those vs. they

Moderator:JackFrost

artart
Posts:96
Joined:2018-03-25, 6:06
those vs. they

Postby artart » 2022-09-29, 7:32

1) They who have gone through a war know what to expect.
2) Those who have gone through a war know what to expect.

3) Those of them who have gone through a war know what to expect.

Do all of the above sentences mean the same?

I think '1' is grammatical, but unnatural, at least in modern English.

I think '3' limits the sentence to a group within another group identified as
'them'.

'1' and '2' seem synonymous to me and are more general. I think usually they could be used instead of '3'.

Am I correct?

Gratefully,
Navi

jim
Posts:6
Joined:2022-09-29, 15:15

Re: those vs. they

Postby jim » 2022-10-03, 23:18

Yes, 1 and 2 are correct and mean the same thing, but I am a native English speaker and have never heard 3. "Those who..." would be enough.

Jim

User avatar
linguoboy
Posts:25540
Joined:2009-08-25, 15:11
Real Name:Da
Location:Chicago
Country:USUnited States (United States)

Re: those vs. they

Postby linguoboy » 2022-10-04, 15:03

artart wrote:1) They who have gone through a war know what to expect.
2) Those who have gone through a war know what to expect.

3) Those of them who have gone through a war know what to expect.

Do all of the above sentences mean the same?

I think '1' is grammatical, but unnatural, at least in modern English.

I think '3' limits the sentence to a group within another group identified as
'them'.

'1' and '2' seem synonymous to me and are more general. I think usually they could be used instead of '3'.

Am I correct?

Overall I agree with you. The first sentence sounds a bit stilted; the second sentence would be a more usual way of expressing this meaning. (3) has a colloquial feel to it, plus it highlights the fact that the "they" may not be universal. That is, the main clause in (2) applies to all those who have gone through a war; in (3), it applies to a subgroup of the previously identified "they" and says nothing definite about those who weren't part of this "they" (though it still allows the same interpretation as (1) and (2)).
"Richmond is a real scholar; Owen just learns languages because he can't bear not to know what other people are saying."--Margaret Lattimore on her two sons

jim
Posts:6
Joined:2022-09-29, 15:15

Re: those vs. they

Postby jim » 2022-10-05, 3:12

linguoboy wrote:(3) has a colloquial feel to it, plus it highlights the fact that the "they" may not be universal. That is, the main clause in (2) applies to all those who have gone through a war; in (3), it applies to a subgroup of the previously identified "they" and says nothing definite about those who weren't part of this "they" (though it still allows the same interpretation as (1) and (2)).


I don't follow you. 'Those of them' makes no sense to me. I've never read it before or heard anyone say it. The sentence contains a defining relative clause that limits it to those people who have gone through a war. There's no need for 'those of them'.

Those people who have gone through a war know what to expect.
Those people, who have gone through a war, know what to expect.

User avatar
linguoboy
Posts:25540
Joined:2009-08-25, 15:11
Real Name:Da
Location:Chicago
Country:USUnited States (United States)

Re: those vs. they

Postby linguoboy » 2022-10-05, 14:37

jim wrote:I don't follow you. 'Those of them' makes no sense to me. I've never read it before or heard anyone say it.

Nevertheless, the expression exists in English, and not just colloquially.

From The diary of a teenage girl (2002) by Phoebe Gloeckner:
I cried because there are those of them who are just as intelligent as Ricky Wasserman or Arnie Greenwald or Yael Berg and just because of circumstance, they turn out so horribly.


From the New English Translation (2001) of the Christian Bible:
Those of them who were numbered from the tribe of Gad were 45,650. (Numbers 1:25)


From the Revised statutes of Missouri (1985):
When two or more persons share a priority, those of them who do not renounce must concur in nominating another to act for them or in applying for appointment. (473.110. (4))


In each of these cases, I understand "those of them" further narrowing the scope of a previously-mentioned group of "them", just as artart and I understood it in their example.
"Richmond is a real scholar; Owen just learns languages because he can't bear not to know what other people are saying."--Margaret Lattimore on her two sons

jim
Posts:6
Joined:2022-09-29, 15:15

Re: those vs. they

Postby jim » 2022-10-05, 22:16

Just because you were able to dig up some examples doesn't mean it's not a barbarism.

'Those that were numbered of them, even of the tribe of Gad, were forty and five thousand six hundred and fifty.'

Numbers 1:25 — King James Version (KJV 1900)

User avatar
linguoboy
Posts:25540
Joined:2009-08-25, 15:11
Real Name:Da
Location:Chicago
Country:USUnited States (United States)

Re: those vs. they

Postby linguoboy » 2022-10-05, 22:33

jim wrote:Just because you were able to dig up some examples doesn't mean it's not a barbarism.

How does one objectively determine what is and isn't a "barbarism" given that English has no official regulating authority?

(The KJV was published in 1611. You may have noticed that the English language has undergone a few changes since then.)
"Richmond is a real scholar; Owen just learns languages because he can't bear not to know what other people are saying."--Margaret Lattimore on her two sons


Return to “English”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests