2

There is none who can help you in this crucial moment of your career.

Is there anything wrong with this sentence? My book says we should use that instead of who to improve the sentence and the rule given is 'After the words all, same, any, none, nothing, only and as, we should use that'.

But I think the sentence is fine as it is. Please clarify.

  • The "rule" cited is only a guideline. There are circumstances in which you would want to use "who". For example, "All who agree, say 'aye'. All opposed, say 'nay'." – Era Dec 9 '15 at 17:02
  • It seems that on informal English you can put that instead of who or which, but you can't do that if you've been given a non-defining relative clause. – Alejandro Dec 9 '15 at 17:18
  • Abhi which book are you referring to ? Is it Mirror of common errors ? – user212388 Aug 21 '17 at 8:59
2

According to this ngram from Google, "none who" has become less common over the years, suggesting that it may be quite old-fashioned. You could say:

There is no one who can help you in this crucial moment of your career.

or

There is nobody who can help you in this crucial moment of your career.

(not exactly informal, but "no one" is more common in formal situations.)

  • "There is none who" definitely sounds a little archaic to me. I think it sounds a little more natural to use "none" by itself as the subject, as in "None think it wise." It still doesn't sound conversational though- in my mind it sounds like a line out of Tolkien. – Era Dec 9 '15 at 17:08
  • No one sounds much better than nobody in this sentence. – user20792 Dec 9 '15 at 18:23

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.