Is it grammatically OK to combine 'it' with the relative pronoun 'which' ?

And is it OK to combine 'I/you/(s)he/they' with the relative pronoun 'who'?

I'm not sure which grammatical construction you are describing, Taka.

Is it this:

That's the bus which it goes to Long Beach.

or this:

That's the bus which I take it every day.

If so, the answer is "no."
_______

And if these are the examples:

That's the man who he robbed the bank.

or

The people who I love them the most are my grandparents.

The answer is no.

Rachel

Sorry, Rachel. It was not clear. What I'm thinking about is something like this:

It, which is very expensive, is not affordable. (i.e. 'which' referring to 'it' in front)

I know her, who you are talking about. (i.e. 'who' referring to 'her' in front)

Rachel?

Is the usage above grammatically acceptable?

Oh, yes,now I see our misunderstanding.

The answer to your question is No.

We would say:

"That which is very expensive is not affordable" for a general meaning, or "That one / this one / the one" for a specific meaning, with "which is" or "that is" modifying it, in this way:

The one that is very expensive is not affordable.

This would be for a singular count noun. For a noncount noun, we couldn't use this pattern. We'd have to repeat the noun with either a restrictive or nonrestrictive relative clause following it:

The information that is very expensive is not affordable.

or

The information, which is very expensive, is not affordable
_______

"I know her, who you are talking about" doesn't work either.

We would say:

I know her, the one you are talking about.

Rachel

Right. Most grammar books I have (written in Japanese) say, as you do, it's not acceptable. But I've found so many examples of such usage, even in nytimes.com, that I'm wondering if we can say it's really wrong.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=ja&client=safari&rls=ja...e%3Anytimes.com&btnG

http://www.google.com/search?hl=ja&client=safari&rls=ja...e%3Anytimes.com&btnG

(There are some entries which don't have to do with the usage in question, but still there are many which show it is in use)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Taka,

There are indeed many examples of the construction we are addressing that appear in the New York Times Archives. The two that you have linked to are from 1902 and 1910 respectively.

I found a lot more of "him who" at this link:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%...bUw4_tgDVKfuXQovSu9w

It is interesting that they all are from those years or previous years, many from the 19th century.

The first example you gave us was a very formal usage, and I do believe a translation from the German, which, in those days particularly, would be in a very formal form.

More than very formal, however, the construction is not common today, and it seems jarring in an otherwise normal conversation or speech or document. It is for these reasons that I believe it is "wrong," that is, impractical, old-fashioned, and jarring.

Rachel

Only two examples came up on your screen? Strange. I meant to put the search results for 'him, who site:nytimes.com' and 'her, who site:nytimes.com'.

So, it's not wrong, but old-fashioned and therefore jarring. That's the answer. I see.

Thanks, Rachel.