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.

3
  • 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
    Commented Dec 9, 2015 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.
    – Schwale
    Commented Dec 9, 2015 at 17:18
  • Abhi which book are you referring to ? Is it Mirror of common errors ?
    – user212388
    Commented Aug 21, 2017 at 8:59

1 Answer 1

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.)

2
  • "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
    Commented Dec 9, 2015 at 17:08
  • No one sounds much better than nobody in this sentence.
    – user20792
    Commented Dec 9, 2015 at 18:23

You must log in to answer this question.

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