 |
 | 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 / March 2008The old 'WHO' and 'WHOM' question...........AGAIN
Which if the following sentences is correct? " I sometimes seem like who I am not." Or "I sometimes seem like whom I am not". This is NOT my sentence and, aside from the fact that it is both awkward and stilted, it seems the sentence, to me, has only one object when it should have two: "I sometimes seem like a person who(m) I am not". So which is it? Who or Whom? And should the sentence require an additional object? Any help would be appreciated. Tx > Which if the following sentences is correct? > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > So which is it? Who or Whom? I hardly ever use "whom", and I'd say a safe rule is to use "who" when a case can be made for either. Also, if you add "a person", as you suggest, or "someone", then "who" is the only possibility, so you can think of the sentence as short for your second version. Finally, you can probably think of "who I am not" as the object of "like", and again traditional grammar calls for "who" there. (It would be absurd to mix the modern "I am him" or "I am her" with the obsolescent "whom".) > And should the sentence require an additional object? ... It does require one, in my version of English, unless it's a deliberate archaism. -- Jerry Friedman On 21 Mar, 15:48, "jerry_fried...@yahoo.com" <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote: > the obsolescent > "whom". I am not one of those, for whom "whom" is obsolescent. -- WH > On 21 Mar, 15:48, "jerry_fried...@yahoo.com" > <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> the obsolescent >> "whom". > I am not one of those, for whom "whom" is obsolescent. Whom is in no way obsolescent. People have been predicting its demise for nigh on a century now. The simplest rule, and really always correct is, if you answer the implied question will you say he or him? If him, use whom. Whom did you call? (I called him) To Whom where you referring? (I was referring to him) Who was talking on the phone? (He was) Who gave you that card? (He did)  SignatureThis above all, to thine own self be true And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man. > In message <4b5ed049-ef40-4fe7-bbae-e761ac2d4...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com> > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Whom is in no way obsolescent. People have been predicting its demise for nigh on a century now. Those two statements are consistent, you know. Let me try to get some non-dispositive facts. Google Books won't let you search for "who", so I tried to compare two similar phrases. The ratio is, I think, the significant number. 2000-2008 "one who": 32,200 "one whom": 1630 Ratio: 20 1990-1999 "one who": 13,100 "one whom": 985 Ratio: 13 1980-1989 "one who": 6850 "one whom": 851 Ratio: 8.0 1970-1979 "one who": 6630 "one whom": 906 Ratio: 7.3 1900-1910 "one who": 5530 "one whom": 1282 Ratio: 4.3 Of course, there's a lot more to say before you could prove anything this way, but I think it suggests that "whom" may indeed be obsolescent, as I casually said. I would never suggest that means anyone should stop using it. After all, I write "on line", which I have to admit is obsolete. > The simplest rule, and really always correct is, if you answer the implied > question will you say he or him? If him, use whom. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Who was talking on the phone? (He was) > Who gave you that card? (He did) There are still a few tricky ones, such as the dreaded "Who(m) do you think to be the culprit?" (because the he/him question is tricky). -- Jerry Friedman On Mar 22, 3:31 pm, "jerry_fried...@yahoo.com" <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote: > There are still a few tricky ones, such as the dreaded > "Who(m) do you think to be the culprit?" (because the > he/him question is tricky). In what way is it tricky? I think _him_ to be the culprit. ("him", because it's the direct object of "think", so therefore, the correct question is "Who do you think to be the culprit." That's an unusual phrasing, though. You're much more likely to hear "Who do you think is the culprit?" This is correct, because the answer is "I think _he_ is the culprit." I like that particular test. I can't think of a case in which it would fail, except "Who do you think you are?" The correct answer is "I think I am he," but some would answer "I think I am him," and muddy the water. -- Stefano > On Mar 22, 3:31 pm, "jerry_fried...@yahoo.com" > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > "I think I am he," but some would answer "I think I am him," and muddy > the water. You're right. The tricky one is "Who(m) do you think the culprit to be?" and "I think the culprit to be he/him." -- Jerry Friedman doesn't say that a whole lot. > "jerry_fried...@yahoo.com" wrote: >> There are still a few tricky ones, such as the dreaded >> "Who(m) do you think to be the culprit?" (because the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > object of "think", so therefore, the correct question is "Who do you > think to be the culprit." I think you meant to write "Whom do you think to be the culprit." > That's an unusual phrasing, though. You're much more likely to hear > "Who do you think is the culprit?" This is correct, because the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "I think I am he," but some would answer "I think I am him," and muddy > the water. SignatureSkitt (AmE) No NESsie, but oh, so close ... > Mar 22, 3:31 pm, "jerry_fried...@yahoo.com" wrote > ><...>> "Who(m) do you think to be the culprit?" <...> > In what way is it tricky? > I think _him_ to be the culprit. ("him", because it's the direct >object of "think", so therefore, the correct question is "Who[m] do you >think to be the culprit." <...> "Whom" is correct as you say, but not because it is the object of "think," which it is not. The entire phrase is the direct object ("him to be the culprit"). "Whom" is in the objective case because of the rule that states that the subject of nonfinite verbs (to-infinitives, bare infinitives, and participles) is in the objective case. That is also coincidentally true in classical Latin grammar, so there is nothing about the English grammar rule that is in any way modern or unique. Other examples: "I like her to finish the cleaning quickly." [which one can say even if one does not like her] "What? Him marry my daughter?" This grammar feature also explains the tendency of native speakers to say "I don't like him coming so early." Some rule-enforcers who know a lot of grammar (but not quite as much as they think they do) call that wrong, because they interpret "coming" as a gerund, which should take "his," instead of the speaker's own analysis of it as a participle (a nonfinite verb), which must have its subject in the objective case. > On 21 Mar, 15:48, "jerry_fried...@yahoo.com" > <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> the obsolescent >> "whom". > > I am not one of those, for whom "whom" is obsolescent. I use it consistently after a preposition. My use is more sporadic when it's the direct object of a verb and the object comes immediately after the verb. This puts me, I suspect, in the majority camp, although that assertion is based on vaguely-noticed evidence. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >> On 21 Mar, 15:48, "jerry_fried...@yahoo.com" >> <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the verb. This puts me, I suspect, in the majority camp, although that > assertion is based on vaguely-noticed evidence. Right, but I've run into trouble with this... isn't there some rule that "whoever" takes its case from its own function in the clause, not from the preposition? (a) I am waiting for whomever can explain the riddle. (b) I am waiting for whoever can explain the riddle. I have had editors correct my (b) to (a), and then I ask: what is the subject of "can"? Can't be "whomever," because it's not nominative. (One editor said that "I" was the subject.) dleifker AmE >>> <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> the obsolescent "whom". >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > subject of "can"? Can't be "whomever," because it's not nominative. > (One editor said that "I" was the subject.) They don't make editors like they used to. SignatureSkitt (AmE) been there for a bit >>> On 21 Mar, 15:48, "jerry_fried...@yahoo.com" >>> <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > subject of "can"? Can't be "whomever," because it's not nominative. > (One editor said that "I" was the subject.) The editors should have noticed that (b) is simply an example of I am waiting for <noun phrase>. More importantly, they should have noticed that (a) is not a sentence. "I am waiting for whomever" is a sentence, but of course it means something different. The slightly more controversial I am waiting for she who much be obeyed is often criticised on the grounds that the comma (invisible to everyone except the critics) after "she" forces "she" to be "her". SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. > > > > On 21 Mar, 15:48, "jerry_fried...@yahoo.com" > >>><jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > is often criticised on the grounds that the comma (invisible to > everyone except the critics) after "she" forces "she" to be "her". Anyone who says that there is an invisible comma after "her" is insane: there is obviously comma nor is there a comma intended. The noun phrase "she who must be obeyed" is no different from a single word. The relative "who must be obeyed" is a defining clause that makes it restrictive, which means there cannot be a comma. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. Cynical by nature, by habit, and by choice. Native speaker of American; posting from Taiwan. "It has come to my attention that my opinions are not universally shared; ergo, they are not in the public domain." Anymouse. >> The slightly more controversial >> I am waiting for she who much be obeyed >> is often criticised on the grounds that the comma (invisible to >> everyone except the critics) after "she" forces "she" to be "her". > Anyone who says that there is an invisible comma after "her" is insane: > there is obviously comma nor is there a comma intended. The noun phrase > "she who must be obeyed" is no different from a single word. The > relative "who must be obeyed" is a defining clause that makes it > restrictive, which means there cannot be a comma. You know that. Peter knows that. I know that (though I couldn't have explained WHY as you did). But there's a lot of people out there who were never taught English... and more than a few of them are editors. SignatureIn other news, Gandalf died. -- Secret Diary of Boromir > [snip] > But there's a lot of people out there who were never taught English... > and more than a few of them are editors. "there *is* a lot of people"??? I bet there *are*! Signature~ ~ Roy >> [snip] >> But there's a lot of people out there who were never taught English... >> and more than a few of them are editors. > >"there *is* a lot of people"??? I bet there *are*! Like it or not, in informal English the contraction "there's" can be plural. It is much easy to say, and more readily understood, than "there're" (there are). SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >> [snip] >> But there's a lot of people out there who were never taught >> English... and more than a few of them are editors. > > "there *is* a lot of people"??? I bet there *are*! Maybe Lewis was writing about another lot of them. SignatureSkitt (AmE) you never know, you know > > > > > On 21 Mar, 15:48, "jerry_fried...@yahoo.com" > > >>><jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > there is obviously comma nor is there a comma intended. The noun phrase > "she who must be obeyed" is no different from a single word. And thus it should be "She-who-must-be-obeyed" (as Haggard wrote it-- thanks to Google Books) or "She Who Must Be Obeyed" (as Mortimer did) or "SWMBO". If we're not dealing with a fixed phrase, something like "I am waiting for she who is often late but has charming excuses" is Dead Wrong. > The > relative "who must be obeyed" is a defining clause that makes it > restrictive, which means there cannot be a comma. I thinking obeyers of She's are better off not analyzing the phrase. -- Jerry Friedman On Mar 21, 10:23 pm, Peter Moylan <pe...@DIESPAMMERSDIEpmoylan.org> wrote: > The slightly more controversial > "I am waiting for she who much be obeyed," is often > criticised on the grounds that the comma (invisible to > everyone except the critics) after "she" forces "she" to > be "her". But the "she" is not a pronoun here, and not subject to case distinceion. It's part of Rumpole's nickname for his wife. I'd find fault with the capitalization (which, come to think if it, is a different kind of "case" distinction). "I am waiting for She Who Must Be Obeyed." -- Stefano > On Mar 21, 10:23 pm, Peter Moylan <pe...@DIESPAMMERSDIEpmoylan.org> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > "I am waiting for She Who Must Be Obeyed." Ah; but, you see, I am living with a different world. My present conflicts are with She Who Used to Be Obeyed. (SWUBO) SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. > (a) I am waiting for whomever can explain the riddle. > (b) I am waiting for whoever can explain the riddle. (a) Sounds wrong. More than that, it sounds like it is trying too hard to be right, and failing. SignatureThis above all, to thine own self be true And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man. Yes, alternative (b) is much better -- in THIS sentence. DSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas >> (a) I am waiting for whomever can explain the riddle. >> (b) I am waiting for whoever can explain the riddle. > > (a) Sounds wrong. More than that, it sounds like it is trying too hard to > be right, and failing. > Yes, alternative (b) is much better -- in THIS sentence. Dost thou have the knowledge to explain why that is the case? Its a little test.... >> Yes, alternative (b) is much better -- in THIS sentence. > >Dost thou have the knowledge to explain why that is the case? Its a >little test.... This should be good... Maybe he figured he had a 50 per cent chance of being right? James > Yes, alternative (b) is much better -- in THIS sentence. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> (a) Sounds wrong. More than that, it sounds like it is trying too hard to >> be right, and failing. (b) as the verb can has the subject whoever. Skraedder > >> On 21 Mar, 15:48, "jerry_fried...@yahoo.com" > >> <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > subject of "can"? Can't be "whomever," because it's not nominative. > (One editor said that "I" was the subject.) Mark Israel's FAQ claims, without a source, 'The case of "whoever" is determined by its function in the dependent clause that it introduces, not by its function in the main clause: "I like whoever likes me." "Whomever I like likes me."' http://www.alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxwhomxx.html This agrees with your (b). My advice is that some people here and elsewhere still use "whom", but I can see no reason to hold onto "whomever". -- Jerry Friedman >>>> jerry_fried...@yahoo.com wrote: >>>>> the obsolescent "whom". >>>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > My advice is that some people here and elsewhere still use "whom", but > I can see no reason to hold onto "whomever". Who says there has to be a reason? It's English, you know. SignatureSkitt (AmE) reasonable, but only at times > " I sometimes seem like who I am not." > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > awkward and stilted, it seems the sentence, to me, has only one object > when it should have two: The verb TO BE/IS is particularly irregular, but grammarians agree it cannot have a direct object. Thus I am I is correct, as is He is he. WHOM in case 2 is in the objective/accusative case, thus is wrong. Case 1 is correct. The choice between LIKE WHO/LIKE WHOM is avoided by rephrasing. (This is common.) We could write: I sometimes seem unlike myself, or something similar. SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) >>" I sometimes seem like who I am not." >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > I sometimes seem unlike myself, > or something similar. Who am I to disagree. --Jeff Signature"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist." - Winston Churchill, Nov. 21, 1943 >>>" I sometimes seem like who I am not." >>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Who am I to disagree. Travel the world and the seven seas Everybody's looking for something SignatureRay UK > Which if the following sentences is correct? > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Tx Thanks for the clarification guys. I would have asked my English teacher but she died in 1982. Mark Z. > Thanks for the clarification guys. I would have asked my English > teacher but she died in 1982. How sad. She'd probably been waiting for years for someone to ask that question. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. > Thanks for the clarification guys. And who are these "clarification guys" of whom you speak? -- Stefano >> Thanks for the clarification guys. > > And who are these "clarification guys" of whom you speak? The male denizens of AUE. Their female counterparts are known as the "clarification gals". By the way, the hyphen-hyphen-space in your signature is lacking the space. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >>> Thanks for the clarification guys. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > By the way, the hyphen-hyphen-space in your signature is lacking the > space. It's there for me, using OE with QuoteFix. SignatureMike. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >Peter Moylan wrote: [A signature] >> By the way, the hyphen-hyphen-space in your signature is lacking the >> space. Across the wires the electric message came: it was no better, it was much the same, here, served up with nospace. >It's there for me, using OE with QuoteFix. I'd say QuoteFix is trying to be helpful (and in this instance succeeding in its object). SignaturePaul >> Peter Moylan wrote: > [A signature] [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Across the wires the electric message came: it was no better, it was > much the same, here, served up with nospace. That is so insightful I could almost cry. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >> Peter Moylan wrote: > [A signature] [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Across the wires the electric message came: it was no better, it was > much the same, here, served up with nospace. That's what I saw too, using OE with QuoteFix. >> It's there for me, using OE with QuoteFix. >> > I'd say QuoteFix is trying to be helpful (and in this instance > succeeding in its object). It doesn't actually insert a space, but it does snip the signature as if the separator was correct. SignatureRegards John for mail: my initials plus a u e at tpg dot com dot au Peter Moylan wrote, in <13ucg6q7r2bop6a@corp.supernews.com> on Sun, 23 Mar 2008 22:36:58 +1100: > >> Thanks for the clarification guys. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > By the way, the hyphen-hyphen-space in your signature is lacking the space. It probably started out with one but GG lost it. SignatureNick Spalding BrE/IrE Nick Spalding filted: >Peter Moylan wrote, in <13ucg6q7r2bop6a@corp.supernews.com> > on Sun, 23 Mar 2008 22:36:58 +1100: >> >> By the way, the hyphen-hyphen-space in your signature is lacking the space. > >It probably started out with one but GG lost it. GG doesn't "lose" things; it willfully destroys them and then kicks the flinders under the rug....r SignatureWhat good is being an executive if you never get to execute anyone? > Thanks for the clarification guys. I would have asked my English > teacher but she died in 1982. Which reminds one of the reported last words of French grammarian Dominique Bouhours (presumably translated from French): "I am about to -- or I am going to -- die: either expression is correct." And also this true story. The daughter of my fabulous high school English teacher told me this. Her mother the elderly retired English teacher had retreated far into the dementia of Alzheimers, and didn't know who her daughter was or where she herself was at any given time. But when a nurse asked her to "lay down on the table" she immediately and firmly snapped back "LIE down on the table!" >> Thanks for the clarification guys. I would have asked my English >> teacher but she died in 1982. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >asked her to "lay down on the table" she immediately and firmly snapped back >"LIE down on the table!" Wonderful! SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) |
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.