Hi owlman5, and thank you for your reply. It is a post in which I provide a description of the friend the post is referred to. Do you believe that it is correct? Or would you include a comma after fellow?Hi, marcbatco. There isn't anything wrong with the word order or the grammar in the bold text. It is hard to say anything meaningful about an isolated phrase, however.
You don't even have a complete sentence for context, so that phrase could be correct or wildly incorrect, depending on the words that come before it and after it.
Yes, I do. I don't see any need for a comma after fellow. These versions sound a little more colloquial and likely in a casual letter to somebody about a friend: Bob is a tenderhearted fellow who you can have amiable conversations with. Or: Bob is a kind fellow who is easy to talk to.Do you believe that it is correct?
There is no real difference in meaning between them. The version with you is a little more personal and is quite suitable in a sentence written to somebody in a letter of introduction.And, owlman5, what is the is the difference between ... with whom to have amiable conversations and ... with whom you can have amiable conversations?
And, if you addressing Bob directly, should it not be: Bob, you are a tenderhearted fellow who you can have ...?There is no real difference in meaning between them. The version with you is a little more personal and is quite suitable in a sentence written to somebody in a letter of introduction.