<p>“Oliver Twist is the protagonist of the novel who undegoes numerous tribulations.”</p>
<p>Q#1:Does the word “who” refer to Oliver Twist or the novel?(I want it to refer to Oliver)
Q#2:Is there a difference in the meaning of the sentence if I place a commna in front of “who”?</p>
<p>If I’m wrong, whoops, but I’ll type this as if what I think is correct.</p>
<h1>1 The sentence is awkwardly worded. With logic anyone can figure out with who you are referring to Oliver, but at first glance it appears to be referring to the novel(which is indeed very jolting.)</h1>
<h1>2 If you place a comma in front of who, it will just make the sentence worse as who will most certainly be referring to the novel.</h1>
<p>I don’t like the sentence gramatically and as a sentence in general.</p>
<p>If this is an essay:
If you’re using it as a thesis, I’d suggest you rethink it since it’s at first glance very weak for that purpose. “undergoes numerous tribulations” is very vague and for a thesis essentially worthless in anwering the question. (Although I could be wrong since I don’t know the prompt. Just, in general that’s usually what phrases such as that are.) </p>
<p>If this isn’t an essay, I’d still think about rewording the sentence, for grammar purposes.</p>
<p>i agree with chrysalis… i think a clearer way to state it would be: Oliver Twist, who is the protagonist, undegoes numerous tribulations throughout the novel… but then again i’m no grammer expert</p>
<p>Oliver Twist, the protagonist of the novel, undergoes…
As the protagonist of the novel, Oliver Twist undergoes…</p>
<p>Mmm, doesn’t “who” usually refer to a masculine or feminie antecedent? Thus, shouldn’t “who” naturally refer to “Oliver Twist”? (I think it would be “which” for the “novel”-- a neuter antecedent)</p>
<p>tiro has a good point-but it would probably still be best to reword it.</p>
<p>yeah its still awkwardly worded, Limon’s suggestions are perfect.</p>
<ol>
<li>“Who” always refers to a human (or animal, I suppose); “which” is used for objects. So yes, it does refer to the protagonist. But in general, your writing is clearer and easier to read if you put your pronouns as close as possible to the word to which they refer (the antecedent). Some of the re-workings people above have suggested are much better.</li>
<li>Have you heard of restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses? Here’s an explanation, if you haven’t:
A relative clause, in layman’s terms, is simply a group of words introduced by “who,” “which,” “that,” “whom,” or “whose.” Relative clauses add information about the noun to which they refer. For example, consider this sentence:
The lady who operates the cash-register gave me my change.
“Who operates the cash-register” is the relative clause (introduced by the relative pronoun “who”) and it adds information about its antecedent, “the lady.”
Relative clauses are classified as either restrictive or non-restrictive according to how vital the information they add is to the meaning of the noun. A restrictive clause adds information that is integral to the definition of the noun it modifies; whereas a non-restrictive clause adds information that is superfluous to the noun. Here are some examples:
The man who had greeted me was wearing a red tie.
In the above sentence, “who had greeted me” is necessary to define the man in question; otherwise, he could be any man.
My aunt Sally, who likes her coffee black, went and fetched the snacks.
In the above sentence, “my aunt Sally” is already clearly defined, and the fact that she likes her coffee black is an interesting aside, but it doesn’t help you identify the person in question.
Does that make any sense? Let me know if it doesn’t, and I’ll try again.
Anyway, the important bit is that restrictive clauses should NEVER be set off with commas, whereas non-restrictive clauses should. So can you figure out for yourself whether a comma in your sentence is correct or incorrect?
[I realise that probably nobody cares about all this above, but hey, I have fun explaining grammar stuff. It’s sort of my hobby.]</li>
</ol>