In the passing away of Mr XYZ, we have lost a colossal sportsperson, who captured the nation’s imagination and...
Q: Do we need the comma after "sportsperson"? With the comma, does "who" refer to "colossal sportsperson in general"?
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 communityIn the passing away of Mr XYZ, we have lost a colossal sportsperson, who captured the nation’s imagination and...
Q: Do we need the comma after "sportsperson"? With the comma, does "who" refer to "colossal sportsperson in general"?
...we have lost a colossal sportsperson, who captured the nation’s imagination and...
... and had a special place in the hearts of countless Indians.
My take on it is that in the context of the quote, the absence of a comma would show that the "who captured the nation's imagination and..." part, to the person being quoted, is the essential bit of information about the deceased.
At the same time, since the phrase following "who" is quite long, the comma would provide the "breathing space" @Katy Bunting has mentioned.
Besides, either with or without the comma, there wouldn't appear any ambiguity reading and understanding the whole sentence.
With the comma, does "who" refer to "colossal sportsperson in general"?
Paraphrased as "What is the "who" referred to--the person's name or his occupation?", the question could be answered: "Depending on whether you decided to put or not to put the comma. With the comma, it would be the person's name, and without it--his occupation."
There are two issues here: one of form, and one of meaning. In terms of form, as @BillJ points out, the relative clause may be integrated within or supplementary to the noun phrase it is elaborating on. In edited writing, a supplementary relative clause would normally follow a comma. An integrated relative would not if it and the phrase it is modifying are short:
In terms of the meaning, supplementary relative clauses are non-defining (or nonrestrictive). Integrated relative clauses, however, may be defining or non-defining.1 The sentence
could be interpreted as enumerating facts about an individual: he is an actor, and he likes to ski. That is the non-defining interpretation. Or, it could be talking about different kinds of actors, and saying that Mr. XYZ is the kind of actor who likes to ski: that is the defining interpretation.
Regarding the sentence in the question: I would favor the non-defining interpretation because it sounds like the goal is to list facts about the individual in question, not to clarify which kind of sportsperson the speaker is talking about. I think the comma is certainly acceptable, but it may not be necessary.
1 A Student's Introduction to English Grammar, 2nd edition, p. 284