What pronouns are relative. Relative pronouns

Where there are categories of gender, number, and case in noun declension, the relative pronoun agrees in gender and number with the antecedent, while the case shows its relation to the verb in the subordinate or main clause. In some languages, the relative is an invariable word (cf. English. that).

Words used as relative pronouns often originally had other functions. So, for example, in English which is also a question word. This suggests that relative clauses may be a relatively late development in many languages. Some languages ​​(cf. Welsh) do not have relative pronouns.

Relative pronouns in the languages ​​of the world

Relative pronouns in Russian

Relative pronouns in Russian are the words which, which, coy, who, what, how many, whose, what. Thus relative pronouns are the same as interrogative pronouns.

• Pronoun who indicates animate nouns. Pronoun who can be combined with words in the singular and in the plural: I don't know who told you. But those who did it will answer for their words. who are used in the masculine form: I don't know who told you that.
• Pronoun what indicates inanimate nouns. Pronouns what used in the singular: Can't hear the noise. Pronoun related words what are used in the middle gender: Whatever happens, people will help.
• Who, what, how many- do not have a number and gender, change in cases;
• Which, whose, which- change in gender, number and cases according to the type of adjectives.

In terms of grammatical and semantic features, relative pronouns generally do not differ from interrogative ones, but some differences are still found. For example, the pronoun coy will not have a nominative singular feminine form, and when acting as a subject, it is inflected as a possessive adjective.

Relative pronouns in English

The train was late, which annoyed him greatly“The train was late, which annoyed him greatly”

In a free relative clause, the relative has no antecedent; the subordinate clause plays the role of a coreferential element in the main clause. A relative pronoun used in this way is often called fusional relative pronoun, since the antecedent merges with the pronoun:

I like what you did"I like what you did"

Relative pronouns and relativization

A construction is considered a relative clause if it is a clause that, either by itself or in combination with a noun, denotes some object and if this designated entity has a semantic role within the relative clause. If outside of the relative clause there is a noun that defines an object and is also defined by the clause, then that noun will be considered summit relative clause.

There are classes of languages ​​with different relativization strategies.

The 2 main types of relative clauses are

• 1) languages ​​in which a relative clause follows a noun:

a. English the book N Rel "The book I am reading" b. mybrat Aof sago ‘the sago tree that they felled’

• 2) languages ​​in which the relative clause precedes the noun:

alamblack yima-r person-3SG.M ‘a man who would have followed you’

Special type - correlation relative clauses, as in the Bambara language:

bambara, o ye fini san 3SG PST cloth buy ‘The woman who left the bought cloth.’

Correlative clauses are, strictly speaking, a subtype of relative clauses with an internal apex, since the apex noun is also inside the relative clause, but differ in that the relative clause is outside the main clause and is anaphorically related to the noun phrase in the main clause.

Subject relativization

For subjects, the first strategy is the so-called relative pronoun strategy: the relativized position is marked within the relative clause with a pronominal element, and this pronoun is case-marked to show the role of the vertex noun within the relative clause.

German : Der Mann, , war ein Deutscher. man.NOM REL.NOM me greet.PTCP has be.3SG.PST one German ‘The man who greeted me was a German.’

However, it should be noted that the presence of a relative pronoun is not enough to consider the case as a relative pronoun strategy, since this relative pronoun can, for example, be case marked not to show its role in the relative clause, but to agree with the case of the vertex noun in the main sentence.

Another important subject relativization strategy is the pronoun preservation strategy. In languages ​​with this strategy, a relativized position is explicitly indicated by a generalized personal pronoun.

babungo mǝ̀ yè wǝ́ ntɨ́ǝ ƒáŋ ŋwǝ́ sɨ́ sàŋ ghɔ̂ I see.pfv person that who he pst2 beat.pfv you ‘I have seen the man who has beaten you.’

Relativization of indirect complements

The first group of languages ​​are languages ​​with a relative pronoun strategy. One of these languages ​​is Russian:

Russian language: I lost the knife with which I cut the bread.

Another important strategy for relativizing indirect objects is the pronoun preservation strategy:

Persian language mardhâi men that books-acc to them given were-2sg ‘the men that you had given the books to’

Relativization of other syntactic positions

Other arguments can be relativized with the help of relative pronouns, namely:

• adnexal: Hunter is the boy who kissed Jessica. Hunter is the boy who kissed Jessica.

• indirect addition: Hunter is the boy to whom Jessica gave a gift. Hunter is the boy that Jessica gave the gift to.

• prepositional object: Jack built the house in which I now live. Jack built the house where I now live.

• Posessor: Jack is the boy whose friend built my house. Jack is the boy whose friend built my house.

Write a review on the article "Relative Pronouns"

Notes

Literature

Bernard Comrie, Tania Kuteva.

Matthew S. Dryer. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. - Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, 2013.

Bruce, Les. The Alamblak Language of Papua New Guinea (East Sepik). - Canberra: Australian National University, 1984. Dol, Philomena. A Grammar of Maybrat: A Language of the Bird's Head, Irian Jaya, Indonesia. - University of Leiden, 1999. Bird, Charles and Kante, Mamadou. An Kan Bamanakan Kalan: Intermediate Bambara. - Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club, 1976.

Schaub, Willi. Babungo. - London: Croom Helm, 1985.

Comrie, Bernard. Rethinking the typology of relative clauses. - Language Design, 1998.

An excerpt characterizing Relative Pronouns

His last days and hours passed in an ordinary and simple way. And Princess Marya and Natasha, who did not leave him, felt it. They did not cry, did not shudder, and lately, feeling it themselves, they no longer followed him (he was no longer there, he left them), but for the closest memory of him - for his body. The feelings of both were so strong that they were not affected by the outer, terrible side of death, and they did not find it necessary to exasperate their grief. They did not cry either with him or without him, but they never talked about him among themselves. They felt that they could not put into words what they understood.
They both saw him sinking deeper and deeper, slowly and calmly, away from them somewhere, and both knew that this was how it should be and that it was good.
He was confessed, communed; everyone came to say goodbye to him. When they brought him his son, he put his lips to him and turned away, not because he was hard or sorry (Princess Marya and Natasha understood this), but only because he believed that this was all that was required of him; but when they told him to bless him, he did what was required and looked around, as if asking if there was anything else to be done.
When the last shudders of the body left by the spirit took place, Princess Marya and Natasha were there.
- Is it over?! - said Princess Marya, after his body had been motionless for several minutes, growing cold, lying in front of them. Natasha came up, looked into the dead eyes and hurried to close them. She closed them and did not kiss them, but kissed what was the closest memory of him.
“Where did he go? Where is he now?..”

When the dressed, washed body lay in a coffin on the table, everyone came up to him to say goodbye, and everyone wept.
Nikolushka wept from the pained bewilderment that tore at his heart. The Countess and Sonya wept with pity for Natasha and that he was no more. The old count wept that soon, he felt, he was about to take the same terrible step.
Natasha and Princess Mary were weeping now too, but they were not weeping from their own personal grief; they wept from the reverent tenderness that seized their souls before the consciousness of the simple and solemn mystery of death that took place before them.

The totality of the causes of phenomena is inaccessible to the human mind. But the need to find causes is embedded in the human soul. And the human mind, not delving into the innumerability and complexity of the conditions of phenomena, each of which separately can be represented as a cause, grabs at the first, most understandable approximation and says: here is the cause. In historical events (where the subject of observation is the actions of people), the most primitive rapprochement is the will of the gods, then the will of those people who stand in the most prominent historical place - historical heroes. But one has only to delve into the essence of each historical event, that is, into the activity of the entire mass of people who participated in the event, in order to be convinced that the will of the historical hero not only does not direct the actions of the masses, but is itself constantly guided. It would seem that it is all the same to understand the meaning of a historical event one way or another. But between the man who says that the peoples of the West went to the East because Napoleon wanted it, and the man who says that it happened because it had to happen, there is the same difference that existed between people who said that the land stands firmly and the planets move around it, and those who said that they do not know what the earth is based on, but they know that there are laws that govern the movement of both it and other planets. There are no and cannot be causes of a historical event, except for the single cause of all causes. But there are laws that govern events, partly unknown, partly groping for us. The discovery of these laws is possible only when we completely renounce the search for causes in the will of one person, just as the discovery of the laws of the motion of the planets became possible only when people renounced the notion of the affirmation of the earth.

After the battle of Borodino, the occupation of Moscow by the enemy and its burning, the most important episode of the war of 1812, historians recognize the movement of the Russian army from the Ryazan to the Kaluga road and to the Tarutinsky camp - the so-called flank march behind Krasnaya Pakhra. Historians attribute the glory of this brilliant feat to various persons and argue about who, in fact, it belongs to. Even foreign, even French, historians recognize the genius of the Russian generals when they speak of this flank march. But why military writers, and after them all, believe that this flank march is a very thoughtful invention of some one person that saved Russia and ruined Napoleon is very difficult to understand. In the first place, it is difficult to understand what is the profoundness and genius of this movement; for in order to guess that the best position of the army (when it is not attacked) is where there is more food, no great mental effort is needed. And everyone, even a stupid thirteen-year-old boy, could easily guess that in 1812 the most advantageous position of the army, after retreating from Moscow, was on the Kaluga road. So, it is impossible to understand, firstly, by what conclusions historians reach the point of seeing something profound in this maneuver. Secondly, it is even more difficult to understand in what exactly historians see this maneuver as saving for the Russians and harmful for the French; for this flank march, under other, preceding, accompanying and subsequent circumstances, could be detrimental to the Russian and saving for the French army. If from the time this movement was made, the position of the Russian army began to improve, then it does not follow from this that this movement was the cause.
This flank march not only could not bring any benefits, but could ruin the Russian army, if other conditions did not coincide. What would have happened if Moscow had not burned down? If Murat had not lost sight of the Russians? If Napoleon had not been inactive? What if, on the advice of Bennigsen and Barclay, the Russian army had fought near Krasnaya Pakhra? What would happen if the French attacked the Russians when they were following Pakhra? What would have happened if later Napoleon, approaching Tarutin, attacked the Russians with at least one tenth of the energy with which he attacked in Smolensk? What would happen if the French went to St. Petersburg? .. With all these assumptions, the salvation of the flank march could turn into pernicious.
Thirdly, and most incomprehensibly, is that people who study history deliberately do not want to see that the flank march cannot be attributed to any one person, that no one ever foresaw it, that this maneuver, just like the retreat in Filiakh, in the present, has never been presented to anyone in its integrity, but step by step, event after event, moment by moment it followed from an innumerable number of the most diverse conditions, and only then presented itself in all its integrity when it took place and became past.
At the council at Fili, the dominant thought of the Russian authorities was the self-evident retreat in a direct direction back, that is, along the Nizhny Novgorod road. Evidence of this is the fact that the majority of votes at the council were cast in this sense, and, most importantly, the well-known conversation after the council of the commander-in-chief with Lansky, who was in charge of the provisions department. Lanskoy reported to the commander-in-chief that food for the army was collected mainly along the Oka, in the Tula and Kaluga provinces, and that in the event of a retreat to Nizhny, the provisions would be separated from the army by the large river Oka, through which transportation in the first winter is impossible. This was the first sign of the need to deviate from the direct direction to the Lower, which had previously seemed the most natural. The army kept to the south, along the Ryazan road, and closer to the reserves. Subsequently, the inaction of the French, who even lost sight of the Russian army, concerns about the protection of the Tula plant and, most importantly, the benefits of approaching their reserves, forced the army to deviate even further south, to the Tula road. Having crossed in a desperate movement beyond Pakhra to the Tula road, the commanders of the Russian army thought to remain at Podolsk, and there was no thought of the Tarutino position; but countless circumstances and the reappearance of French troops, who had previously lost sight of the Russians, and the plans for the battle, and, most importantly, the abundance of provisions in Kaluga, forced our army to deviate even more to the south and move into the middle of their food routes, from the Tulskaya to the Kaluga road, to Tarutino. Just as it is impossible to answer the question when Moscow was abandoned, it is also impossible to answer when exactly and by whom it was decided to go over to Tarutin. Only when the troops had already arrived at Tarutino as a result of innumerable differential forces, only then did people begin to assure themselves that they wanted this and had long foreseen it.

The famous flank march consisted only in the fact that the Russian army, retreating straight back in the opposite direction of the offensive, after the French offensive had stopped, deviated from the direct direction taken at first and, not seeing persecution behind them, naturally leaned in the direction where it attracted an abundance of food.
If we imagined not brilliant commanders at the head of the Russian army, but simply one army without commanders, then this army could not do anything other than move back to Moscow, describing an arc from the side from which there was more food and the land was more abundant.
This movement from the Nizhny Novgorod to the Ryazan, Tula and Kaluga roads was so natural that the marauders of the Russian army ran off in this very direction and that in this very direction it was required from Petersburg that Kutuzov transfer his army. In Tarutino, Kutuzov almost received a reprimand from the sovereign for having withdrawn the army to the Ryazan road, and he was pointed out the very position against Kaluga in which he was already at the time he received the sovereign's letter.
Rolling back in the direction of the push given to it during the entire campaign and in the battle of Borodino, the ball of the Russian army, when the force of the push was destroyed and not receiving new shocks, took the position that was natural to it.

Relative pronouns serve to connect subordinate clauses with the main clause. They are allied words, which differ from conjunctions in that they not only connect the subordinate clause with the main one, but are also members of the subordinate clause.

To connect subordinate clauses of subjects, predicates and additional with the main pronouns are used who who (whom whom), whose whose, what who, what, which which, what, who, what. They are, therefore, the same interrogative pronouns, but used not for a question, but for connecting sentences):
Who has done it is unknown. Who did it is unknown.
I don't know which of them speak French. I don't know which of them speaks French.
That is not what I want. This is not what I want.

Note. Relative pronoun what often translated into Russian through what.
Pronouns are used to connect attributive clauses with the main clause. who with meaning which(whom), whose which, which and that with meaning which, whom:
The man who is sitting next to Mr. A. is my English teacher. The person sitting next to Mr. A is my English teacher.
The watch that I lost was a very good one. The watch I lost was very good.

Who who is used in relation to persons and performs the function of the subject in the subordinate clause:
The man who was here is a book-keeper. The man who was here is an accountant.

The form whom is also used in relation to persons and performs the function of a direct object in the subordinate clause:
There is the man whom we saw in the park yesterday. This is the man we saw in the park yesterday.

Which, which refers to inanimate objects and animals and performs the function of a subject or direct object in a subordinate clause:
The books which are on the table must be returned to the library today The books on the table must be returned to the library today. (subject).
Didn't show me the letter which he had received from his brother.He showed me the letter he received from his brother. (direct object).
Didn't show me the skin of the wolf which he had killed (direct addition).

Which may refer not to a single word, but to the preceding sentence as a whole, replacing its content, and in this case corresponds to the Russian relative pronoun what in meaning and this:
Didn't come to see me off which was very kind of him. He came to see me off, which (=and this) was very kind of him.
I said nothing which made him more angry. I didn't say anything, which (=and this) irritated him even more.

Pronoun whose is used in relation to animated objects and, unlike the Russian language, stands before the noun to which it refers:
That is the girl whose brother came to see us the other day. This is a girl whose brother came to us the other day.
Do you know the man whose house we saw yesterday? Do you know the man whose house we saw yesterday?

Whose, however, can sometimes refer to inanimate objects, replacing turnover of which after a noun:
We saw a mountain whose top (= the top of which) was covered with snow. We saw a mountain, the top of which was covered with snow.

Pronoun that which applies to both animate and inanimate objects.
That often replaces which and whom in individualizing and classifying attributive clauses:
The article that(which) I translated yesterday was very easy. The article I translated yesterday was very easy.
These are the words that(which) you mispronounce. These are the words you mispronounce.
Vessels that(which) are built for the transportation of oil products are called tankers. Vessels built to transport petroleum products are called tankers.

Note. Pronoun who, serving as the subject, is rarely replaced by a pronoun that
The man who (that) has written this article is my friend. The person who wrote this article is my friend.

After nouns defined by superlative adjectives, ordinal numbers, and all, any, only only the pronoun is used that(but not which and whom):
This is the best dictionary that I have ever seen. This is the best dictionary I have ever seen.
This is the first composition that he has written in English. This is the first work he wrote in English.
Come at any time that is convenient to you. Come any time that suits you.

In descriptive attributive sentences that not used:
His article on this subject, which was published in 1948, was a great success. His article on the subject, which was published in 1948, was a great success.
My brother whom I have not seen for a year, has just returned to Moscow. My brother, whom I have not seen for a year, has just returned to Moscow.

whom and which in combination with prepositions, they perform the function of a prepositional indirect object. The preposition can stand as before whom and which, and after the verb, and if there is an addition - after the addition:
The man about whom we were talking yesterday will come at five o "clock. (= whom we were talking about yesterday) The person we talked about yesterday will come at five o'clock.

When using a relative pronoun that(in individualizing and classifying attributive sentences) the preposition always comes after the verb. Before a pronoun that the preposition cannot stand:
The man that we were talking about yesterday will come at five o "clock.
This is not the letter that they refer to.

Note. The verb after the relative pronoun that serves as the subject agrees in number with the word in the main clause to which the pronoun refers:
The student who is standing at the window is my brother. The student at the window is my brother.
The students who are standing at the window are my friends. The students standing by the window are my friends.

To link definitive clauses with main clauses, adverbs where are used in the same way as in Russian. where and when:
I am going to spend my vacation in the village where I was born. I am going to spend my holidays in the village where I was born.
That happened on the day when he left for Leningrad. It happened on the day he left for Leningrad.

After the noun reason, the adverb is used instead of the relative pronoun why:
That is the reason why he did it. Here's the reason why he did it.

After same and such used as a relative pronoun as:
I had the same difficulty as you had. I had the same predicament as you (which you had).
It is not such an interesting book as I thought. This is not as interesting a book as I thought.

Cases of absence of relative pronouns

In individualizing and classifying attributive clauses, relative pronouns, which are the object of a subordinate clause, are usually omitted, especially in colloquial speech:
That is the man we met yesterday (= whom we met yesterday). This is the man we met yesterday.

If there is a preposition with the pronoun, then when the pronoun is omitted, it is placed after the verb:
This is the book the professor referred to in his lecture (= to which the professor referred to in his lecture). This is the book that the professor referred to in his lecture.

Relative pronouns serving as the subject of a subordinate clause cannot be omitted:
The man who is sitting next to Mr. A. is my English teacher. The person who sits next to Mr. A. is my English teacher.

We continue our conversation about English pronouns. Today we have another section of this part of speech on the agenda and we are discussing relative pronouns in English.

Relative pronouns or relative pronouns have a special function in speech. They are necessary in order to connect the subordinate and the main clause as part of a complex one. But they do not just connect the parts of the sentence, but are themselves its members.

Today we will look at each of these pronouns and tell you everything you wanted to know about them.

There are 5 relative pronouns in English:

• Who - who, who
• Whose - whose, which
• Whom - to whom, to whom
• Which - which
• That - which

To better remember them and understand everything well, let's look at each relative pronoun separately.

Relative pronoun Who in a sentence refers to people:

• This is the designer who decorated our bedroom. - This isthatdesigner, which issuedourbedroom.
• The boy who phoned you yesterday is my cousin. - Boy, which calledyouyesterday, mycousinbrother.
• Tom is the journalist who wrote that article. - Volumethatmostjournalist, which wrote that article.

Pronoun Whose denotes belonging to animate objects:

• Whose book is this? — Whose Thisbook?
• Do you remember Mr. Green whose car was broken? Do you remember Mr Green? whose The car broke down?
• Yesterday Mary whose dog was sick, went to the vet. - YesterdayMary, whose dog(dogwhich) got sick, wenttoveterinarian.

Pronoun whom more often refers to people, but sometimes it can also refer to inanimate objects. Usually used with a preposition to :

• This is the man to whom I offered my studio. - This is a man to whom I provided my office.
• Anders, to whom you gave your business, is a very honest man. — MisterAnders, to whom yougave awayminebusiness, veryfairHuman.
• Alex is the person whom you need to talk to. Alex is the person which you need to talk.

Relative pronoun Which refers to inanimate and animate (except people) objects:

• Tomshowedmethebuildingwhich wasestablishedsomecenturiesago. Tom showed me the building which was built several centuries ago.
• The movie which you advised to watch is very interesting. - Movie, which You suggested to look, very interesting.
• The dog which you gave me is very devoted. - Dog, which you gave me, very devoted.

Relative pronoun That also applies to inanimate and animate (except people) objects:

• The skirt that she bought last week is very expensive. - Skirt, which she bought last week, very expensive.
• These are flowers that my child planted himself. - This isflowers, which mychildplantedmyself.
• Clangorous animals that live in Australia. - Kangaroos are animals which live in Australia.

Often relative pronouns also include a pronoun What, but only in some cases:

• This is not what I expected. - That's not it. what I expected.
• Iforgotwhat youwere tellingme. - I forgot, what You told me.
• I want to tell you what I heard yesterday. - I want to tell you what I heard yesterday.

How to learn relative pronouns easily and quickly?

Friends, learning relative pronouns is simply necessary for everyone who studies English. Because the use of relative pronouns in speech makes you a real Englishman. These words make your speech more developed and rich, you can use not only simple sentences, but also complex ones, and your vocabulary expands.

Relative pronouns themselves are not difficult to learn, just a little practice in writing them. Another thing is important: remember firmly how, in what cases and for what relative pronouns serve and are used. Which of them are for people and animate objects, and which ones are for inanimate objects.

To succeed in this matter, reread our material carefully and practice using relative pronouns. Make up complex sentences in which relative pronouns will link main and subordinate clauses together. Perform special exercises on this topic, and you will definitely succeed!

Which generally indicates objects, their characteristics and quantity, but does not name them. By meaning, such words are divided into special categories. One of them is relative pronouns. What are they for? When are relative pronouns used? What are their specifics? You will find the answer to all questions below.

What are relative pronouns?

Let's see what this category means. Thus, relative pronouns in Russian are intended to express the relationship between the constituent parts of a complex sentence, and between these blocks there must be a subordinating relationship. Such parts of speech act as allied words. There are only seven relative pronouns in total. These include the words "what", "which", "who", "what", "which", "whose" and "how much". There is one very important and interesting detail. If you look at such a category of pronouns as interrogative, you can see that the words related to these two types are the same. What then is the difference? Why were two separate categories created? The fact is that interrogative pronouns do not serve to connect parts in a complex sentence, but to express a question about an object or about its features, belonging, quantity, order. That is, we can conclude that they differ from each other in their meaning.

Features of relative pronouns

Each of the words of this category can be analyzed according to such characteristics as number, inclination by cases, gender. So, the pronouns "whose", "what" and "which" have a lot in common with adjectives. They, like these parts of speech, can change the number, decline in cases, and are also able to have a gender. The pronoun "what", although it is very similar to the words described above, has its own peculiarity. It cannot change case by case. However, such a pronoun has gender and number forms. And, finally, we will discuss the characteristics of such words as "who", "what" and "how much". They behave completely opposite to the example described before. That is, they can be inclined according to cases, but at the same time they do not have forms of number and gender.

Difference from other categories

So, as already noted, the most similar to the pronouns we are interested in are interrogative. But there are also complete opposites. For example, negative pronouns. They indicate the absence of any object, feature or quantity. Impersonal pronouns ("someone", "something", and so on) are often confused with relative ones. They, in turn, indicate indefinite objects, signs, as well as quantity. It should be remembered that relative pronouns do not express any phenomena. They serve only to connect parts in a complex sentence. They are always preceded by a comma. This is due to the specifics of relative pronouns, which are always at the junction of two simple sentences in one complex one. Thus, we have considered all the most significant features of this category.

Among the numerous categories of pronouns, it is customary to single out two into a single group - this is interrogative and relative pronouns. In terms of spelling and sound, they are exactly the same, but they have a different meaning in the sentence - that is, they are homonyms in relation to each other.

How not to mix up the ranks? To do this, you need to understand what their essence is.

Relative pronouns - what is characteristic of them, and what do they serve?

Words from this category of pronouns can express the belonging of any objects, their number and the objects themselves. Pronouns such as "how many", "whom", "what", "who", "what", "which" and "whose" belong to the relative ones. Usually in speech they are used as connecting links. For example:

• He liked that closet better which was white.
• I asked, which the bus goes to the subway.
• Nobody knew, whose it's a scarf.

Relative pronouns can be declined according to all the main features. However, we must remember that in the words "what", "how much" and "who" only the case changes - for example, "whom" or "what", "how many". But the rest of the pronouns are declined, including by gender and number. For example - “what”, “what”, “what”, or “whose”, “whose”, “whose”. In addition, for the word "which" there is also a short form "what".

Interrogative pronouns - the essence and main difference from the previous group

Interrogative pronouns are very similar to relative pronouns - it's not for nothing that they are so often confused. They sound and are written in exactly the same way - “who”, “what”, “how much”, “what”, and so on. The rules for their declension are similar - “what”, “who” and “how much” change only in accordance with cases, the rest of the words - according to numbers, genders and cases.

But there is one fundamental difference. An interrogative pronoun can only be used in sentences that ask a question. In either case, it emphasizes that the questioner does not know something - and refers to someone or something to find out.

Examples of interrogative pronouns would be:

• How much kilograms of potatoes in this package?
• Whose is this coat?
• Who opened the window in the room?

Thus, it is very easy to distinguish between two groups of pronouns. For example, in the phrase "Who forgot the book on the windowsill?" we are dealing with an interrogative pronoun because we see a question. But in the phrase “I asked who forgot the book on the windowsill”, the word “who” will already be a relative pronoun - since the question is not asked, the sentence only tells that it was sounded.