Avoiding use of “who” while maintaining proper syntax Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Why do newspaper headlines use strange syntax rules?Proper syntax of gender-neutral statements, order of his/herRevising a Sentence for Brevity while Maintaining EloquenceWhat is and isn't a constituent, and how (whether?) can one argue that something is or isn't grammaticalIs this a proper use of a semicolon?What is the correct way to use 'as adjective as' while comparing and/or contrasting two things?What is the correct way to use 'half as much … as' while comparing two things?Is “I am who(m) God made me” grammatical?What's the correct syntax to use for this adjectiveChanging the passive infinitive into the active voice
Why wasn't DOSKEY integrated with COMMAND.COM?
What does the "x" in "x86" represent?
Is this homebrew Lady of Pain warlock patron balanced?
Amount of permutations on an NxNxN Rubik's Cube
Maximum summed powersets with non-adjacent items
How to tell that you are a giant?
Dating a Former Employee
Around usage results
Is grep documentation wrong?
Has negative voting ever been officially implemented in elections, or seriously proposed, or even studied?
Can an alien society believe that their star system is the universe?
What does this Jacques Hadamard quote mean?
Why didn't Eitri join the fight?
Wu formula for manifolds with boundary
An adverb for when you're not exaggerating
Why are both D and D# fitting into my E minor key?
2001: A Space Odyssey's use of the song "Daisy Bell" (Bicycle Built for Two); life imitates art or vice-versa?
Is it common practice to audition new musicians one-on-one before rehearsing with the entire band?
What is the longest distance a player character can jump in one leap?
If a VARCHAR(MAX) column is included in an index, is the entire value always stored in the index page(s)?
Do jazz musicians improvise on the parent scale in addition to the chord-scales?
How do I find out the mythology and history of my Fortress?
Why are there no cargo aircraft with "flying wing" design?
Is it cost-effective to upgrade an old-ish Giant Escape R3 commuter bike with entry-level branded parts (wheels, drivetrain)?
Avoiding use of “who” while maintaining proper syntax
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Why do newspaper headlines use strange syntax rules?Proper syntax of gender-neutral statements, order of his/herRevising a Sentence for Brevity while Maintaining EloquenceWhat is and isn't a constituent, and how (whether?) can one argue that something is or isn't grammaticalIs this a proper use of a semicolon?What is the correct way to use 'as adjective as' while comparing and/or contrasting two things?What is the correct way to use 'half as much … as' while comparing two things?Is “I am who(m) God made me” grammatical?What's the correct syntax to use for this adjectiveChanging the passive infinitive into the active voice
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
How do I say the following phrases - typeset in bold - without using "who"? The situation is children on a playground, and attention is given to those on the swings. If I wanted to say something slightly different, the first phrase in bold could be simply stated. "If a child already on the swings were to leave the playground, the fraction of children playing on the swings would be 2/7."
Here is the situation.
There are some children on a playground, and some of them are playing on the swings. If another child were to enter the playground and play on the swings, the fraction of children playing on the swings would be 3/10. If a child already on the playground who had not been playing on the swings were to leave the playground, the fraction of children playing on the swings would be 2/7. Compute the number of children on the playground who are not playing on the swings.
syntax
asked 6 hours ago
A gal named DesireA gal named Desire
1225
add a comment |
How do I say the following phrases - typeset in bold - without using "who"? The situation is children on a playground, and attention is given to those on the swings. If I wanted to say something slightly different, the first phrase in bold could be simply stated. "If a child already on the swings were to leave the playground, the fraction of children playing on the swings would be 2/7."
Here is the situation.
There are some children on a playground, and some of them are playing on the swings. If another child were to enter the playground and play on the swings, the fraction of children playing on the swings would be 3/10. If a child already on the playground who had not been playing on the swings were to leave the playground, the fraction of children playing on the swings would be 2/7. Compute the number of children on the playground who are not playing on the swings.
syntax
asked 6 hours ago
A gal named DesireA gal named Desire
1225
1
Why do you want to avoid the pronoun "who"? Is another pronoun acceptable or are you trying to avoid pronouns completely? (And "in the playground")
– James Random
6 hours ago
I would prefer to avoid "question pronouns." (I have always heard "children on the playground," "children on the school bus," and "children in school.")
– A gal named Desire
6 hours ago
Compute the readability of that quote. It really sucks, "who" aside.
– Hot Licks
5 hours ago
@Hot Licks I know what it is saying. It was a question on a county-wide math league competition. So, a lot of high school students also knew what it is saying.
– A gal named Desire
5 hours ago
2
@AgalnamedDesire Those aren’t interrogative pronouns, but relative pronouns. But why do you want to avoid them? It’s a bit like saying you want to avoid verbs or nouns or adjectives – it may make sense as the point of some specific exercise (which is what we’d then need to know what is in order to comply with it), but it doesn’t make any sense as a goal in itself because it doesn’t exist in natural English.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
4 hours ago
add a comment |
How do I say the following phrases - typeset in bold - without using "who"? The situation is children on a playground, and attention is given to those on the swings. If I wanted to say something slightly different, the first phrase in bold could be simply stated. "If a child already on the swings were to leave the playground, the fraction of children playing on the swings would be 2/7."
Here is the situation.
There are some children on a playground, and some of them are playing on the swings. If another child were to enter the playground and play on the swings, the fraction of children playing on the swings would be 3/10. If a child already on the playground who had not been playing on the swings were to leave the playground, the fraction of children playing on the swings would be 2/7. Compute the number of children on the playground who are not playing on the swings.
syntax
asked 6 hours ago
A gal named DesireA gal named Desire
1225
How do I say the following phrases - typeset in bold - without using "who"? The situation is children on a playground, and attention is given to those on the swings. If I wanted to say something slightly different, the first phrase in bold could be simply stated. "If a child already on the swings were to leave the playground, the fraction of children playing on the swings would be 2/7."
Here is the situation.
There are some children on a playground, and some of them are playing on the swings. If another child were to enter the playground and play on the swings, the fraction of children playing on the swings would be 3/10. If a child already on the playground who had not been playing on the swings were to leave the playground, the fraction of children playing on the swings would be 2/7. Compute the number of children on the playground who are not playing on the swings.
syntax
syntax
asked 6 hours ago
A gal named DesireA gal named Desire
1225
asked 6 hours ago
A gal named DesireA gal named Desire
1225
edited 6 hours ago
A gal named Desire
asked 6 hours ago
A gal named DesireA gal named Desire
1225
asked 6 hours ago
A gal named DesireA gal named Desire
1225
asked 6 hours ago
A gal named DesireA gal named Desire
1225
1225
1
Why do you want to avoid the pronoun "who"? Is another pronoun acceptable or are you trying to avoid pronouns completely? (And "in the playground")
– James Random
6 hours ago
I would prefer to avoid "question pronouns." (I have always heard "children on the playground," "children on the school bus," and "children in school.")
– A gal named Desire
6 hours ago
Compute the readability of that quote. It really sucks, "who" aside.
– Hot Licks
5 hours ago
@Hot Licks I know what it is saying. It was a question on a county-wide math league competition. So, a lot of high school students also knew what it is saying.
– A gal named Desire
5 hours ago
2
@AgalnamedDesire Those aren’t interrogative pronouns, but relative pronouns. But why do you want to avoid them? It’s a bit like saying you want to avoid verbs or nouns or adjectives – it may make sense as the point of some specific exercise (which is what we’d then need to know what is in order to comply with it), but it doesn’t make any sense as a goal in itself because it doesn’t exist in natural English.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
4 hours ago
add a comment |
1
Why do you want to avoid the pronoun "who"? Is another pronoun acceptable or are you trying to avoid pronouns completely? (And "in the playground")
– James Random
6 hours ago
I would prefer to avoid "question pronouns." (I have always heard "children on the playground," "children on the school bus," and "children in school.")
– A gal named Desire
6 hours ago
Compute the readability of that quote. It really sucks, "who" aside.
– Hot Licks
5 hours ago
@Hot Licks I know what it is saying. It was a question on a county-wide math league competition. So, a lot of high school students also knew what it is saying.
– A gal named Desire
5 hours ago
2
@AgalnamedDesire Those aren’t interrogative pronouns, but relative pronouns. But why do you want to avoid them? It’s a bit like saying you want to avoid verbs or nouns or adjectives – it may make sense as the point of some specific exercise (which is what we’d then need to know what is in order to comply with it), but it doesn’t make any sense as a goal in itself because it doesn’t exist in natural English.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
4 hours ago
1
1
Why do you want to avoid the pronoun "who"? Is another pronoun acceptable or are you trying to avoid pronouns completely? (And "in the playground")
– James Random
6 hours ago
Why do you want to avoid the pronoun "who"? Is another pronoun acceptable or are you trying to avoid pronouns completely? (And "in the playground")
– James Random
6 hours ago
I would prefer to avoid "question pronouns." (I have always heard "children on the playground," "children on the school bus," and "children in school.")
– A gal named Desire
6 hours ago
I would prefer to avoid "question pronouns." (I have always heard "children on the playground," "children on the school bus," and "children in school.")
– A gal named Desire
6 hours ago
Compute the readability of that quote. It really sucks, "who" aside.
– Hot Licks
5 hours ago
Compute the readability of that quote. It really sucks, "who" aside.
– Hot Licks
5 hours ago
@Hot Licks I know what it is saying. It was a question on a county-wide math league competition. So, a lot of high school students also knew what it is saying.
– A gal named Desire
5 hours ago
@Hot Licks I know what it is saying. It was a question on a county-wide math league competition. So, a lot of high school students also knew what it is saying.
– A gal named Desire
5 hours ago
2
2
@AgalnamedDesire Those aren’t interrogative pronouns, but relative pronouns. But why do you want to avoid them? It’s a bit like saying you want to avoid verbs or nouns or adjectives – it may make sense as the point of some specific exercise (which is what we’d then need to know what is in order to comply with it), but it doesn’t make any sense as a goal in itself because it doesn’t exist in natural English.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
4 hours ago
@AgalnamedDesire Those aren’t interrogative pronouns, but relative pronouns. But why do you want to avoid them? It’s a bit like saying you want to avoid verbs or nouns or adjectives – it may make sense as the point of some specific exercise (which is what we’d then need to know what is in order to comply with it), but it doesn’t make any sense as a goal in itself because it doesn’t exist in natural English.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
4 hours ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Suggest:
There are some children in a playground, and some of them are playing on the swings. If a new child were to enter the playground and play on the swings, the fraction of children playing on the swings would be 3/10. If a child, already on the playground but not playing on the swings, were to leave the playground, the fraction of children playing on the swings would be 2/7. Compute the number of children that are in the playground but not playing on the swings.
Used the preposition "in the playground", since it is acceptable and on is already used for swings, and no other substitute would work for that phrase.
answered 5 hours ago
CarlyCarly
1,586213
The problem must have the same answer as the original problem.
– A gal named Desire
5 hours ago
edited. it does now; forgot last "not"
– Carly
5 hours ago
There is a subtle difference between Op's version & your suggestion. Op has: "a child already on the playground who had not been playing on the swings". I read that as meaning "a child that had not played on the swings at all [during the current session]". Your version refers to whether the child is currently playing on the swings. But, original is also ambiguous because it then asks for the "the number of children ... not [currently] playing on the swings."
– TrevorD
4 hours ago
@TrevorD The situation is not ambiguous - but I do understand how there could be confusion. A situation involving n children at a playground is described.m of them are on the swings. If the situation is changed as described in the second sentence, there would be n+1 children on the playground, and m+1 of them would be on the swings. In this case, (m+1)/(n+1)=3/10. If the situation is changed as described in the third sentence, there would be n-1 children on the playground, and m of them would be on the swings. In this case, m/(n-1)=2/7.
– A gal named Desire
4 hours ago
@TrevorD With these expressions, we can evaluate m and n. The answer will be m - n.
– A gal named Desire
4 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f494289%2favoiding-use-of-who-while-maintaining-proper-syntax%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Suggest:
There are some children in a playground, and some of them are playing on the swings. If a new child were to enter the playground and play on the swings, the fraction of children playing on the swings would be 3/10. If a child, already on the playground but not playing on the swings, were to leave the playground, the fraction of children playing on the swings would be 2/7. Compute the number of children that are in the playground but not playing on the swings.
Used the preposition "in the playground", since it is acceptable and on is already used for swings, and no other substitute would work for that phrase.
answered 5 hours ago
CarlyCarly
1,586213
The problem must have the same answer as the original problem.
– A gal named Desire
5 hours ago
edited. it does now; forgot last "not"
– Carly
5 hours ago
There is a subtle difference between Op's version & your suggestion. Op has: "a child already on the playground who had not been playing on the swings". I read that as meaning "a child that had not played on the swings at all [during the current session]". Your version refers to whether the child is currently playing on the swings. But, original is also ambiguous because it then asks for the "the number of children ... not [currently] playing on the swings."
– TrevorD
4 hours ago
@TrevorD The situation is not ambiguous - but I do understand how there could be confusion. A situation involving n children at a playground is described.m of them are on the swings. If the situation is changed as described in the second sentence, there would be n+1 children on the playground, and m+1 of them would be on the swings. In this case, (m+1)/(n+1)=3/10. If the situation is changed as described in the third sentence, there would be n-1 children on the playground, and m of them would be on the swings. In this case, m/(n-1)=2/7.
– A gal named Desire
4 hours ago
@TrevorD With these expressions, we can evaluate m and n. The answer will be m - n.
– A gal named Desire
4 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
Suggest:
There are some children in a playground, and some of them are playing on the swings. If a new child were to enter the playground and play on the swings, the fraction of children playing on the swings would be 3/10. If a child, already on the playground but not playing on the swings, were to leave the playground, the fraction of children playing on the swings would be 2/7. Compute the number of children that are in the playground but not playing on the swings.
Used the preposition "in the playground", since it is acceptable and on is already used for swings, and no other substitute would work for that phrase.
answered 5 hours ago
CarlyCarly
1,586213
The problem must have the same answer as the original problem.
– A gal named Desire
5 hours ago
edited. it does now; forgot last "not"
– Carly
5 hours ago
There is a subtle difference between Op's version & your suggestion. Op has: "a child already on the playground who had not been playing on the swings". I read that as meaning "a child that had not played on the swings at all [during the current session]". Your version refers to whether the child is currently playing on the swings. But, original is also ambiguous because it then asks for the "the number of children ... not [currently] playing on the swings."
– TrevorD
4 hours ago
@TrevorD The situation is not ambiguous - but I do understand how there could be confusion. A situation involving n children at a playground is described.m of them are on the swings. If the situation is changed as described in the second sentence, there would be n+1 children on the playground, and m+1 of them would be on the swings. In this case, (m+1)/(n+1)=3/10. If the situation is changed as described in the third sentence, there would be n-1 children on the playground, and m of them would be on the swings. In this case, m/(n-1)=2/7.
– A gal named Desire
4 hours ago
@TrevorD With these expressions, we can evaluate m and n. The answer will be m - n.
– A gal named Desire
4 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
Suggest:
There are some children in a playground, and some of them are playing on the swings. If a new child were to enter the playground and play on the swings, the fraction of children playing on the swings would be 3/10. If a child, already on the playground but not playing on the swings, were to leave the playground, the fraction of children playing on the swings would be 2/7. Compute the number of children that are in the playground but not playing on the swings.
Used the preposition "in the playground", since it is acceptable and on is already used for swings, and no other substitute would work for that phrase.
answered 5 hours ago
CarlyCarly
1,586213
Suggest:
There are some children in a playground, and some of them are playing on the swings. If a new child were to enter the playground and play on the swings, the fraction of children playing on the swings would be 3/10. If a child, already on the playground but not playing on the swings, were to leave the playground, the fraction of children playing on the swings would be 2/7. Compute the number of children that are in the playground but not playing on the swings.
Used the preposition "in the playground", since it is acceptable and on is already used for swings, and no other substitute would work for that phrase.
answered 5 hours ago
CarlyCarly
1,586213
edited 5 hours ago
answered 5 hours ago
CarlyCarly
1,586213
answered 5 hours ago
CarlyCarly
1,586213
answered 5 hours ago
CarlyCarly
1,586213
1,586213
The problem must have the same answer as the original problem.
– A gal named Desire
5 hours ago
edited. it does now; forgot last "not"
– Carly
5 hours ago
There is a subtle difference between Op's version & your suggestion. Op has: "a child already on the playground who had not been playing on the swings". I read that as meaning "a child that had not played on the swings at all [during the current session]". Your version refers to whether the child is currently playing on the swings. But, original is also ambiguous because it then asks for the "the number of children ... not [currently] playing on the swings."
– TrevorD
4 hours ago
@TrevorD The situation is not ambiguous - but I do understand how there could be confusion. A situation involving n children at a playground is described.m of them are on the swings. If the situation is changed as described in the second sentence, there would be n+1 children on the playground, and m+1 of them would be on the swings. In this case, (m+1)/(n+1)=3/10. If the situation is changed as described in the third sentence, there would be n-1 children on the playground, and m of them would be on the swings. In this case, m/(n-1)=2/7.
– A gal named Desire
4 hours ago
@TrevorD With these expressions, we can evaluate m and n. The answer will be m - n.
– A gal named Desire
4 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
The problem must have the same answer as the original problem.
– A gal named Desire
5 hours ago
edited. it does now; forgot last "not"
– Carly
5 hours ago
There is a subtle difference between Op's version & your suggestion. Op has: "a child already on the playground who had not been playing on the swings". I read that as meaning "a child that had not played on the swings at all [during the current session]". Your version refers to whether the child is currently playing on the swings. But, original is also ambiguous because it then asks for the "the number of children ... not [currently] playing on the swings."
– TrevorD
4 hours ago
@TrevorD The situation is not ambiguous - but I do understand how there could be confusion. A situation involving n children at a playground is described.m of them are on the swings. If the situation is changed as described in the second sentence, there would be n+1 children on the playground, and m+1 of them would be on the swings. In this case, (m+1)/(n+1)=3/10. If the situation is changed as described in the third sentence, there would be n-1 children on the playground, and m of them would be on the swings. In this case, m/(n-1)=2/7.
– A gal named Desire
4 hours ago
@TrevorD With these expressions, we can evaluate m and n. The answer will be m - n.
– A gal named Desire
4 hours ago
The problem must have the same answer as the original problem.
– A gal named Desire
5 hours ago
The problem must have the same answer as the original problem.
– A gal named Desire
5 hours ago
edited. it does now; forgot last "not"
– Carly
5 hours ago
edited. it does now; forgot last "not"
– Carly
5 hours ago
There is a subtle difference between Op's version & your suggestion. Op has: "a child already on the playground who had not been playing on the swings". I read that as meaning "a child that had not played on the swings at all [during the current session]". Your version refers to whether the child is currently playing on the swings. But, original is also ambiguous because it then asks for the "the number of children ... not [currently] playing on the swings."
– TrevorD
4 hours ago
There is a subtle difference between Op's version & your suggestion. Op has: "a child already on the playground who had not been playing on the swings". I read that as meaning "a child that had not played on the swings at all [during the current session]". Your version refers to whether the child is currently playing on the swings. But, original is also ambiguous because it then asks for the "the number of children ... not [currently] playing on the swings."
– TrevorD
4 hours ago
@TrevorD The situation is not ambiguous - but I do understand how there could be confusion. A situation involving n children at a playground is described.m of them are on the swings. If the situation is changed as described in the second sentence, there would be n+1 children on the playground, and m+1 of them would be on the swings. In this case, (m+1)/(n+1)=3/10. If the situation is changed as described in the third sentence, there would be n-1 children on the playground, and m of them would be on the swings. In this case, m/(n-1)=2/7.
– A gal named Desire
4 hours ago
@TrevorD The situation is not ambiguous - but I do understand how there could be confusion. A situation involving n children at a playground is described.m of them are on the swings. If the situation is changed as described in the second sentence, there would be n+1 children on the playground, and m+1 of them would be on the swings. In this case, (m+1)/(n+1)=3/10. If the situation is changed as described in the third sentence, there would be n-1 children on the playground, and m of them would be on the swings. In this case, m/(n-1)=2/7.
– A gal named Desire
4 hours ago
@TrevorD With these expressions, we can evaluate m and n. The answer will be m - n.
– A gal named Desire
4 hours ago
@TrevorD With these expressions, we can evaluate m and n. The answer will be m - n.
– A gal named Desire
4 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f494289%2favoiding-use-of-who-while-maintaining-proper-syntax%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
Why do you want to avoid the pronoun "who"? Is another pronoun acceptable or are you trying to avoid pronouns completely? (And "in the playground")
– James Random
6 hours ago
I would prefer to avoid "question pronouns." (I have always heard "children on the playground," "children on the school bus," and "children in school.")
– A gal named Desire
6 hours ago
Compute the readability of that quote. It really sucks, "who" aside.
– Hot Licks
5 hours ago
@Hot Licks I know what it is saying. It was a question on a county-wide math league competition. So, a lot of high school students also knew what it is saying.
– A gal named Desire
5 hours ago
2
@AgalnamedDesire Those aren’t interrogative pronouns, but relative pronouns. But why do you want to avoid them? It’s a bit like saying you want to avoid verbs or nouns or adjectives – it may make sense as the point of some specific exercise (which is what we’d then need to know what is in order to comply with it), but it doesn’t make any sense as a goal in itself because it doesn’t exist in natural English.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
4 hours ago