 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2004who or whom?
Can anyone give me the correct versions of these below? Thanks: "A woman named Christine, who we are informed is a leading psychotherapist". "A woman named Christine, whom we are informed is a leading psychotherapist". And "they must be purged from our media and replaced by intelligent, unbiased men and women of integrity whose commitment is to truth and tracking down real terrorists..." "they must be purged from our media and replaced with intelligent, unbiased men and women of integrity whose commitment is to truth and tracking down real terrorists..."  Signaturehttp://www.freehomepages.com/itma99/ Alexander Baron <a_baron@abaron.demon.co.uk> wrote on 08 Jan 2004: > Can anyone give me the correct versions of these below? Thanks: > > "A woman named Christine, who we are informed is a leading > psychotherapist". This is the correct version: "who . . . is a leading . . ." "who" is the subject of "is". > "A woman named Christine, whom we are informed is a leading > psychotherapist". [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > unbiased men and women of integrity whose commitment is to truth and > tracking down real terrorists..." I think this is the correct version because it indicates that someone has deliberately replaced all the As with Bs. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. In alt.english.usage on Wed, 7 Jan 2004 23:13:20 +0000 Alexander Baron <a_baron@abaron.demon.co.uk> posted: >Can anyone give me the correct versions of these below? Thanks: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >"A woman named Christine, whom we are informed is a leading >psychotherapist". Who. As he said. >And > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >unbiased men and women of integrity whose commitment is to truth and >tracking down real terrorists..." I think when I was little I said "by". That's probably what they said where I lived. Later I heard "with" and began to like that better. A) Don't think I like the idea of purges. B) I would say, "to truth and to tracking down real terrorists." One is a noun and the other a gerund phrase, and I don't think they are similar enough to share one "to". s/ meirman If you are emailing me please say if you are posting the same response. Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years Indianapolis, 7 years Chicago, 6 years Brooklyn NY 12 years Baltimore 20 years > In alt.english.usage on Wed, 7 Jan 2004 23:13:20 +0000 Alexander Baron > <a_baron@abaron.demon.co.uk> posted: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Who. As he said. Surely we can't tell unless we know whether Christine is the subject or object of the sentence from which the fragment is taken (although most people would use 'who' in either case, of course). What about: We are going to meet a woman named Christine, whom we are informed is a leading psychotherapist. Compare 'Brethren, be sober, be vigilant, because thine adversary the devil as a roaring lion walketh about seeking whom he may devour, whom resist, steadfast in the faith'. (Yes, I know that from memory, having had to listen to it every Monday evening for five long years). Danny > > In alt.english.usage on Wed, 7 Jan 2004 23:13:20 +0000 Alexander Baron > > <a_baron@abaron.demon.co.uk> posted: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > We are going to meet a woman named Christine, whom we are informed is a > leading psychotherapist. No, sorry. It doesn't matter whether Christine is the subject or object in the sentence. What makes sentences like these misleading are the little interrupting side phrases like "we are informed". Try dropping it: We are going to meet a woman named Christine, who is a leading psychotherapist. If the original writer had set off the "we are informed" in commas, as would have been done in the past, perhaps that would have helped: We are going to meet a woman named Christine, who, we are informed, is a leading psychotherapist. > Compare 'Brethren, be sober, be vigilant, because thine adversary the devil > as a roaring lion walketh about seeking whom he may devour, whom resist, > steadfast in the faith'. (Yes, I know that from memory, having had to listen > to it every Monday evening for five long years). Well, KJV grammar... I had to think a while whether it's "seeking" or "devour" that makes it "whom." They are both verbs that take objects, so, between the two of them.... Seeking, I think. There are others here with a really good knack for "whom," maybe they will explain it. It's not as if Christine was what was "informed." But "whom resist" is even stranger. Biblegateway.com shows you do have it right. King James version: 1 Peter 5 8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: 9 Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world. A more modern version says that last verse means: 9 Resist him, standing firm in the faith, because you know that your brothers throughout the world are undergoing the same kind of sufferings. So that was an imperative "resist," "whom resist" = "him, resist" or "The devil, resist." Kinda archaic. SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux ... > > Compare 'Brethren, be sober, be vigilant, because thine adversary the devil > > as a roaring lion walketh about seeking whom he may devour, whom resist, > > steadfast in the faith'. (Yes, I know that from memory, having had to listen > > to it every Monday evening for five long years). Okay, I'll bite. Were you at a Christian school? I can understand why some people might subject a captive audience to regular Bible readings, but why this passage every week? > Well, KJV grammar... I had to think a while whether it's "seeking" or > "devour" that makes it "whom." They are both verbs that take objects, > so, between the two of them.... Seeking, I think. There are others here > with a really good knack for "whom," maybe they will explain it. ... As Prof. L. says, what matters is the function in the clause, so it's "devour" that requires "whom" here. Peter could have said, in this dialect, "... thine adversary the devil... walketh about seeking who will yield to him." I think. The switch from "brethren" to "thine" is weird. I wonder whether it reflects something in the original. As I understand it, Simon called Peter was probably not a native speaker of Greek. SignatureJerry Friedman >... > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >why some people might subject a captive audience to regular Bible >readings, but why this passage every week? <Dons Sherlock Holmes type deerstalker hat> Christian? Weekly? Part of a liturgy perhaps? Google: Various hits one of which is: http://daily.commonworship.com/bcp/nighttrad.html?2004-01-09-night <quote> An Order for Night Prayer (Compline) in Traditional Language The Lord almighty grant us a quiet night and a perfect end. All Amen. [Brethren,] be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: whom resist, steadfast in the faith. 1 Peter 5.8,9 But thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us. All Thanks be to God. Our help is in the name of the Lord All who hath made heaven and earth. ... ... ... </quote> SignaturePeter Duncanson UK (posting from a.e.u) > >... > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > An Order for Night Prayer > (Compline) in Traditional Language ... Astonishing, Duncanson! And thanks to Danny Kodicek for his, uh, testimony on the subject. SignatureJerry Friedman > ... > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > reflects something in the original. As I understand it, Simon called > Peter was probably not a native speaker of Greek. It was just a slight misquote: it is actually "your" (because brethren is plural), rather than "thine" (which would follow "brother", singular). Cheers, Tony SignatureTony Mountifield Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org > ... > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > why some people might subject a captive audience to regular Bible > readings, but why this passage every week? Well, it was a Christian school of sorts, yes - Westminster School. It's attached to Westminster Abbey and has a lot of links with it. I was a scholar at Westminster School, and as such we had to attend Compline every Monday evening at 9pm in a small room at the back of the Abbey. In our gowns. It was extremely dull and we all had to attend, whatever our religious sensibilities. Westminster is a bit tradition-heavy generally - every Wednesday morning they have Latin Prayers, sung in 'Westminster Latin', which is basically Latin spoken with an English accent, so 'sicut erat in principio, et nunc et semper, et in saecula saeculorum' becomes 'seecut erat in prinsipio, et nunc [as 'nuncle'] et sempuh, et in seeculuh seeculorum'. And there's a long Latin Grace at lunch, too. The scholars bear the brunt of all that, but then we got out of paying the fees, so it evens out, I suppose. And of course sitting in Westminster Abbey takes some of the pain out of all the religious nonsense - it's seriously beautiful. Danny > > trio@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) wrote in message > news:<1g78uh6.ldof691v0g96yN%trio@euronet.nl>... [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Monday evening at 9pm in a small room at the back of the Abbey. In our > gowns. 'In our gowns'? Is that the Westminster School of Crossdressing? :-) > It was extremely dull and we all had to attend, whatever our > religious sensibilities. Westminster is a bit tradition-heavy generally - [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Danny > > > trio@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) wrote in message > > news:<1g78uh6.ldof691v0g96yN%trio@euronet.nl>... [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > 'In our gowns'? Is that the Westminster School of Crossdressing? :-) :)) Only in private. In public they were academic gowns, with random triangular bits that hung down under the arms for no obvious reason (but were quite firm and developed into an interesting new martial art called gown-jitsu). We also had to wear full morning dress for some special occasions (fortunately rarely). The Queen paid us a visit one year, which meant that I had the interesting experience of doing a chemistry experiment in morning dress, complete with stiff collar and tailcoat. The experiment was chosen to a) be easy to do and b) include lots of test tubes with interesting colours. Danny > > Danny Kodicek <dragon@well-spring.co.uk> wrote in message > news:DSuLb.20416$qx2.2280194@stones.force9.net... [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > bits that hung down under the arms for no obvious reason (but were quite > firm and developed into an interesting new martial art called gown-jitsu). Mike Powell has told us of the grammar-school master who had a cricket ball in the bottom of his Oxbridge sleeve. Ouch! I just remember the one whose green-with-age sleeve caught on a projection of his ancient desk, and ripped it off and slung it in the wpb with irritation; and the prep-school master who used to smack us sharply but painlessly on the head with Kennedy's Latin Primer (we loved him). > We also had to wear full morning dress for some special occasions > (fortunately rarely). The Queen paid us a visit one year, which meant that I > had the interesting experience of doing a chemistry experiment in morning > dress, complete with stiff collar and tailcoat. The experiment was chosen to > a) be easy to do and b) include lots of test tubes with interesting colours. And you got an education which rendered some university courses all but redundant in educational terms: I went to a vaguely similar though more laid-back Medieval school. My own kids suffered the institutional gormlessmess of the Comps: they are only now beginning to understand what the (entirely amiable) envy is about -- few of their teachers had even a remote notion, and they can't be blamed. Fortunately, they grew up among my mountains of books, or they'd never understand, and -- more important -- perhaps never catch up. Mike. mike_lyle_uk@yahoo.co.uk spake thus: > Mike Powell has told us of the grammar-school master who had a cricket > ball in the bottom of his Oxbridge sleeve. Ouch! I just remember the > one whose green-with-age sleeve caught on a projection of his ancient > desk, and ripped it off and slung it in the wpb with irritation; and > the prep-school master who used to smack us sharply but painlessly on > the head with Kennedy's Latin Primer (we loved him). We had a maths teacher who kept a board rubber in the bottom of his gown, which he would whirl around. If it caught you on the head, you only had yourself to blame. Interestingly, it never caught those who were working properly. > > We also had to wear full morning dress for some special occasions > > (fortunately rarely). The Queen paid us a visit one year, which meant that I [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > up among my mountains of books, or they'd never understand, and -- > more important -- perhaps never catch up. Aware of this, we chose the best comprehensive school we could find within 50 miles, and moved to within walking distance of it when the children were still in Primary. They got a perfectly acceptable education - not up to our own (modern) grammar school experiences, but what is? SignatureDavid ===== >mike_lyle_uk@yahoo.co.uk spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >only had yourself to blame. Interestingly, it never caught those who >were working properly. I must have been dozing in class when this was explained. Board rubber? My first thought was something to rub a board with and came up with blackboard eraser. I can't think of keeping one of the those in the bottom of a gown, or of whirling one around. Next thought was some sort of elastic band. The rubber fits, but not the board. Repeat the class, please. tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com spake thus: > >We had a maths teacher who kept a board rubber in the bottom of his > >gown, which he would whirl around. If it caught you on the head, you [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Repeat the class, please. Blackboard eraser is right. About 6" long and 2" wide, made of lightweight wood with felt glued along one face. Not very dangerous but heavy enough to give one a sharp sting. SignatureDavid ===== > tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > lightweight wood with felt glued along one face. Not very dangerous > but heavy enough to give one a sharp sting. The sleeve is a sort of tubular medieval appendage, sewn up at the bottom. There is a slit for the arm higher up the sleeve, and that's where one can drop the rubber down to its resting place. I deduce from this story that the maths teacher was an Oxbridge MA, since BA gowns have fully open sleeves. The trick with the board rubber was much used by a formidable Oxford woman who taught in my department - but she used the solid block to bang the offender's desk rather than his head. One of my own non-Oxbridge teachers just threw the board rubber, and as a good cricketer he had a pretty well unerring aim. In the 1940s and 1950s teachers could and did administer painful rebukes and punishments without fear of legal retribution: the French master once lifted up an inattentive small boy by the ears. Alan Jones >> tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com spake thus: >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >painful rebukes and punishments without fear of legal retribution: the >French master once lifted up an inattentive small boy by the ears. My history master had a cricket ball in the corner of his gown which he whirled round and clonked on the head of an idler. When he knocked one cold, he substituted a tennis ball. He must have been going soft. Mike SignatureM.J.Powell atj@blueyonder.co.uk spake thus: > > tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com spake thus: > > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > painful rebukes and punishments without fear of legal retribution: the > French master once lifted up an inattentive small boy by the ears. We never enquired after our teachers' qualifications; this one was certainly good at his job and we were very fond of him. He smoked incessantly (including in class) and died from lung cancer in his 50s. Our head of maths, known to all as "Killer", but not to his face, and the best maths teacher we ever had, was an ancient JP who had taught three generations of the town's children (including two of the other maths teachers, neither of whom was young). He kept disappearing to sentence reckless riders of motorcycles to fitting punishments. He was unnervingly accurate across the length of a classroom with small pieces of chalk which stung rather. One of my school chums wrote a long poem about the murdering (see? Killer, murdering?) of an innocent board rubber in which our teacher was taken to court to be tried by himself. Being the sort of school which tolerated, nay encouraged, expression, and greatly valued humour, the poem was printed uncut in the school magazine. SignatureDavid ===== > > > In alt.english.usage on Wed, 7 Jan 2004 23:13:20 +0000 Alexander Baron > > > <a_baron@abaron.demon.co.uk> posted: [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > So that was an imperative "resist," "whom resist" = "him, resist" or > "The devil, resist." Kinda archaic. It's a syntax inversion for "Resist whom," (Resist him) with "whom" as a relative pronoun referring to Satan. It's going to great pains to keep the relative pronoun close to its referent. It also may be following the Greek in so inverting. KJV is often pretty literal in following syntax, to the point of having some that's nearly unreadable for people who aren't used to descrambling it for classical languages. SignatureCheers, Jody jodybilyeu@smsu.edu Danny Kodicek escribió : >> In alt.english.usage on Wed, 7 Jan 2004 23:13:20 +0000 Alexander >> Baron <a_baron@abaron.demon.co.uk> posted: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > We are going to meet a woman named Christine, whom we are informed is > a leading psychotherapist. Wrong, dead wrong. As others have said, "who" is the subject of "is". Maybe the correct punctuation will make it clearer: "We are going to meet a woman named Christine, who, we are informed, is a leading psychotherapist." Perhaps you were thinking of "We are going to meet a woman named Christine, of whom we are informed that she is a leading psychotherapist." I am not sure if this is idiomatic in English, but I guess that that, or something similar, is what you were thinking of > Compare 'Brethren, be sober, be vigilant, because thine adversary the > devil as a roaring lion walketh about seeking whom he may devour, > whom resist, steadfast in the faith'. (Yes, I know that from memory, > having had to listen to it every Monday evening for five long years). And? That is a different case. SignatureSaludos cordiales Javi Mood conjugation: I enjoy a drop You never say no He is an alcoholic (Craig Brown) > Danny Kodicek escribió : > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > "We are going to meet a woman named Christine, of whom we are informed that > she is a leading psychotherapist." No, I was considering 'who' to be in agreement with the case of the word it refers to, in this case 'Christine'. I'd argue that 'whom' is potentially correct even if we remove the 'we are informed' altogether, although it certainly sounds more awkward! > I am not sure if this is idiomatic in English, but I guess that that, or > something similar, is what you were thinking of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > And? That is a different case. Not really: although this is a more complicated sentence (and admittedly sounds awkward as all hell!), you could argue that in 'X resist, steadfast in the faith', X is the subject of the phrase. But in this sentence, X refers to the object of 'whom he may devour', and therefore agrees with it. I agree that in modern usage, 'who' is correct. But if we consider the biblical sentence to be grammatically correct (if archaic), I'd argue that 'whom' should be correct in the Christine sentence too. (Archaic psychotherapists? Ah well) Danny Danny Kodicek escribió : >> Danny Kodicek escribió : >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > No, I was considering 'who' to be in agreement with the case of the > word it refers to, in this case 'Christine'. Wrongest. The relative pronouns do not have to agree with the case of the word it refers to. Only agreement in gender and number (in those languages whose relative pronouns have number and gender) is necessary. >I'd argue that 'whom' is > potentially correct even if we remove the 'we are informed' > altogether, although it certainly sounds more awkward! Argue if you feel like, but it is wrong. >> I am not sure if this is idiomatic in English, but I guess that >> that, or something similar, is what you were thinking of [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > in this sentence, X refers to the object of 'whom he may devour', and > therefore agrees with it. No, it refers to the Devil, as Donna has explained.. > I agree that in modern usage, 'who' is correct. But if we consider the > biblical sentence to be grammatically correct (if archaic), I'd argue > that 'whom' should be correct in the Christine sentence too. (Archaic > psychotherapists? Ah well) Argue if you feel like, but it is wrong. SignatureSaludos cordiales Javi Mood conjugation: I enjoy a drop You never say no He is an alcoholic (Craig Brown) > > Not really: although this is a more complicated sentence (and > > admittedly sounds awkward as all hell!), you could argue that in 'X [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > No, it refers to the Devil, as Donna has explained.. Hmm. I had to re-read her explanation as I didn't pick that up the first time. That is interesting, and not at all the impression one gets on listening to the slice of biblical claptrap! > > I agree that in modern usage, 'who' is correct. But if we consider the > > biblical sentence to be grammatically correct (if archaic), I'd argue > > that 'whom' should be correct in the Christine sentence too. (Archaic > > psychotherapists? Ah well) > > Argue if you feel like, but it is wrong. Well - I think that the argument was right, but the premise was false :) Danny Once upon a 1/8/04 5:50 AM, in the land of btjmqu$7sq1q$1@ID-177688.news.uni-berlin.de, the very good"Javi" from <poziyoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> We are going to meet a woman named Christine, whom we are informed >>>> is a leading psychotherapist. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > word it refers to. Only agreement in gender and number (in those languages > whose relative pronouns have number and gender) is necessary. If we're going to talk about languages in general, I don't think there's any reason why relative pronouns might not have to agree with the case of the word they refer to. But that's not how it works in English. Carmen L. Abruzzi escribió : > Once upon a 1/8/04 5:50 AM, in the land of > btjmqu$7sq1q$1@ID-177688.news.uni-berlin.de, the very good"Javi" from [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > there's any reason why relative pronouns might not have to agree with > the case of the word they refer to. Relative pronouns do not have to agree with the case of the word they refer to *by definition*: a relative pronoun is a placeholder for a noun that has appeared (or will appear) in a *different* sentence. Atraction to the case of the antecedent is sometimes (few times) found in Latin and Greek, but it is not a must, nor is that normal. There may be some exotic language with complex rules for relatives that include some reference to the case of the noun they refer to, but not exactly agreement in case. > But that's not how it works in > English. Certainly. SignatureSaludos cordiales Javi Mood conjugation: I enjoy a drop You never say no He is an alcoholic (Craig Brown) Once upon a 1/8/04 9:56 PM, in the land of btlfcu$8r1n3$1@ID-177688.news.uni-berlin.de, the very good"Javi" from <poziyoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: > Carmen L. Abruzzi escribió : > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Relative pronouns do not have to agree with the case of the word they refer > to *by definition*: By whose definition? > a relative pronoun is a placeholder for a noun that has > appeared (or will appear) in a *different* sentence. Nonsense. A relative pronoun must by definition appear in the same sentence as the noun it refers to. In a different clause, but in the same sentence. At least most of the time. Assuming you meant clause, let's hypothesize a language in which there is some relativizer that agrees with its antecedent (at let's use English words for this hypothetical language). Let's say "I saw the man who drives the red car" is rendered "I saw the man whom he drives the red car". Are you saying that "whom" here is by definition *not* a relative pronoun? Do you mean that it must be called something else? > Atraction to the case of the antecedent is sometimes (few times) found in > Latin and Greek, but it is not a must, nor is that normal. Latin, Greek, and English are not the only languages in existence. > There may be some exotic language with complex rules for relatives that > include some reference to the case of the noun they refer to, but not > exactly agreement in case. Why would you say that? I think there may well be languages in which relative pronouns are marked for case in the same way as their antecedents. At least I don't see any reason to think this could not be so. Is there some evidence for a linguistic universal that prohibits such a thing? >> But that's not how it works in >> English. > > Certainly. > Assuming you meant clause, let's hypothesize a language in which > there is some relativizer that agrees with its antecedent (at let's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > definition *not* a relative pronoun? Do you mean that it must be > called something else? I would say that 'whom' is not a relative pronoun by definition in this case, since it doesn't stand for a noun ('he' serves this purpose), but merely introduces the relative clause. > > Atraction to the case of the antecedent is sometimes (few times) > > found in Latin and Greek, but it is not a must, nor is that normal. > > Latin, Greek, and English are not the only languages in existence. No, but they are important and well-known examples of Indo-European languages with a substantial case system. Carmen L. Abruzzi escribió : > Once upon a 1/8/04 9:56 PM, in the land of > btlfcu$8r1n3$1@ID-177688.news.uni-berlin.de, the very good"Javi" from [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > By whose definition? The grammars I know. At least, that is what I understand. >> a relative pronoun is a placeholder for a noun that has >> appeared (or will appear) in a *different* sentence. > > Nonsense. My mistake. I meant "clause", of course. > A relative pronoun must by definition appear in the same > sentence as the noun it refers to. In a different clause, but in the > same sentence. At least most of the time. That's true. > Assuming you meant clause, Yes, that's what I meant. > let's hypothesize a language in which > there is some relativizer that agrees with its antecedent (at let's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > definition *not* a relative pronoun? Do you mean that it must be > called something else? Yes. A language is you hypothetized would not have a relative pronoun, instead, it would construct relative clauses using a whole clause following the noun that is its antecedent. Same as in Arabic. In Arabic, when the antecedent is an indetermined noun, the construction is similar to that of the hypothetical language: kita:bun fi l-bayt literally "a book in the house" = "a book that is in the house". As you can see, no relative pronoun is used. In your example "I saw the man whom he drives the red car" the relative clause is "he drives the red car"; "whom" is not necessary, but, if that language use it, I would consider it a word, in the main clause, whose function is to tell that a relative clause will follow, but I will not call it "relative pronoun", not even in the case that that word ethymologically derives from an ancient true relative pronoun. >> Atraction to the case of the antecedent is sometimes (few times) >> found in Latin and Greek, but it is not a must, nor is that normal. > > Latin, Greek, and English are not the only languages in existence. Why do you utter such an obvious statement? Do I seem to believe the opposite? >> There may be some exotic language with complex rules for relatives >> that include some reference to the case of the noun they refer to, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > relative pronouns are marked for case in the same way as their > antecedents. Then, I would not call those "pronouns" relatives, because they could not be used as relative pronouns. >At least I don't see any reason to think this could not > be so. Is there some evidence for a linguistic universal that > prohibits such a thing? It is a terminological cuestion. A terminology needs consistency: in indoeuropean languages grammars a relative pronoun or adverb is that pronoun or adverb that functions as a placeholder for a noun in another clause, a relative (adjectival clause) is a clause that qualifies or modifies a noun in another clause, so it is highly desirable that grammars of languages, as the one you hypothetized about, that do not have words that function as relative pronouns in indoeuropean languages, it is highly desirable that grammars of that language do not use the label "relative pronoun" for a word that does not function as relative pronoun. >>> But that's not how it works in >>> English. >> >> Certainly. SignatureSaludos cordiales Javi Mood conjugation: I enjoy a drop You never say no He is an alcoholic (Craig Brown) >"Javi" <poziyoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> writes >> Danny Kodicek escribe : >> > "meirman" <meirman@invalid.com> writes >> >>> Can anyone give me the correct versions of these below? Thanks: >> >>> "A woman named Christine, who we are informed is a leading >> >>> psychotherapist". >> >>> "A woman named Christine, whom we are informed is a leading >> >>> psychotherapist". >> >> Who. As he said. >> > Surely we can't tell unless we know whether Christine is the subject >> > or object of the sentence from which the fragment is taken (although >> > most people would use 'who' in either case, of course). What about: >> > We are going to meet a woman named Christine, whom we are informed is >> > a leading psychotherapist. >> Wrong, dead wrong. As others have said, "who" is the subject of "is". >No, I was considering 'who' to be in agreement with the case of the word it >refers to, in this case 'Christine'. I'd argue that 'whom' is potentially >correct even if we remove the 'we are informed' altogether, although it >certainly sounds more awkward! Ah, there's the source of the misunderstanding. English doesn't have case agreement. Relative pronouns derive their case (such as it is, and optionally) not from agreement with the case of their head noun in the matrix clause, but from their use in the subordinate relative clause they introduce. Consequently the 'who' in question, since it is the subject of 'is a leading psychotherapist' (even though it's separated from its verb phrase by an intervening 'we are informed'), does have to be the subject form 'who', and not the object form 'whom'. What fossils of case are left in English, fewer than half a dozen words in total, are most often used without regard to any actual notions of case, or in accord with startlingly original theories like relative pronoun case agreement, which is something English has never had. It's because there are these incorrect ad hoc assumptions floating around that I recommend that nobody ever use 'whom'. Ever. It's dead. Bury it. -John Lawler http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler Michigan Linguistics ----------------------------------------------------------- "It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself." -- Thomas Jefferson jlawler@zektor.gpcc.itd.umich.edu (John Lawler) wrote on 08 Jan 2004: [...] > It's because there are these incorrect ad hoc assumptions floating > around that I recommend that nobody ever use 'whom'. Ever. It's > dead. Bury it. That may be true, but there are plenty of us who-necrophiliacs about. It won't die for us until we lose our senses, I'm afraid. Otherwise, I agree with everything you said here. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. jlawler@zektor.gpcc.itd.umich.edu (John Lawler) wrote in message news:<qCdLb.624> > It's because there are these incorrect ad hoc assumptions floating around > that I recommend that nobody ever use 'whom'. Ever. It's dead. Bury it. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > "It is error alone which needs the support of government. > Truth can stand by itself." -- Thomas Jefferson Hurray! I agree. When in doubt, leave m out! Of course, many people with this weird "an appositive must agree with the word it's in apposition to" idea aren't in doubt... Have you read Theodore Bernstein's essay "Whom's Doom" in _Dos, Don'ts, and Maybes of English Usage_? He did think that "whom" should be retained as object of a preposition, but back then, people weren't as likely to say, "This will be awarded to whomever does best." And his who/whom test is a delight. Cece > It's because there are these incorrect ad hoc assumptions floating > around that I recommend that nobody ever use 'whom'. Ever. It's > dead. Bury it. Moribund, perhaps, but hardly dead. > Surely we can't tell unless we know whether Christine is the subject or > object of the sentence from which the fragment is taken (although most > people would use 'who' in either case, of course). What about: Here is the actual article; judge for yourself, and please can I have a simple definitive answer to both questions? Thanks http://www.freehomepages.com/itma99/satan_wants_you.html > > Surely we can't tell unless we know whether Christine is the subject or > > object of the sentence from which the fragment is taken (although most [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://www.freehomepages.com/itma99/satan_wants_you.html [original sentences asked about restored] Note that in both the UK and the US the concluding period (full stop) in each example sentence should precede the concluding quotation mark. I ignore that issue in my following comments. > "A woman named Christine, who we are informed is a leading > psychotherapist". That is correct and requires no emending, though it would not be improper to put commas around "we are informed." "A woman named Christine, whom we are informed is a leading psychotherapist". That is incorrect. Use the first example instead. SignatureBob Lieblich Next? In alt.english.usage on Thu, 8 Jan 2004 10:54:58 -0000 "Danny Kodicek" <dragon@well-spring.co.uk> posted: >> In alt.english.usage on Wed, 7 Jan 2004 23:13:20 +0000 Alexander Baron >> <a_baron@abaron.demon.co.uk> posted: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >We are going to meet a woman named Christine, whom we are informed is a >leading psychotherapist. No. People have been using "whom" there lately (or maybe forever), but they are wrong. All that matters is what role the word would play in "____ is a leading psychotherapist ____" Who- is not expected to agree with the case of Christine. You can argue that its potentially correct but it's just a rather common error. (Got to be blunt sometimes. Sorry.) >Compare 'Brethren, be sober, be vigilant, because thine adversary the devil >as a roaring lion walketh about seeking whom he may devour, whom resist, >steadfast in the faith'. (Yes, I know that from memory, having had to listen >to it every Monday evening for five long years). Not the same thing. He may devour whom. He may resist whom. It's whom because it is the direct object of those two phrases, not beause of what preceded the word in the whole sentence. >Danny s/ meirman If you are emailing me please say if you are posting the same response. Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years Indianapolis, 7 years Chicago, 6 years Brooklyn NY 12 years Baltimore 20 years |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.