It is necessary to use “who” a second time in this sentence?
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.”
who
asked 11 hours ago
debbiesymdebbiesym
4192518
add a comment |
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.”
who
asked 11 hours ago
debbiesymdebbiesym
4192518
Neither necessary nor preferred. Indeed it can be shortened even further. ("And may need" can probably be replaced with an "or", or just everything after the comma disposed of altogether.)
– RegDwigнt♦
10 hours ago
But as a general rule — in any similar construction — you're saying the second "who" is not needed?
– debbiesym
10 hours ago
Do you see those two as mutually exclusive groups, somewhat overlapping groups, or part of the same group?
– TaliesinMerlin
9 hours ago
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
8 hours ago
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
6 hours ago
add a comment |
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.”
who
asked 11 hours ago
debbiesymdebbiesym
4192518
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.”
who
who
asked 11 hours ago
debbiesymdebbiesym
4192518
asked 11 hours ago
debbiesymdebbiesym
4192518
asked 11 hours ago
debbiesymdebbiesym
4192518
asked 11 hours ago
debbiesymdebbiesym
4192518
asked 11 hours ago
debbiesymdebbiesym
4192518
4192518
Neither necessary nor preferred. Indeed it can be shortened even further. ("And may need" can probably be replaced with an "or", or just everything after the comma disposed of altogether.)
– RegDwigнt♦
10 hours ago
But as a general rule — in any similar construction — you're saying the second "who" is not needed?
– debbiesym
10 hours ago
Do you see those two as mutually exclusive groups, somewhat overlapping groups, or part of the same group?
– TaliesinMerlin
9 hours ago
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
8 hours ago
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
6 hours ago
add a comment |
Neither necessary nor preferred. Indeed it can be shortened even further. ("And may need" can probably be replaced with an "or", or just everything after the comma disposed of altogether.)
– RegDwigнt♦
10 hours ago
But as a general rule — in any similar construction — you're saying the second "who" is not needed?
– debbiesym
10 hours ago
Do you see those two as mutually exclusive groups, somewhat overlapping groups, or part of the same group?
– TaliesinMerlin
9 hours ago
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
8 hours ago
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
6 hours ago
Neither necessary nor preferred. Indeed it can be shortened even further. ("And may need" can probably be replaced with an "or", or just everything after the comma disposed of altogether.)
– RegDwigнt♦
10 hours ago
Neither necessary nor preferred. Indeed it can be shortened even further. ("And may need" can probably be replaced with an "or", or just everything after the comma disposed of altogether.)
– RegDwigнt♦
10 hours ago
But as a general rule — in any similar construction — you're saying the second "who" is not needed?
– debbiesym
10 hours ago
But as a general rule — in any similar construction — you're saying the second "who" is not needed?
– debbiesym
10 hours ago
Do you see those two as mutually exclusive groups, somewhat overlapping groups, or part of the same group?
– TaliesinMerlin
9 hours ago
Do you see those two as mutually exclusive groups, somewhat overlapping groups, or part of the same group?
– TaliesinMerlin
9 hours ago
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
8 hours ago
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
8 hours ago
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
6 hours ago
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
6 hours ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
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.
answered 8 hours ago
TaliesinMerlinTaliesinMerlin
3,091520
add a comment |
It is correct without the second "Who." Also @RegDwigHt points out, it sounds better not using this.
This is known as a compound subordinate clause with who used as the subordinate conjunction. If you were to use "who" two times, then you would be using two separate subordinate clauses and using a compound structure of two parallel subordinate clauses. Since "who" is referring to the same person, it is redundant to use it again.
answered 9 hours ago
KarlomanioKarlomanio
739210
Evidence in support of this subjective assertion? I prefer it with who. Why should the poster believe you?
– David
9 hours ago
@David Reference given
– Karlomanio
9 hours ago
No, your only reference is to the name of the grammatical construction. The poster is aware she can get away without it, but wishes to know what is preferred. That is subjective, which is why the question should be closed and I did not express my opinion. But just because you can get away without it doesn't mean you should. If the sentence is complex, it aids clarity to repeat it. I would say it aids clarity here. If you wish to emphasise something (not really in this case) you use repittion. There is no grammatical right or wrong here.
– David
8 hours ago
@David I'm not understanding what you want me to document. I learned this in school as well as any other blog, so I never saw the point in putting the link there. You said "put it with who" so I documented that a subordinate clause can start with who.
– Karlomanio
8 hours ago
It is not easy to see how to answer questions on EL&U that are usage rather than grammar. There is a tendancy to say, "I'm an educated English speaker and that is how I would say it" or "I was taught that at school", but that won't do here because someone else may say the opposite and how is the poster to know who is right? (Votes help, but don't prove.) 1. You can argue that one version is clearer than the other, but that is subjective. 2. You can search for usage you prefer on the web or in Google ngram. 3. You can quote Jane Austen using it. Or you can avoid answering as it is subjective.
– David
6 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f485412%2fit-is-necessary-to-use-who-a-second-time-in-this-sentence%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
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.
answered 8 hours ago
TaliesinMerlinTaliesinMerlin
3,091520
add a comment |
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.
answered 8 hours ago
TaliesinMerlinTaliesinMerlin
3,091520
add a comment |
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.
answered 8 hours ago
TaliesinMerlinTaliesinMerlin
3,091520
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.
answered 8 hours ago
TaliesinMerlinTaliesinMerlin
3,091520
answered 8 hours ago
TaliesinMerlinTaliesinMerlin
3,091520
answered 8 hours ago
TaliesinMerlinTaliesinMerlin
3,091520
answered 8 hours ago
TaliesinMerlinTaliesinMerlin
3,091520
3,091520
add a comment |
add a comment |
It is correct without the second "Who." Also @RegDwigHt points out, it sounds better not using this.
This is known as a compound subordinate clause with who used as the subordinate conjunction. If you were to use "who" two times, then you would be using two separate subordinate clauses and using a compound structure of two parallel subordinate clauses. Since "who" is referring to the same person, it is redundant to use it again.
answered 9 hours ago
KarlomanioKarlomanio
739210
Evidence in support of this subjective assertion? I prefer it with who. Why should the poster believe you?
– David
9 hours ago
@David Reference given
– Karlomanio
9 hours ago
No, your only reference is to the name of the grammatical construction. The poster is aware she can get away without it, but wishes to know what is preferred. That is subjective, which is why the question should be closed and I did not express my opinion. But just because you can get away without it doesn't mean you should. If the sentence is complex, it aids clarity to repeat it. I would say it aids clarity here. If you wish to emphasise something (not really in this case) you use repittion. There is no grammatical right or wrong here.
– David
8 hours ago
@David I'm not understanding what you want me to document. I learned this in school as well as any other blog, so I never saw the point in putting the link there. You said "put it with who" so I documented that a subordinate clause can start with who.
– Karlomanio
8 hours ago
It is not easy to see how to answer questions on EL&U that are usage rather than grammar. There is a tendancy to say, "I'm an educated English speaker and that is how I would say it" or "I was taught that at school", but that won't do here because someone else may say the opposite and how is the poster to know who is right? (Votes help, but don't prove.) 1. You can argue that one version is clearer than the other, but that is subjective. 2. You can search for usage you prefer on the web or in Google ngram. 3. You can quote Jane Austen using it. Or you can avoid answering as it is subjective.
– David
6 hours ago
add a comment |
It is correct without the second "Who." Also @RegDwigHt points out, it sounds better not using this.
This is known as a compound subordinate clause with who used as the subordinate conjunction. If you were to use "who" two times, then you would be using two separate subordinate clauses and using a compound structure of two parallel subordinate clauses. Since "who" is referring to the same person, it is redundant to use it again.
answered 9 hours ago
KarlomanioKarlomanio
739210
Evidence in support of this subjective assertion? I prefer it with who. Why should the poster believe you?
– David
9 hours ago
@David Reference given
– Karlomanio
9 hours ago
No, your only reference is to the name of the grammatical construction. The poster is aware she can get away without it, but wishes to know what is preferred. That is subjective, which is why the question should be closed and I did not express my opinion. But just because you can get away without it doesn't mean you should. If the sentence is complex, it aids clarity to repeat it. I would say it aids clarity here. If you wish to emphasise something (not really in this case) you use repittion. There is no grammatical right or wrong here.
– David
8 hours ago
@David I'm not understanding what you want me to document. I learned this in school as well as any other blog, so I never saw the point in putting the link there. You said "put it with who" so I documented that a subordinate clause can start with who.
– Karlomanio
8 hours ago
It is not easy to see how to answer questions on EL&U that are usage rather than grammar. There is a tendancy to say, "I'm an educated English speaker and that is how I would say it" or "I was taught that at school", but that won't do here because someone else may say the opposite and how is the poster to know who is right? (Votes help, but don't prove.) 1. You can argue that one version is clearer than the other, but that is subjective. 2. You can search for usage you prefer on the web or in Google ngram. 3. You can quote Jane Austen using it. Or you can avoid answering as it is subjective.
– David
6 hours ago
add a comment |
It is correct without the second "Who." Also @RegDwigHt points out, it sounds better not using this.
This is known as a compound subordinate clause with who used as the subordinate conjunction. If you were to use "who" two times, then you would be using two separate subordinate clauses and using a compound structure of two parallel subordinate clauses. Since "who" is referring to the same person, it is redundant to use it again.
answered 9 hours ago
KarlomanioKarlomanio
739210
It is correct without the second "Who." Also @RegDwigHt points out, it sounds better not using this.
This is known as a compound subordinate clause with who used as the subordinate conjunction. If you were to use "who" two times, then you would be using two separate subordinate clauses and using a compound structure of two parallel subordinate clauses. Since "who" is referring to the same person, it is redundant to use it again.
answered 9 hours ago
KarlomanioKarlomanio
739210
edited 9 hours ago
answered 9 hours ago
KarlomanioKarlomanio
739210
answered 9 hours ago
KarlomanioKarlomanio
739210
answered 9 hours ago
KarlomanioKarlomanio
739210
739210
Evidence in support of this subjective assertion? I prefer it with who. Why should the poster believe you?
– David
9 hours ago
@David Reference given
– Karlomanio
9 hours ago
No, your only reference is to the name of the grammatical construction. The poster is aware she can get away without it, but wishes to know what is preferred. That is subjective, which is why the question should be closed and I did not express my opinion. But just because you can get away without it doesn't mean you should. If the sentence is complex, it aids clarity to repeat it. I would say it aids clarity here. If you wish to emphasise something (not really in this case) you use repittion. There is no grammatical right or wrong here.
– David
8 hours ago
@David I'm not understanding what you want me to document. I learned this in school as well as any other blog, so I never saw the point in putting the link there. You said "put it with who" so I documented that a subordinate clause can start with who.
– Karlomanio
8 hours ago
It is not easy to see how to answer questions on EL&U that are usage rather than grammar. There is a tendancy to say, "I'm an educated English speaker and that is how I would say it" or "I was taught that at school", but that won't do here because someone else may say the opposite and how is the poster to know who is right? (Votes help, but don't prove.) 1. You can argue that one version is clearer than the other, but that is subjective. 2. You can search for usage you prefer on the web or in Google ngram. 3. You can quote Jane Austen using it. Or you can avoid answering as it is subjective.
– David
6 hours ago
add a comment |
Evidence in support of this subjective assertion? I prefer it with who. Why should the poster believe you?
– David
9 hours ago
@David Reference given
– Karlomanio
9 hours ago
No, your only reference is to the name of the grammatical construction. The poster is aware she can get away without it, but wishes to know what is preferred. That is subjective, which is why the question should be closed and I did not express my opinion. But just because you can get away without it doesn't mean you should. If the sentence is complex, it aids clarity to repeat it. I would say it aids clarity here. If you wish to emphasise something (not really in this case) you use repittion. There is no grammatical right or wrong here.
– David
8 hours ago
@David I'm not understanding what you want me to document. I learned this in school as well as any other blog, so I never saw the point in putting the link there. You said "put it with who" so I documented that a subordinate clause can start with who.
– Karlomanio
8 hours ago
It is not easy to see how to answer questions on EL&U that are usage rather than grammar. There is a tendancy to say, "I'm an educated English speaker and that is how I would say it" or "I was taught that at school", but that won't do here because someone else may say the opposite and how is the poster to know who is right? (Votes help, but don't prove.) 1. You can argue that one version is clearer than the other, but that is subjective. 2. You can search for usage you prefer on the web or in Google ngram. 3. You can quote Jane Austen using it. Or you can avoid answering as it is subjective.
– David
6 hours ago
Evidence in support of this subjective assertion? I prefer it with who. Why should the poster believe you?
– David
9 hours ago
Evidence in support of this subjective assertion? I prefer it with who. Why should the poster believe you?
– David
9 hours ago
@David Reference given
– Karlomanio
9 hours ago
@David Reference given
– Karlomanio
9 hours ago
No, your only reference is to the name of the grammatical construction. The poster is aware she can get away without it, but wishes to know what is preferred. That is subjective, which is why the question should be closed and I did not express my opinion. But just because you can get away without it doesn't mean you should. If the sentence is complex, it aids clarity to repeat it. I would say it aids clarity here. If you wish to emphasise something (not really in this case) you use repittion. There is no grammatical right or wrong here.
– David
8 hours ago
No, your only reference is to the name of the grammatical construction. The poster is aware she can get away without it, but wishes to know what is preferred. That is subjective, which is why the question should be closed and I did not express my opinion. But just because you can get away without it doesn't mean you should. If the sentence is complex, it aids clarity to repeat it. I would say it aids clarity here. If you wish to emphasise something (not really in this case) you use repittion. There is no grammatical right or wrong here.
– David
8 hours ago
@David I'm not understanding what you want me to document. I learned this in school as well as any other blog, so I never saw the point in putting the link there. You said "put it with who" so I documented that a subordinate clause can start with who.
– Karlomanio
8 hours ago
@David I'm not understanding what you want me to document. I learned this in school as well as any other blog, so I never saw the point in putting the link there. You said "put it with who" so I documented that a subordinate clause can start with who.
– Karlomanio
8 hours ago
It is not easy to see how to answer questions on EL&U that are usage rather than grammar. There is a tendancy to say, "I'm an educated English speaker and that is how I would say it" or "I was taught that at school", but that won't do here because someone else may say the opposite and how is the poster to know who is right? (Votes help, but don't prove.) 1. You can argue that one version is clearer than the other, but that is subjective. 2. You can search for usage you prefer on the web or in Google ngram. 3. You can quote Jane Austen using it. Or you can avoid answering as it is subjective.
– David
6 hours ago
It is not easy to see how to answer questions on EL&U that are usage rather than grammar. There is a tendancy to say, "I'm an educated English speaker and that is how I would say it" or "I was taught that at school", but that won't do here because someone else may say the opposite and how is the poster to know who is right? (Votes help, but don't prove.) 1. You can argue that one version is clearer than the other, but that is subjective. 2. You can search for usage you prefer on the web or in Google ngram. 3. You can quote Jane Austen using it. Or you can avoid answering as it is subjective.
– David
6 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f485412%2fit-is-necessary-to-use-who-a-second-time-in-this-sentence%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Neither necessary nor preferred. Indeed it can be shortened even further. ("And may need" can probably be replaced with an "or", or just everything after the comma disposed of altogether.)
– RegDwigнt♦
10 hours ago
But as a general rule — in any similar construction — you're saying the second "who" is not needed?
– debbiesym
10 hours ago
Do you see those two as mutually exclusive groups, somewhat overlapping groups, or part of the same group?
– TaliesinMerlin
9 hours ago
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
8 hours ago
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
6 hours ago