English Language Learners Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for speakers of other languages learning English. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
The man saw the woman who is bringing the telescope.
If "who" is with the woman, does this always mean the woman is being referred to, or it can also refer to the man, even though the "who" is mentioned later? Meaning can it also mean the man is bringing the telescope?
Lambie's answer correctly presents the prescriptive rule that's taught in grade schools, and with your sentence, the prescriptive rule happens to agree with how native speakers would interpret that sentence out of context; but it's important to be aware that in real English, there's more flexibility than that answer claims. For example, it's not hard to find examples like this one:
Presently a man came by who was a stranger to that neighborhood and […] [link]
where the relative clause "who was a stranger […]" modifies the subject "a man", even though the predicate "came by" appears between them, or like this one:
[…] she lowers her standards and lets a man into her life who is beneath who she is, […] [link]
where the relative clause "who is beneath […]" modifies the direct object "a man", even though it immediately follows the noun phrase "her life".
I don't think most readers would bat an eye at sentences like these; they sound perfectly natural, and make perfect sense.
But these sentences only work because it's very obvious which noun phrase the relative clause is modifying: there's only one candidate that's even remotely plausible. With your sentence, by contrast, unless the context gives a very compelling reason to understand the relative clause as modifying "the man" rather than "the woman", I feel confident in saying that all readers would understand it as modifying "the woman". In fact, even if the context does give a compelling reason to understand it as modifying "the man", I think there's a good chance that readers would understand it as modifying "the woman" anyway, and would just be confused.
The antecedent to a who relative clause is always what precedes it.
There cannot be a space filled by other words between the who clause and the antecedent to which is refers.
For example: The man I saw walking his dog in the street who was also on a leash.
The man saw /the woman who is bringing the telescope/
VERSUS
The man /who is bringing the telescope/ saw the woman.
Two different meanings.
It is a long time since I did any quantificational logic but if I remember correctly the proposition could be expressed as
There is an m Such that m is a man AND There is a w Such that w is a woman AND There is a t Such that t is a telescope AND m saw w AND w is bringing t
∃mMm & ∃wWw & ∃tTt & Saw(m,w) & Bringing(w,t)
Do I have that right?
