To whom/whom

Share on Facebook

Casi

#70773 Sat, 29 Jan 05 10:55 AM

So the problem I'm still in the mud of is why English native speakers feel odd when they hear a who-question of double objects sentences

Let's go back to the original statement:

Taishukan's "Genius E-J Dictionary" pp 788.
(4) 'Give IO DO' cannot be changed into a wh-question with "who(m)" as IO: (x) "Who(m) did you give the book?". In this case use 'Give DO to IO': "Who(m) did you give the book to?" or "To who(m) did you give the book?"

What the author should have explained--or maybe did explain--is this: With IO incorporation (i.e., gave a book to him => gave him a book), the preposition is absorbed by the verb, and in order to make that IO incorporated sentence into a question, the IO has to be taken out of the verb's semantic frame, which means the preposition "to" needs to go along as well:

1. I gave him the book. (OK)
2. I gave whom the book. (OK)
3. *Whom I gave the book? (Not OK according to your text; "to" needs to be overtly realized)

"to" is overtly realized
a. I gave the book to whom?
b. Whom did you give the book to?

"to" is covertly realized
c. Whom did you give the book (to)? ("to" is implied)
d. (to) Whom did you give the book? ("to" is implied)

e. I gave him the book. ("to" is absorbed by the verb)
f. *Whom did you give the book? ("to" is absored by the interrogative pronoun)

Example f. brings us full circle, back to the original discussion: Is is OK to omit "to" from d.? In my opinion, f. is acceptable if "to" is implied (e.g., Whom did you give the book (to)?), so the ungrammaticality ( * ) your text is referring to appears to be "absorption", or "to" being absorbed into the interrogative pronoun. It cannot be done, according to your text.

But is that true? That's the real question.

Hope that helps.

Casi

Joined on Sat, Sep 25 2004

Regular Member (547)

Verbs, Prepositions, Nouns, Pronouns, Whom

paco2004

#70883 Sat, 29 Jan 05 08:37 PM

Hello Casi

Thank you again for your detailed explanation. But I am sorry I have to say that I cannot still get what you mean by the word 'incorporation'. First I thought your 'incorporation' meant something like 'housing', that is, the IO functions as a house of the DO in the SVOO sentences. But I think this idea can't explain why we cannot move the house ('whom') to the head of the sentence. This time seemingly you presented a modification to it that 'give' can work to mean either 'give' itself and 'give to'.

"to" is covertly realized
c. Whom did you give the book (to)? ("to" is implied)
d. (to) Whom did you give the book? ("to" is implied)

What do you mean by 'being covertly realized'

e. I gave him the book. ("to" is absorbed by the verb)
f. *Whom did you give the book? ("to" is absored by the interrogative pronoun)
Example f. brings us full circle, back to the original discussion: Is is OK to omit "to" from d.? In my opinion, f. is acceptable if "to" is implied (e.g., Whom did you give the book (to)?), so the ungrammaticality ( * ) your text is referring to appears to be "absorption", or "to" being absorbed into the interrogative pronoun. It cannot be done, according to your text.

I cannot get what you mean here, above all what you mean by "absorption" (I know what the word means in chemistry as I'm a university professor in environment engineering fields)

The Taishukan's dictionary explains the constraints on SVOO clearly but it gives no clues why they are so. I've tried to get the reason by searching grammar books as well as online grammar sites. But I could find it nowhere. I also tried to interpret the constraints with help of some Chomskians' idea (the idea that the SVOO is virtually a causative sentence). I understood the idea cannot fit to explain why we cannot make wh-questioning sentences without 'to'. Actually causative sentences can be changed grammatically into wh-questioning sentences without 'to', as you see in the previous postings. So I sought for another way to get the answers, and what I came across was the explanation on the ground of historical grammar change that was stated in the previous posting.

Well let's return to the new posting of yours. From now on I'll use who* as a substitute of who of objective use. Many people here seem to be uncomfortable with (whom). Anyway using this notation, we can rewrite what you wrote as follows:.
#1) I gave him the book.
#2) I gave who* the book.
About #2) I have changed my thought. I come to feel that who* by itself doesn't work as a dative object in English.

Maybe we can classify objective English pronouns into two groups.
me, you, him/her, us : accusative, dative, post-prepositional
it, what, who* : accusative, post-prepositional, (not dative)
And so, I guess, in making a wh-interrogative, native English speakers change a personal noun/pronoun to to who* when they sense that noun or pronoun works as a dative in the sentence, namely in the sentence of double objects (SVOO). Thus #2) should be,
#2) I gave to who* the book.

It seems to me that in English it is very important whether a NP is personal or non-personal. You use personal NPs as either accusative or dative. But you don't use non-personal NPs as dative. I don't know how come this kind of distinction came into English, but my guess is it was established during the time case declension of nouns was getting degraded. Anyway, as the consequence, you add 'to' to a NP when you want to get the NP to have a dative case to a non-personal NP. So you would say:
I gave to the church money ---> I gave money to the church --->I donated money to the church.

Anyway I am now puzzled at the question why any professional linguists didn't study on this important issue.

paco

paco2004

Joined on Wed, Nov 17 2004

Senior Member (4,095)

In Japan today even dogs are learning how to bow-wow in English.

Grammar, Verbs, Nouns, Pronouns, Universities, Whom, Accusative

MrPedantic

#70909 Sat, 29 Jan 05 11:43 PM

{I stand admiringly on the sidelines.}
{The ball comes out of play. I pick it up and throw it back in again:}

We can say 'I gave the church money', though.

{I return to the sidelines and continue to watch admiringly.}

MrP

MrPedantic

Joined on Tue, Oct 12 2004

Veteran Member (12,167)

...opella forensis / adducit febris...

Whom

paco2004

#70916 Sun, 30 Jan 05 12:50 AM

Hello again

I would like to write an interesting phenomenon just came across to me(Casi would tease me saying that I'm sticking to the line but I don't mind it)

What I'd like to write is this;
Some English speakers say "I wrote him" and others "I wrote to him". I think the personal object of the action "to write a letter" is semantically interpreted as dative. I guess the former speakers use "him" in the sense of a dative pronoun or they are not conscious about the cases at all. The latter speakers may sense out that the object's case should be dative and so they choose rather 'to him' than a simple 'him'.

What do you think about this guess work of mine? Any opinions are welcome.

paco

[PS] I checked by Google about the wh-interrogative of "I wrote (to) someone". As far as I can look over, almost all the people are using the sentences of the construct "Who did you write ?" (PP is either 'to', 'for' or 'about'). I cannot find sentences like "Who did you write?". Do you feel it is acceptable?

paco2004

Nouns, Pronouns, Whom

Casi

#70981 Sun, 30 Jan 05 11:17 AM

Hi Paco,

I hope this helps out some.

1) The term "incorporation" means to include as a part. Given a ditransitive verb of the kind V+DO+IO, the first two elements (V and DO) form a primary constituent, to which a third element (IO) is added on:

[V DO] [IO]

Now, with some ditransitive verbs, the third element shifts positions, or rather appears to do so given the linear ordering. IO and the DO appear to switch places, for example,

[V] [IO] [DO]

But that's not the case. What actually takes place is a merger of sorts, called incorporation. The IO is included within, or added to the primary constituent, like this,

Before: [V DO] [IO] => After: [V [IO] DO]

The IO is no longer outside the primary constituent. It's now part of it. It has been included, incorporated.

2) The term "covert realization" means, undecover, not there for the naked eye to see, but nonetheless seen by the mind's eye. It refers to words that don't make it into the surface structure (the written or spoken word) but are there at an underlying level. For example, the DO in 1. and 2. below has been omitted--a type of covert realization. The DO is not there for the naked eye to see, but the mind's eye knows it's there.

1. I wrote to him. => I wrote a letter to him.
2. I wrote him. => I wrote him a letter.

3) The term "absorption" is a process whereby a word's semantic contribution is soaked up the verb, which means its phonological form is not necessary. For example,

I gave a letter to him => Absorption: I gave him a letter. (Note, Where is "to"?)

The meaning expressed by the preposition "to" has been absorbed by the verb. So, *I gave to the church money is ungrammatical. ("to" is not required).

4) Linguists have indeed studied ditransitive verbs. Have you tried an online search? There is a great deal written about that subject, paco. Please research the topic further.

5)

From now on I'll use who* as a substitute of who of objective use. Many people here seem to be uncomfortable with (whom).

Well, it would be best if you'd stick to the norm. "who(m)" is the appropriate form. Using * makes it appear as if "who" is ungrammatical in that position. (By the way, your #2 should be, "I gave who* the book?" It's a question.)

6) I don't see a need, yet, or rather don't fully understand the need to re-classify the pronouns. Could you expand on that a little more?

Casi

Verbs, Prepositions, Nouns, Pronouns, Whom

paco2004

#70990 Sun, 30 Jan 05 12:47 PM

Casi

Thank you again as usual.

As to explaining the difference between the constructs of SVOO and SVO to O, the Chomskian theory is someway persuasive (I have learned the theory through the online resources given by Professor Beatrice Santorini at Pennsylvania University). But I don't think the theory can give us a definite answer to the question why we cannot to construct a wh-interrogative like "Who(m) did you give the book". Sounds you talked something about it, but I'm sorry I have to say I cannot understand you, My answer to the question is very simple: English speaking people don't have a notion that 'who(m)' can function as a question word for IO, namely, dative objects. They take it [='who(m)'] only as a question word for DO (accusative objects). So when they want to make a wh-question in regard to an object which should be overtly dative, they have to use 'to who(m)' instead of 'who(m)'.

Casi, I think we have discussed a lot about this issue. It was a great discussion thanks to you. I really appreciate it. But I don't think we could get immediately to a complete agreement even if we continue this discussion further. So I think we had better suspend this discussion for a while. Couldn't you agree?

paco

paco2004

Regards, Difference Between, Universities, Whom, Accusative

Casi

#71132 Mon, 31 Jan 05 03:46 AM

So I think we had better suspend this discussion for a while. Couldn't you agree?

Yes. I couldn't agree more. (try, "Wouldn't you agree?")

On a closing note, then, I'd like to add that I see your point quite clearly now:

[Native speakers] take "whom" only as a question word for DO (accusative objects). So when they want to make a wh-question in regard to an object which should be overtly dative, they have to use 'to who(m)' instead of 'who(m)'.

Yes. That's a good observation on your part, Paco, and it's true. "whom" is accusative/objective, and it's found in the pre-positional phrase "to whom":

whom1 (object)
EX: I gave the book to whom? => Who did I give the book to?

whom2 ("to" absorption)
EX: I gave whom the book? => *Whom did I give the book?

All the best,

Casi