the council of the commander-in-chief with Lansky, who was in charge of the provisions department. Lanskoy reported to the commander-in-chief that food for the army was collected mainly along the Oka, in the Tula and Kaluga provinces, and that in the event of a retreat to Nizhny, food supplies would be separated from the army by the large Oka River, through which transportation in the first winter was impossible. This was the first sign of the need to deviate from what had previously seemed the most natural direct direction to Nizhny. The army stayed further south, along the Ryazan road, and closer to the reserves. Subsequently, the inaction of the French, who even lost sight of the Russian army, concerns about protecting the Tula plant and, most importantly, the benefits of getting closer to their reserves, forced the army to deviate even further south, onto the Tula road. Having moved in a desperate movement beyond Pakhra to the Tula road, the military leaders of the Russian army thought to remain near Podolsk, and there was no thought about the Tarutino position; but countless circumstances and the appearance again French troops, who had previously lost sight of the Russians, and the battle plans, and, most importantly, the abundance of provisions in Kaluga, forced our army to deviate even more to the south and move to the middle of the routes for its food supply, from the Tula to the Kaluga road, to Tarutin. Just as it is impossible to answer the question of when Moscow was abandoned, it is also impossible to answer when exactly and by whom it was decided to go to Tarutin. Only when the troops had already arrived at Tarutin as a result of countless differential forces, then people began to assure themselves that they had wanted this and had long foreseen it.

The famous flank march consisted only of Russian army, retreating straight back in the opposite direction of the offensive, after the French offensive had ceased, he deviated from the initially accepted direct direction and, not seeing persecution behind him, naturally moved in the direction where the abundance of food attracted him.
If we were to imagine not brilliant commanders at the head of the Russian army, but simply one army without leaders, then this army could not do anything other than move back to Moscow, describing an arc from the side on which there was more food and the edge was more abundantly.
This movement from the Nizhny Novgorod to the Ryazan, Tula and Kaluga roads was so natural that the marauders of the Russian army ran away in this very direction and that in this very direction it was required from St. Petersburg that Kutuzov move his army. In Tarutino, Kutuzov almost received a reprimand from the sovereign for withdrawing the army to the Ryazan road, and he was pointed out the same situation against Kaluga in which he was already at the time he received the sovereign’s letter.
Rolling back in the direction of the push given to it during the entire campaign and in the Battle of Borodino, the ball of the Russian army, having destroyed the force of the push and not receiving new shocks, took the position that was natural to it.

Relative pronouns serve to connect subordinate clauses with the main one. They are allied words that differ from conjunctions in that they not only connect the subordinate clause with the main one, but are also members of the subordinate clause.

To connect subordinate clauses of subjects, predicates and supplements with the main one, pronouns are used who who (whom whom), whose whose, what who, which, which which, which, who, what. They are, therefore, the same interrogative pronouns, but used not to ask a question, but to connect sentences):
Who has done it is unknown. It is unknown who did this.
I don't know which of them speaks French. I don't know which of them speaks French.
That is not what I want. This is not what I want.

Note. Relative pronoun what often translated into Russian through then what.
To connect attributive clauses with the main clause, pronouns are used who with meaning which(whom), whose, which and that with meaning which, whom:
The man who is sitting next to Mr. A. is my English teacher. The person sitting next to Mr. A is my English teacher.
The watch that I lost was a very good one. The watch I lost was very good.

Who which is used in relation to persons and performs the function of the subject in a subordinate clause:
The man who was here is a book-keeper. The man who was here is an accountant.

Form whom also used in relation to persons and performs the function of a direct object in a subordinate clause:
There is the man whom we saw in the park yesterday. This is the man we saw in the park yesterday.

Which, which refers to inanimate objects and animals and performs the function of a subject or direct object in a subordinate clause:
The books which are on the table must be returned to the library today Books that are on the table must be returned to the library today. (subject).
Didn't show me the letter which he had received from his brother.He showed me a letter that he received from his brother. (direct object).
Didn't show me the skin of the wolf which he had killed He showed me the skin of the wolf he killed. (direct object).

Which may refer not to a single word, but to the preceding sentence as a whole, replacing its content, and in this case corresponds to the Russian relative pronoun What in meaning and this:
Didn't come to see me off, which was very kind of him. He came to see me off, which was very kind of him.
I said nothing, which made him still more angry. I didn’t say anything, which (=this) angered him even more.

Pronoun whose is used in relation to animate objects and, unlike the Russian language, stands before the noun to which it refers:
That is the girl whose brother came to see us the other day. This is the girl whose brother came to see us the other day.
Do you know the man whose house we saw yesterday? Do you know the person whose house we saw yesterday?

Whose, however, can sometimes refer to inanimate objects, replacing the phrase of which, coming after a noun:
We saw a mountain whose top (= the top of which) was covered with snow. We saw a mountain whose top was covered with snow.

Pronoun that which applies to both animate and inanimate objects.
That often replaces which And whom in individualizing and classifying attributive clauses:
The article that(which) I translated yesterday was very easy. The article I translated yesterday was very easy.
These are the words that(which) you mispronounce. These are the words you mispronounce.
Vessels that(which) are built for the transportation of oil products are called tankers. Vessels that are built to transport petroleum products are called tankers.

Note. Pronoun who, serving as a subject, is rarely replaced by a pronoun that
The man who (that) has written this article is my friend. The person who wrote this article is my friend.

After nouns qualified by adjectives in superlatives, ordinal numbers, as well as all, any, only only the pronoun is used that(not which And whom):
This is the best dictionary that I have ever seen. This is the best dictionary I have ever seen.
This is the first composition that he has written in English. This is the first essay he wrote in English.
Come at any time that is convenient to you. Come at any time that is convenient for you.

In descriptive qualifying sentences that not used:
His article on this subject, which was published in 1948, was a great success. His article on this issue, which was published in 1948, was a great success.
My brother, whom I have not seen for a year, has just returned to Moscow. My brother, whom I have not seen for a year, has just returned to Moscow.

Whom And which in combination with prepositions they perform the function of a prepositional indirect object. The preposition can appear before whom And which, and after the verb, and if there is an object - after the object:
The man about whom we were talking yesterday will come at five o'clock. (= whom we were talking about yesterday) The person we talked about yesterday will come at five o'clock.

When using a relative pronoun that(in individualizing and classifying attributive sentences) the preposition always comes after the verb. Before a pronoun that the preposition cannot stand:
The man that we were talking about yesterday will come at five o"clock.
This is not the letter that they refer to.

Note. The verb after the relative pronoun serving as the subject agrees in number with the word in the main clause to which the pronoun refers:
The student who is standing at the window is my brother. The student standing by the window is my brother.
The students who are standing at the window are my friends. The students standing by the window are my friends.

To connect attributive clauses with main clauses, adverbs where are used in the same way as in Russian Where And when when:
I am going to spend my vacation in the village where I was born. I am going to spend my holidays in the village where I was born.
That happened on the day when he left for Leningrad. This happened on the day he left for Leningrad.

After the noun reason, an adverb is used instead of a relative pronoun why:
That is the reason why he did it. That's the reason he did it.

After same And such used as a relative pronoun as:
I had the same difficulty as you had. I had the same difficulty as you (which you had).
It is not such an interesting book as I thought. It's not like that interesting book, as I thought.

Cases of missing relative pronouns

In individualizing and classifying attributive sentences, relative pronouns, which are the object of the subordinate clause, are usually omitted, especially in colloquial speech:
That is the man we met yesterday (= whom we met yesterday). This is the man we met yesterday.

If there is a preposition with a pronoun, then if the pronoun is omitted, it is placed after the verb:
This is the book the professor referred to in his lecture (= to which the professor referred in his lecture). This is the book the professor referred to in his lecture.

Relative pronouns serving as the subject of a subordinate clause cannot be omitted:
The man who is sitting next to Mr. A. is my English teacher. The person who is sitting next to Mr. A is my English teacher.

Which generally indicates objects, their characteristics and quantity, but does not name them. According to their meaning, such words are divided into special categories. One of them is relative pronouns. What are they for? When are relative pronouns used? What are their specifics? You will find the answer to all questions below.

What are relative pronouns?

Let's figure out what this category means. Thus, relative pronouns in the Russian language are intended to express the relationships between the components of a complex sentence, and between these blocks there must be subordinating connection. Such parts of speech act as allied words. There are only seven relative pronouns in total. These include the words “what,” “which,” “who,” “what,” “which,” “whose,” and “how much.” There is one very important and interesting detail. If you look at such a category of pronouns as interrogative, you will notice that the words belonging to these two types are the same. What's the difference then? Why were two separate categories created? The fact is that interrogative pronouns do not serve to connect parts in a complex sentence, but to express a question about an object or about its characteristics, belonging, quantity, order. That is, we can conclude that they differ from each other in their meaning.

Features of relative pronouns

Each of the words of this category can be analyzed according to such characteristics as number, inflection by cases, gender. Thus, the pronouns “whose”, “which” and “which” have many similarities with adjectives. They, like these parts of speech, can change number, decline according to cases, and are also able to have gender. The pronoun “what”, although very similar to the words described above, has its own peculiarity. It cannot be changed by case. However, such a pronoun has gender and number forms. Finally, we will discuss the characteristics of words such as “who,” “what,” and “how much.” They behave completely opposite to the example described before. That is, they can decline according to cases, but at the same time they do not have forms of number and gender.

Difference from other categories

So, as already noted, the most similar pronouns to the pronouns we are interested in are interrogative ones. But there are also complete opposites. For example, negative pronouns. They indicate the absence of any object, feature or quantity. Impersonal pronouns ("someone", "something" and so on) are often confused with relative pronouns. They, in turn, indicate uncertain objects, signs, as well as quantity. It should be remembered that relative pronouns do not express any phenomena. They serve only to connect parts in a complex sentence. They are always preceded by a comma. This is explained by the specificity of relative pronouns, which are always at the junction of two simple sentences in one complex one. Thus, we have considered all the most significant signs of this category.

Let's continue our conversation about English pronouns. Today we have another section on this part of speech on our agenda and we are discussing relative pronouns in English.

Relative pronouns or relative pronouns have special function in speech. They are necessary in order to connect the subordinate and main clauses as part of a complex sentence. But they not only connect parts of a sentence, but are themselves members of it.

Today we will look at each of these pronouns and tell you everything you wanted to know about them.

There are 5 relative pronouns in English:

• Who - who, which
• Whose - whose, which
• Whom - to whom, to whom
• Which - which
• That - which

To remember them better and understand everything well, let's look at each relative pronoun separately.

Relative pronoun Who in a sentence denotes people:

• This is the designer who decorated our bedroom. - ThisThatdesigner, which issuedourbedroom.
• The boy who telephoned you yesterday is my cousin. - Boy, which calledyouyesterday, mycousinBrother.
• Tom is the journalist who wrote that article. - VolumeThatmostjournalist, which wrote that article.

Pronoun Whose denotes belonging to animate objects:

• Whose book is this? — Whose Thisbook?
• Do you remember Mr. Green whose car was broken? — Do you remember Mr. Green, whose The car broke down?
• Yesterday Mary, whose dog was sick, went to the vet. - YesterdayMary, whose dog(dogwhich) got sick, let's goToveterinarian.

Pronoun Whom most often refers to people, but can sometimes refer to inanimate objects. Typically used with the preposition to :

• This is the man to whom I offered my studio. - This is a man to whom I provided my office.
• Anders, to whom you gave your business, is a very honest man. — MisterAnders, to whom Yougave awayminebusiness, VeryhonestHuman.
• Alex is the person whom you need to talk to. — Alex is the person with which you need to talk.

Relative pronoun Which refers to inanimate and animate (except people) objects:

• Tomshowedmethebuildingwhich wasfoundedsomecenturiesago. — Tom showed me the building, which was built several centuries ago.
• The movie which you advised to watch is very interesting. - Movie, which you advised me to watch it, very interesting.
• The dog which you gave me is very devoted. - Dog, which you gave it to me, very devoted.

Relative pronoun That also applies to inanimate and animate (other than people) objects:

• The skirt that she bought last week is very expensive. - Skirt, which she bought it last week, very expensive.
• These are flowers that my child planted himself. - Thisflowers, which mychildplantedmyself.
• Clangorous are animals that live in Australia. -Kangaroos are animals, which live in Australia.

Often relative pronouns also include the pronoun What, but only in some cases:

• This is not what I expected. - This is not what What I expected.
• Iforgotwhat youwere tellingme. - I forgot, What you told me.
• I want to tell you what I heard yesterday. - I want to tell you What I heard yesterday.

How to learn relative pronouns easily and quickly?

Friends, learning relative pronouns is simply necessary for everyone who studies English language. Because using relative pronouns in your speech makes you a real Englishman. These words make your speech more developed and rich, you can use not only simple sentences, but also complex ones, and your vocabulary expands.

Relative pronouns themselves are not difficult to learn; all you need to do is practice writing them a little. Another thing is important: to firmly remember how, in what cases and for what purpose relative pronouns serve and are used. Which ones are for people and animate objects, and which ones are for inanimate ones.

To succeed in this matter, re-read our material carefully and practice using relative pronouns. Make up complex sentences, in which relative pronouns will link main and subordinate clauses together. Do special exercises for this topic, and you will definitely succeed!