1

If you happen to know who took the picture, we'd be happy to give due credit.

If you happen to know who took the picture, we'd be happy to give them due credit.

Are both the sentences grammatically correct? Do both of them mean the same thing? Is the Them necessary in the sentence?

3
  • The pronoun is assumed in the first sentence as the object of give, so the sentences are equivalent in meaning, but the second is better constructed. Sep 2, 2016 at 19:56
  • @P.E.Dant take a look at the answer user3235770 just posted. Sep 2, 2016 at 20:04
  • There would be no problem or confusion at all due to the antecedent of them. "Him/her" and such things are not necessary. The genderless and numberless "them" is by now well established in English usage. See this link, for instance. When there is a choice, I think it's always best to be as explicit as possible. Sep 2, 2016 at 20:13

2 Answers 2

-1

If you happen to know who took the picture, we'd be happy to give due credit.

If you happen to know who took the picture, we'd be happy to give them due credit.

They have different meanings. Both are correct grammatically. However...

In the first sentence whoever is giving credit does not clearly specify to whom the credit will be given. Will it be given to the person spoken to, or to someone else?

The second says tell will give the credit to whomever took the picture. This sentence makes it clear as to who will receive the credit.

0

I prefer the first option: "we'd be happy to give due credit" is perfectly grammatically acceptable, since there is uncertainty about the antecedent. It avoids the possible misuse of 'give them full credit' when the picture-taker is a single male, making 'him' a better choice. It also avoids the clumsier construct of trying to account for any possibility: "If you happen to know who took the picture, we'd be happy to give him/her credit".

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .