0

I wonder if '(who)' can be omitted in the below sentence without any changes in meaning. I came across it in a YouTube video explaining the five things to know before you start acupuncture, and I felt it is better to omit '(who)' for simplicity, but I am not sure if the sentence will still be grammatically correct without it.

The video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrzumXTQQ2M The sentence comes up at around 5:13.

So, this leads to the third important thing to know, which is "who then should be getting acupuncture?" And you know, I think the simple answer is anyone who is open-minded about it, (who) has discussed it with their medical doctor, and has the time and resources to do it.

Improve this question
2
  • 1
    The boy who was playing in the yard, singing and making a mess. Also, videos are spoken so people don't plan every single little thing like in a script. Only one you is needed but two is not wrong.
    – Lambie
    Commented Oct 9, 2022 at 17:01
  • 2
    You only need one 'who' there, at the start. Anyone who is open-minded, has discussed..., and has the time...
    – Michael Harvey
    Commented Oct 9, 2022 at 18:47

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

The "who" after "open-minded about it," can sawly be omitted, and indeed it i s beter if it is. In this kind of parallel construction, the initial relative "who" applies to all the elements of the list. Only if in some rare case the author wants to apply difference relative pronouns to some of the list items, would each item need its own pronoun.

By "list items" I mean:

  • is open-minded about it,
  • has discussed it with their medical doctor,
  • has the time and resources to do it

in a different sentence with a similar construction there could be more than three such items.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

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