One of the construction with "which", that, who and Comma

[sw001]

"One of the" construction -
Could you please confirm the form of the following sentences -

With Comma -
"˜Which’ -
This is one of the cars, (which is part of / which are part of) this contest.
It's one of the discoveries, which is benefiting mankind.

"˜That’-
This is one of the cars, (that is/ that are) part of the contest.

Who -
He is one of the people, who is making good money.

which, that, who (after a comma) -
Do they all act as modifiers to the noun immediately preceding it? - "cars" and "people" in the above case. OR do they behave differently?

OR Do which, that and who after a "Comma", modify the whole phrase preceding it? So as in the examples above - is which modifying "˜This’, "˜This is one of the cars’ OR "˜one of the cars’ Or just "cars" as stated above?

Without Comma -

Which - This is one of the cars (which are/ which is) part of this contest.

That - This is one of the cars that are/is part of this contest.

Who - He is one of the people who are/is making good money.

XYZ, one of the discoveries that has/have benefited mankind, is a major achievement.

"More than one" construction - Does it always take singular form
I have more than one clients who are waiting for me.
I have more than one client who are waiting for me.
I have more than one client who is waiting for me.
I have more than one clients, who are waiting for me.

[RonPurewal]

For the whole "one" thing, there's no need for generalizations. Just think about what the sentence means.

E.g.,
Tom is one of the students who (take / takes) notes with a tablet rather than a notebook.

Well, let's think about this.
The intended meaning of this sentence should be perfectly clear:
* There are some students who use tablets rather than notebooks.
* Tom is one of these students.
In this context, it's clear that Tom is not the only student who uses a tablet. If that were the case, then "one of the students who..." would be either superfluous or nonsense, depending on how you interpret it.
So... there are students who take notes with a tablet. (Imagine drawing brackets around that part of the sentence; you can consider that whole part as "that group of people".) Tom is one of "those people".

[RonPurewal]

Or...
Tom is the only one of the students who (take / takes) notes with a tablet rather than a notebook.
Again, there's only one possible intention.
* There's a group of students.
* Of those students, Tom is the only one who uses a tablet.
This sentence can't work like the one in the previous post. (If there are several students who use a tablet, then Tom is "the only one" who does... well, nothing. Oops.)

So... Tom is the only one (of the students) who takes notes on a tablet.
This time, "of the students" is just modifying "the only one".

If you tried to make rules for this kind of thing, they would be unimaginably complicated (and probably wouldn't work very well anyway). Luckily, no such rules are needed.

[RonPurewal]

"More than one" construction - Does it always take singular form
I have more than one clients who are waiting for me.
I have more than one client who are waiting for me.
I have more than one client who is waiting for me.
I have more than one clients, who are waiting for me.

This one is completely mechanical.

* "One" can't be followed by a plural, so neither can "more than one". (In simpler terms: More than one things is always, always, always wrong.)

* The subject of all these verbs is "client". "Client" is singular, and so takes a singular verb.

[RonPurewal]

Not sure whether you noticed, but your last set of questions is completely unrelated to the questions above it.
* The questions above are about modifiers with "who""”a topic that's somewhat more complicated, since that modifier can modify structures of varying lengths.
* The last set is about a direct subject-verb relationship. No modifer. Much simpler.

As an exercise, you may want to try to switch these"”i.e., to ask the first type of question about the second thing, and vice versa.

[sw001]

Thank you Ron. Just re reading all the posts. Thanks for the great explanations!!!!

[jnelson0612]

:-)