bradrn wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 10:12 amDixon was originally the one who said this, and I couldn’t think of any counter-examples, so thanks for providing some! But I think it’s only third person pronouns which can take restrictive relative clauses — I don’t believe first and [second] person pronouns can take them. I’ll change that now.
I feel that there are some passages where the KJV may possibly do this with 1st/2nd person plural pronouns, e.g.
7 And when wee had finiſhed our courſe from Tyre, wee came to Ptolemais, and ſaluted the brethren, and abode with them one day.
8 And the next day
we that were of Pauls company, departed, and came unto Ceſarea, and wee entred into the houſe of Philip the Evageliſt (*which was one of the ſeven) & abode with him.
(
Source: Acts 21, in a 1611 editio princeps)
I think this is possibly equivalent to modern English "those of us that were with Paul" (or "those of us that had arrived with Paul")? It sounds to me that he's restricting the group to his group led by Paul, as opposed to a larger group that would include the brethren of Caesarea.
Richard W wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 1:02 pmHowever, I had to do a lot of searching to find 'you' as the subject, as opposed to 'those of you', and to find a clearly restrictive clause with antecedent 'we'. It's a bit tricky, whence the common question "Who's 'we'?".
That the question gets asked at all arguably implies that the restrictive interpretation is valid though.
(Also, I think "Who's we?" is also often asked because "we" is so wildly ambiguous, being able to be 1+2, 1+3 or 1+2+3, besides being able to encompass different group levels of people. I remember one time when dhok was talking to someone elsewhere and dhok said something like "How much do we know about the grammar of Byzantine Greek?", and the other person said "Who's we?" Nobody in the room there knew Byzantine Greek, but dhok was asking about "humanity today as a whole" or "people who do things in linguistics" or "people who study Greek" or similar, and the guy was mocking him with the interpretation "us here in the room".)