Who or whom?

This is a discussion thread · 49 replies
1 2 3 4 5 6
Alexander Baron:
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..."

http://www.freehomepages.com/itma99 /
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.
CyberCypher:
Alexander Baron wrote on 08 Jan 2004:
[nq:1]Can anyone give me the correct versions of these below? Thanks: "A woman named Christine, who we are informed is a leading psychotherapist".[/nq]
This is the correct version: "who . . . is a leading . . ." "who" is the subject of "is".
[nq:1]"A woman named Christine, whom we are informed is a leading psychotherapist". And "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..."[/nq]
I think this is the correct version because it indicates that someone has deliberately replaced all the As with Bs.

Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor.
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.
meirman:
[nq:1]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".[/nq]
Who. As he said.
[nq:1]And "they must be purged from our media and replaced by intelligent, unbiased men and women of integrity whose commitment ... and replaced with intelligent, unbiased men and women of integrity whose commitment is to truth and tracking down real terrorists..."[/nq]
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
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.
Danny Kodicek:
[nq:2]Can anyone give me the correct versions of these below? ... named Christine, whom we are informed is a leading psychotherapist".[/nq]
[nq:1]Who. As he said.[/nq]
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
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.
Donna Richoux:
[nq:2]Who. As he said.[/nq]
[nq:1]Surely we can't tell unless we know whether Christine is the subject or object of the sentence from which the ... course). What about: We are going to meet a woman named Christine, whom we are informed is a leading psychotherapist.[/nq]
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.
[nq:1]Compare 'Brethren, be sober, be vigilant, because thine adversary the devil as a roaring lion walketh about seeking whom he ... faith'. (Yes, I know that from memory, having had to listen to it every Monday evening for five long years).[/nq]
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 adversarythe devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:

9   Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing thatthe 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 youknow 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.

Best Donna Richoux
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.
Javi:
[nq:2]Who. As he said.[/nq]
[nq:1]Surely we can't tell unless we know whether Christine is the subject or object of the sentence from which the ... course). What about: We are going to meet a woman named Christine, whom we are informed is a leading psychotherapist.[/nq]
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
[nq:1]Compare 'Brethren, be sober, be vigilant, because thine adversary the devil as a roaring lion walketh about seeking whom he ... faith'. (Yes, I know that from memory, having had to listen to it every Monday evening for five long years).[/nq]
And? That is a different case.

Saludos cordiales
Javi
Mood conjugation:
I enjoy a drop
You never say no
He is an alcoholic
(Craig Brown)
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.
Danny Kodicek:
[nq:2]Surely we can't tell unless we know whether Christine is ... named Christine, whom we are informed is a leading psychotherapist.[/nq]
[nq:1]Wrong, dead wrong. As others have said, "who" is the subject of "is".Maybe the correct punctuation will make it clearer: ... of "We are going to meet a woman named Christine, of whom we are informedthat she is a leading psychotherapist."[/nq]
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!
[nq:1]I am not sure if this is idiomatic in English, but I guess that that, or something similar, is what you were thinking of[/nq]
[nq:2]Compare 'Brethren, be sober, be vigilant, because thine adversary the ... listen to it every Monday evening for five long years).[/nq]
[nq:1]And? That is a different case.[/nq]
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
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.
Javi:
[nq:2]Wrong, dead wrong. As others have said, "who" is the ... whom we are informed that she is a leading psychotherapist."[/nq]
[nq:1]No, I was considering 'who' to be in agreement with the case of the word it refers to, in this case 'Christine'.[/nq]
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.
[nq:1]I'd argue that 'whom' is potentially correct even if we remove the 'we are informed' altogether, although it certainly sounds more awkward![/nq]
Argue if you feel like, but it is wrong.
[nq:2]I am not sure if this is idiomatic in English, ... you were thinking of And? That is a different case.[/nq]
[nq:1]Not really: although this is a more complicated sentence (and admittedly sounds awkward as all hell!), you could argue that ... phrase. But in this sentence, X refers to the object of 'whom he may devour', and therefore agrees with it.[/nq]
No, it refers to the Devil, as Donna has explained..
[nq:1]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)[/nq]
Argue if you feel like, but it is wrong.

Saludos cordiales
Javi
Mood conjugation:
I enjoy a drop
You never say no
He is an alcoholic
(Craig Brown)
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.
Danny Kodicek:
[nq:2]Not really: although this is a more complicated sentence (and ... of 'whom he may devour', and therefore agrees with it.[/nq]
[nq:1]No, it refers to the Devil, as Donna has explained..[/nq]
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!
[nq:2]I agree that in modern usage, 'who' is correct. But ... correct in the Christine sentence too. (Archaic psychotherapists? Ah well)[/nq]
[nq:1]Argue if you feel like, but it is wrong.[/nq]
Well - I think that the argument was right, but the premise was false Emotion: smile

Danny
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.
Show more
Live chat
Registered users can join here