a Tom who lives in the States

I know that usually, there is a comma between non-defining relative clauses and proper nouns like
"I know Tom, who lives in the States".
If there are more than two people named Tom in the classroom, can I use defining relative clauses like "I know Tom who lives in the States, but I don't know Tom who lives in China", or are articles needed for defining relative clauses like "I know a Tom who lives in the States, but I don't know a Tom who lives in China"?

What do you think?

The second one is better. In fact, I was thinking about suggesting that before I saw it.

Hansman said:

If there are more than two people named Tom in the classroom, can I use defining relative clauses like "I know Tom who lives in the States, but I don't know Tom who lives in China"

Click to expand...

Yes, that's possible.

Hansman said:

or are articles needed for defining relative clauses like "I know a Tom who lives in the States, but I don't know a Tom who lives in China"?

Click to expand...

No. The articles are not grammatically necessary, but if you use them, you have a different meaning.

jutfrank said:

No. The articles are not grammatically necessary, but if you use them, you have a different meaning.

Click to expand...

Could you please explain what's the difference between the two versions?

tijay1 said:

Could you please explain what's what the difference is between the two versions?

Click to expand...

See my change above. This is a common error from learners. The standalone question is indeed "What's the difference between the two versions?" However, as soon as you add "Could you please explain" at the start, the structure of the rest of the sentence changes. There are two possible correct versions:
1. Could you please explain what the difference is between the two versions?
2. Could you please explain what the difference between the two versions is?

I'm a little confused about which "two versions" you're talking about. Is it these two?
a. I know Tom who lives in the States, but I don't know Tom who lives in China.
b. I know a Tom who lives in the States, but I don't know a Tom who lives in China.

emsr2d2 said:

See my change above. This is a common error from learners. The standalone question is indeed "What's the difference between the two versions?" However, as soon as you add "Could you please explain" at the start, the structure of the rest of the sentence changes. There are two possible correct versions:
1. Could you please explain what the difference is between the two versions?
2. Could you please explain what the difference between the two versions is?

I'm a little confused about which "two versions" you're talking about. Is it these two?
a. I know Tom who lives in the States, but I don't know Tom who lives in China.
b. I know a Tom who lives in the States, but I don't know a Tom who lives in China.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your correction.
Yes. Between these two sentences:
a. I know Tom who lives in the States, but I don't know Tom who lives in China.
b. I know a Tom who lives in the States, but I don't know a Tom who lives in China.

tijay1 said:

Thank you for your corrections.
Yes, I'm asking about the difference between these two sentences:

a. I know Tom who lives in the States, but I don't know Tom who lives in China.
b. I know a Tom who lives in the States, but I don't know a Tom who lives in China.

Click to expand...

It's not ideal to hijack someone else's thread. The thread was started by Hansman so their follow-up questions would be appropriate here. If you want to start your own thread about the difference between those two sentences, please do so. However, remember to include a link to this thread so that it's clear you didn't write the sentences yourself.

tijay1 asked a related question addressed to me so I'll answer it here.

Without an article, 'Tom who lives in the States' is used as if it's a name for the person. With an article, whether definite or indefinite, 'a/the Tom who lives in the States' is used as if it's a common noun. That's what I meant by 'different meaning'.

jutfrank said:

tijay1 asked a related question addressed to me so I'll answer it here.

Without an article, 'Tom who lives in the States' is used as if it's a name for the person. With an article, whether definite or indefinite, 'a/the Tom who lives in the States' is used as if it's a common noun. That's what I meant by 'different meaning'.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your answer. Is it possible to ask you to give me some more examples of using proper names with restrictive relative clauses (without any article)?

tijay1 said:

Thank you for your answer. Is it possible to ask you to give me some more examples of using proper names with restrictive relative clauses (without any article)?

Click to expand...

Let me be clear: In English-speaking cultures, we don't have such naming conventions (though I can imagine that in some American cultures they might do something like that).

However, in an appropriate context, if for example there is confusion of two people with the same name, a defining relative clause could be used to identify them:

A: I just saw Tom in town.
B: Tom? Which Tom? Tom who we met at the gig?
A: No, Tom who lives with Linda and David.
B: Aha! You mean 'Tom who fancies the pants off you'!
A: Stop it. He doesn't.

jutfrank said:

Without an article, 'Tom who lives in the States' is used as if it's a name for the person.

Click to expand...

That's an interesting point. I think that I would be likely to hyphenate all the way through if I were using that as a name:

Oh, look! Tom-who-lives-in-the-States is at the door.

The hyphens clarify that the whole hyphenated string is to be understood as a name. Perhaps the following would be better yet:

Oh, look! TomWhoLivesInTheStates is at the door.

Phlebas the Phoenician said:

I think that I would be likely to hyphenate all the way through if I were using that as a name:

Click to expand...

Would you do that for the context I wrote in post #10?

Do you have any objections to what I wrote in post #10?

jutfrank said:

A: I just saw Tom in town.
B: Tom? Which Tom? Tom who we met at the gig?
A: No, Tom who lives with Linda and David.
B: Aha! You mean 'Tom who fancies the pants off you'!
A: Stop it. He doesn't.

Click to expand...

That dialogue is likely enough. However, with the last part I'd probably use one if not two exclamation marks.

jutfrank said:

Would you do that for the context I wrote in post #10?

Click to expand...

I would only do that in the third case of "Tom who" in that example. But I think your single quotes also work for that purpose.

jutfrank said:

Do you have any objections to what I wrote in post #10?

Click to expand...

To me, the dialogue would be more natural with "the" before "Tom who" in the first and second instances:

A: I just saw Tom in town.
B: Tom? Which Tom? The Tom who we met at the gig?
A: No, the Tom who lives with Linda and David.
B: Aha! You mean Tom-who-fancies-the-pants-off-you!
A: Stop it. He doesn't.

Here's a question for you, Jutfrank. What if someone felt uncomfortable with using "who" in B's first line but also felt uncomfortable with the formality of "whom" there? I realize that "that" is an option, but do you think the "zero" relative pronoun option would work? Which of the following do you prefer?

B': Tom? Which Tom? Tom we met at the gig?
B'': Tom? Which Tom? The Tom we met at the gig?

I don't find B' grammatical.

Phlebas the Phoenician said:

To me, the dialogue would be more natural with "the" before "Tom who" in the first and second instances:

Click to expand...

I think I possibly do too. It certainly works well with definite articles. However, if you use them, then you're not naming someone but merely identifying someone, which is different. That's what I would argue, at least. If you determine 'Tom' with an article, or pluralise it, you're effectively using the word as a common noun, denoting a kind of thing in the world, as in the following dialogue:

A: How may Toms do you know?
B: I don't think I know any Toms. Oh, wait, actually, I do know a Tom.

Do you go along with that, Phlebas?

Phlebas the Phoenician said:

do you think the "zero" relative pronoun option would work?

Click to expand...

Yes.

Phlebas the Phoenician said:

Which of the following do you prefer?

B': Tom? Which Tom? Tom we met at the gig?
B'': Tom? Which Tom? The Tom we met at the gig?

I don't find B' grammatical.

Click to expand...

Great point. I don't find B' very good without 'who/whom/that' but I don't consider it ungrammatical. I prefer B".

Hansman said:

I know that usually, there is a comma between non-defining relative clauses and proper nouns like
"I know Tom, who lives in the States".
If there are more than two people named Tom in the classroom, can I use defining relative clauses like "I know Tom who lives in the States, but I don't know Tom who lives in China", or are articles needed for defining relative clauses like "I know a Tom who lives in the States, but I don't know a Tom who lives in China"?

What do you think?

Click to expand...

I'd be inclined to use the definite article "the":

I know [the Tom who lives in the States], but I don't know [the Tom who lives in China].

Proper names are inherently definite, and thus do not select a determiner like ordinary heads in noun phrase structure do.

But they also have a secondary use where the inherent definiteness is lost, and where a determiner is selected in the normal way.

Your example shows this use: I select from amongst the set of people named Tom the particular one that lives in the States, and the particular one that lives in China.

jutfrank said:

I think I possibly do too. It certainly works well with definite articles. However, if you use them, then you're not naming someone but merely identifying someone, which is different. That's what I would argue, at least. If you determine 'Tom' with an article, or pluralise it, you're effectively using the word as a common noun, denoting a kind of thing in the world, as in the following dialogue:

A: How may Toms do you know?
B: I don't think I know any Toms. Oh, wait, actually, I do know a Tom.

Do you go along with that, Phlebas?

Click to expand...

I do go along with that, Jutfrank. What I don't go along with is the idea that a "zero" relative clause is grammatical after a name that is not preceded by a determiner. You have said that you don't consider such cases good. I take the more radical position that they will always be bad.

Assuming you are right that it is grammatical for a relative clause to follow a name even when the name is not preceded by a determiner, I think that such a relative clause should perhaps not be considered restrictive or nonrestrictive, but a mere epithet appended to the name.

If I am right about that, it may help to explain why "Tom we met at the gig" is ungrammatical as a reduction of the noun phrase "Tom whom we met at the gig" ("I like Tom we met at the gig"). Not being licensed in part by the presence of determiner, an epithetical relative clause attaching to a name would not necessarily enjoy the right to go without an overt relative pronoun.

Phlebas the Phoenician said:

Assuming you are right that it is grammatical for a relative clause to follow a name even when the name is not preceded by a determiner, I think that such a relative clause should perhaps not be considered restrictive or nonrestrictive, but a mere epithet appended to the name.

Click to expand...

You can think of it as a kind of epithet, yes, but I'm not sure why you don't want to consider it as restrictive or nonrestrictive too. In its function of distinguishing one Tom from another, it's restrictive by nature, isn't it? Just restricting a name rather than a noun.

Phlebas the Phoenician said:

If I am right about that, it may help to explain why "Tom we met at the gig" is ungrammatical as a reduction of the noun phrase "Tom whom we met at the gig" ("I like Tom we met at the gig"). Not being licensed in part by the presence of determiner, an epithetical relative clause attaching to a name would not necessarily enjoy the right to go without an overt relative pronoun.

Click to expand...

Would you run this thinking past me again? I didn't quite get it.

Just to be clear, I do think that it's strange to omit the definite article, as it is strange to omit the relative pronoun, but for me that doesn't make it ungrammatical. It's strange I think purely because we just don't tend to do it, I'll agree with that. My example dialogue was an attempt to show a natural context in which it could be forced, that's all. In the way that I tried to demonstrate in my dialogue, 'Tom' is not like a common noun (in the sense of denoting a thing) but a definite name, which means it not only does not but cannot take a determiner.

The discussion has wandered some way from the original question. I am moving the thread to a more appropriate forum, where members still interested can continue if they wish.