Linguistics Discussion Forum

Re: Whom was given the book?

Forbes — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 09:11:52 GMT

This is a spin-off from: Post:77524 where (among other things) the sentence 1. '*Whom was given the book?' was discussed. I understand that in AmE, this sentence is acceptable: 2. Whom did you give the book? If 'whom' is acceptable in #2 for 'to whom', is 'whom' acceptable in #1 for 'to whom'? If so, is #1 acceptable as an inversion, with 'book' as subject? 3. 'Whom (IO) was given the book (S)? i.e. 'the book was given to whom?' Just curious. MrP To answer this question we need to look at the sentence: I was given the book. At first glance this looks like a passive construction in which "I" is the subject of the sentence. A moment's...

Re: Whom was given the book?

rhetor — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 20:51:34 GMT

I haven't had a chance to study the entire thread yet, so I'm posting in media res. 1. All language is prescriptive (with the exception of phonetics, which has a demonstrable basis in anatomy); just like any other sort of social behavior. There are no "generative grammar" rules that are hardwired into our brains. For an excellent analysis and refutation of the Chomsky/Pinker nativist position, read "Educating Eve" by linguist Geoffrey Sampson. 2. I can only say: "Who did we offer the job to last year?" This, of course, should be "Whom did we offer the job to last year?"

Re: Whom was given the book?

MrPedantic — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 20:51:34 GMT

Ah! That's much better than the kind of thing I was thinking of. It self-enacts, too. 'The lions were given to eating Christians as their main course'? MrP

Re: Whom was given the book?

CalifJim — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 21:51:34 GMT

I believe the most quoted example of a garden path sentence is The horses raced past the barn fell. (where "raced" is a past participle) CJ

Re: Whom was given the book?

MrPedantic — Mon, 25 May 2009 20:51:34 GMT

in the third sentence, we even reach the end of the sentence with minds still open I hadn't spotted that one! 'Garden path sentence' sounds familiar; or maybe it's just the experience. Where you keep turning corners to find yet another hill ahead. 'Country mile' sentences... MrP

Re: Whom was given the book?

CalifJim — Mon, 25 May 2009 20:51:34 GMT

Note, too, that in the third sentence, we even reach the end of the sentence with minds still open! -- as we might with the spoken version of The lion was given to preying/praying on Christians. (Although the second meaning is infinitely less likely. I'm sure there are very few known cases of pious lions.) The term "garden path" sentence comes to mind. Has anybody but me heard that term? CJ

Re: Whom was given the book?

MrPedantic — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 21:51:34 GMT

Stranded prepositions, mysteriously disappearing prepositions...I'm glad you all stopped for a breather. It gave me a chance to catch up. This aspect I find interesting: 1. The lion was given | the Christian. 2. The lion was given | to the Christian. 3. The lion was given | to eating Christians. 4. The lion was given | ten minutes to eat the Christian. Given these 4 possibilities (are there more?), and licence to insert as many words or phrases as you want after 'given', how long can ambiguity be maintained? (My thought here is that passive ditransitives must somehow be left 'open' in the listener's mind, till some aspect of word order resolves the ambiguity.) MrP

Re: Whom was given the book?

Casi — Mon, 25 May 2009 20:51:34 GMT

It was my attempt at humor. : . . ( (L)

Re: Whom was given the book?

CalifJim — Mon, 25 May 2009 20:51:34 GMT

Hi, Casi! I didn't understand the "Ahem". Maybe you didn't see the humor in those examples? I presented a sentence which was just awful -- so awful that even the "improvement" is awful! It's an "unimprovable sentence"! Not funny to you? Well, I thought so! CJ

Re: Whom was given the book?

CalifJim — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 21:51:34 GMT

The derivational source of (1b) is a double object construction, not a dative construction and wh-movement is disallowed wh-movement is only disallowed if you need a rule that prevents the generation of a sentence that you believe should not be generated because it is not grammatical to you (or to the person who wants to include the rule in the generative grammar). Don't you agree? CJ

Re: Whom was given the book?

CalifJim — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 21:51:34 GMT

The derivational source of (1b) is a double object construction, not a dative construction and wh-movement is disallowed Doesn't a double object mean a dative object and an accusative object? Is there a special terminology called "dative construction" which only includes structure with the preposition "to"? The terminology makes it sound as if putting the pronoun in the double object construction takes away its dativeness, doesn't it? CJ

Re: Whom was given the book?

Casi — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 21:51:34 GMT

I found this hilariously funny! Then I thought, "Gosh, maybe he was serious!" (Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic came to mind!) Ahem, . . . Terry?

Re: Whom was given the book?

CalifJim — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 20:51:34 GMT

I think it's not in standard english Yes? In that case, who do we ask? Who is the authority for saying this is standard English - that is not? Where is the authoritative source of what is included and what is not included in standard English? Or isn't there one? CJ

Re: Whom was given the book?

CalifJim — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 21:51:34 GMT

Hi, eq, I wrote: "Who have we issued the new uniforms with the navy blue stripes so far this month?" (OOF!) You responded: It's better to say "Who have we issued so far this month with the new uniforms with the navy blue stripes." I found this hilariously funny! Then I thought, "Gosh, maybe he was serious!" (Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic came to mind!) CJ

Re: Whom was given the book?

paco2004 — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 20:51:34 GMT

Hi Equivocal Thank you for the nice explanation. And in (1c) as well where the object 'who' is raised to subject position as per passivisation rules, not wh-movement: I think some clue required for soving my doubts would be here. Do you mean 'who was given the book?' is created by using 'prescriptive grammar rules' rather than by 'generative grammar' (I mean a kind of human instinctive brain work by this term)? paco

Re: Whom was given the book?

Casi — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 20:51:34 GMT

CJ: Who did we offer the job last year? (This one doesn't seem at all strange to me!) Eq: It's not ok for me, I think it's not in standard E nglish. Not positive though, someone check it up? I can only say: "Who did we offer the job to last year?" "doesn't sound all that strange to me", either. Not the standard though, as I'm sure Jim would agree. Oddly enough, I've heard something like it (Do Jim and I watch the same TV shows, movies?) I believe it's an example of implied "to".

Re: Whom was given the book?

equivocal — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 21:51:34 GMT

the heavier the complement the more grammatical it seems I mean heavy NP-shifting as you show in this example: Who have we issued the new uniforms with the navy blue stripes so far this month? (OOF!) It's better to say "Who have we issued so far this month with the new uniforms with the navy blue stripes." ... permission to to see the Pope? (?) ... permission to see the Pope to? (?) Sorry, I'm not sure what you are saying with these examples. Who did we offer the job last year? (This one doesn't seem at all strange to me!) It's not ok for me, I think it's not in standard english. Not positive though, someone check it up? I can only say: "Who did we offer the job to last year?" eq

Re: Whom was given the book?

equivocal — Mon, 25 May 2009 20:51:34 GMT

Ok, here's what a friend of mine said... 1a. who did you give the book to? 1b. *who did you give the book? 1c. who was given the book? The derivational source of (1a) is as discussed previously: you give the book to who? -> who did you give the book to (wh-wovement and do-support) The derivational source of (1b) is a double object construction, not a dative construction and wh-movement is disallowed: you give who the book -> *who-i did you give the book Ti (wh-movement and do-support) And in (1c) as well where the object 'who' is raised to subject position as per passivisation rules, not wh-movement: (null) give who the book -> who was given the book (null) eq

Re: Whom was given the book?

paco2004 — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 21:51:34 GMT

Hello People For me it's very difficult to get the logics that underlie the passive voice of ditransitive verbs. You could say both (1) and (2): (1) I gave Mary the book. (2) I gave the book to Mary. As a passive voice for (1), you would say either: (3) The book was given Mary. (4) Mary was given the book. But you would pasivize (2) only into (5), not (6); (5) The book was given to Mary. (6) * Mary was given the book to. And still queerer to me is you'd not passivize (7) the way like (8) (7) I wrote him a letter. (8) * He was written a letter. How come such messy rules to exist? Could anyone explain the logics behind them? paco

Re: Whom was given the book?

CalifJim — Mon, 25 May 2009 20:51:34 GMT

the heavier the complement the more grammatical it seems Yes, Yes, Yes!!!!! But what's that about? The applicants had all lined up at the Vatican. As the officials looked them over, the big question on their minds was "Who would the officials grant permission to see the Pope?" ... permission to to see the Pope? (?) ... permission to see the Pope to ? (?) Who did we offer the job last year? (This one doesn't seem at all strange to me!) Who has the boss assigned the duty of cleaning the kitchen? ... cleaning the kitchen to ? (?) Who have we issued the new uniforms with the navy blue stripes so far this month? (OOF!) ETC.... CJ

Re: Whom was given the book?

equivocal — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 21:51:34 GMT

This is however ungrammatical: -> *who did you give the book Oh, I meant to add that its ungrammatical by my grammaticality judgment. So I try to explain its ungrammaticality from that point of view. If it's ok for you then your grammar allows to elision in actives as well. Who did you give: a raise, a mango, all the canoes, the most personal care of this kind, the money intended for the KLA, the nickname Shorty, that envelope, that? In fact for your examples, the heavier the complement the more grammatical it seems, so for me: ?Who did you give a raise ?Who did you give a mango Who did you give the mosts personal care of this kind ?Who did you give the money intended for KLA Who did you give the nickname...

Re: Whom was given the book?

paco2004 — Mon, 25 May 2009 20:51:34 GMT

CJ The result I got by Google survey is as follows. (1) Who did you give the money to? 120 hits (*) Who did you give the money? 2 hits One of the two is found on a German site, which is the one you quoted as "money for KLM". The other one seems to have been written by some journalist from Mombasa, Kenya, (2) Who did you give it to? 527 hits (*) Who did you give it? 0 hits (3) Who should I give it to/too? 240 hits (*) Who should I give it? 0 hits It is true not many grammar books/dictionaries/sites mention this linguistic phenomenon. The only one I know is Taishukan's Genius E-J Dictionary. paco

Re: Whom was given the book?

CalifJim — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 20:51:34 GMT

This is however ungrammatical: -> *who did you give the book On whose authority do you call it ungrammatical? It sounds fine to me. I know that most of the time the "to" occurs at the end, but not always. I Googled "who did you give" and checked the first thirty pages of hits. I found the following: Who did you give: a raise, a mango, all the canoes, the most personal care of this kind, the money intended for the KLA, the nickname Shorty, that envelope, that? There was no "to" at the end of any of them. CJ

Re: Whom was given the book?

equivocal — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 21:51:34 GMT

Dear paco, "who was given the book?" as a wh-question obtained by changing the subject to 'who' in "he/she was given the book" Unlikely, what motivates the change of subject? The wh-word should already be in your derivation when you passivise the sentence. (null) give the book to whom -> was (null) given the book to whom -> -i (null) was given the book Ti -> -i Tj was given the book by-(inserted) (null)-j Ti -> ('to' elided) who-(case deletion)-i Tj was given the book ('by' elided) (null)-j Ti Or an alternative analysis (which I think is better): (null) give the book to whom -> (null) give whom the book (dative alternation) -> was (null) give whom the book (dative alternation) -> whom-i (null) was given Ti the...

Re: Whom was given the book?

paco2004 — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 21:51:34 GMT

Hello People I'm fascinated with your discussion. One might take "who was given the book?" as a wh-question obtained by changing the subject to 'who' in "he/she was given the book". But I still feel some oddness in the rule that we can say "who was given the book?" but we cannot say "who did you give the book?". The rule seems to lack some kind of balance between active and passive voices. By the way, reading OED, I have found an interesting fact. That is, through the history of the English language, the dative interrogative 'whom' has been used almost always with combination of a preposition. Please take a look at the quote if you like. whom the objective case of who: no longer current in natural colloquial speech. 1. In an...

Re: Whom was given the book?

equivocal — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 20:51:34 GMT

I'll share my thoughts, albeit from a transformational standpoint, T represents traces. The child was given to whom -> -i was-j the child Tj given Ti who was given to whom -> -i was-j who Tj given Ti *To whom was whom given? I'd say this violates case agreement, so not grammatical for me. It would be derived from "Whom was given to whom" so the latter two are not grammatical. eq

Re: Whom was given the book?

MrPedantic — Mon, 25 May 2009 20:51:35 GMT

Hello Casi I would read them as follows: 1. To whom was the child given? IO aux S pp 2. To whom was who given? IO aux S pp 3. To whom was whom given? IO aux S! pp 4. Whom was given (to) whom? S! aux pp IO where S! = hypercorrection (*). The mild panic is fear-of-no-subject ('anonomastikophobia'?) bubbling over. By the time you reach 'given', you know the chances of finding one are pretty slim. MrP

Re: Whom was given the book?

Casi — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 21:51:35 GMT

Mr P: In the sentence 'Whom was given the book?', I find mild panic sets in at 'given': that's when you know something isn't as it should be. It doesn't seem to be a matter of semantics, though, does it? Max was given the book. (Incorportated IO; recipient) Whom was given the book? (Incorporated IO; recipient) ~hypercorrection~ Eq makes a valid point, though. The structural subject does seem to require nominative form, Max , who was given the book yesterday, called to say "Thanks." But, then again, what have we here? To whom was the child given? To whom was who given? (IO was DO Main Verb) To whom was whom given? Whom was given (to) whom? Are the latter two acceptable, and if so, why?

Re: Whom was given the book?

MrPedantic — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 21:51:35 GMT

Thank you, Casi! It seems then that the 'dativity' of 'whom' can be reinforced by position (e.g. 'You gave whom the book?'), but isn't quite strong enough to carry off full inversion. In the sentence 'Whom was given the book?', I find mild panic sets in at 'given': that's when you know something isn't as it should be. MrP

Re: Whom was given the book?

Casi — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 21:51:35 GMT

Mr P: If 'whom' is acceptable in #2 for 'to whom', is 'whom' acceptable in #1 for 'to whom'? If so, is #1 acceptable as an inversion As an inverted, incorporated indirect object, it sounds odd (to me): Indirect Object Replacement: You gave the book to whom ? Incorporation: You gave whom the book? WH-Movement: ?Whom did you give the book? Non-incorporated: (to) Whom did you give the book (to)? As for the passive construct, Indirect Object active: I gave whom the book? passive: ? Whom was given the book? passive: ?(to) Whom was given the book? But, To whom was the book given? *Who was the book given?

Re: Whom was given the book?

MrPedantic — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 20:51:35 GMT

Thanks for that, CJ! I can only hear 'book/subject' if I keep repeating it to myself. After a while, it all starts to sound vaguely Anglo-Saxon. MrP

Re: Whom was given the book?

CalifJim — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 20:51:35 GMT

Whew! I can hear it that way if I try hard, but I like the surface subject of a passive sentence to be as much a nominative as the surface subject of an active one. Accusative: *Whom was invited? Dative: *Whom was given the book? And also: *To whom was given the book? But "To whom was the book given" seems OK. The one I should probably find acceptable -- "*Whom was the book given?" -- I don't! Go figure! CJ

Re: Whom was given the book?

MrPedantic — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 21:51:35 GMT

Thanks, CJ! How about in the sentence in the subject box? Can you hear that with 'whom' as dative and 'book' as subject? (I'm just curious as to whether 'dative whom' is strong enough to carry inversion.) MrP

Re: Whom was given the book?

CalifJim — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 21:51:35 GMT

In another thread, it was pointed out to me by an AmE native speaker that 'Whom did you give the book?' was an acceptable AmE form. ME, Mr. P. I said it! But I said nothing about "Who/whom was given the book?", that I recall (Alzheimer's?). Maybe I went too far. I haven't done a survey or anything. It's just that it sounds fine to me, and I speak AmE! If "whom" can be either accusative or dative, then it should be able to stand on its own in either case. I invited John. You invited whom ? Whom did you invite? (Who did you invite?) I gave John the book. You gave whom the book? Whom did you give the book? (Who did you give the book?) CJ

Re: Whom was given the book?

MrPedantic — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 20:51:35 GMT

Maybe my leg was being pulled, Julielai. It does happen. What a pity. MrP

Re: Whom was given the book?

julielai — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 21:51:35 GMT

Dear Mr. P, I speak American English and even I say "to whom did you give the book" or "who did you give the book to"

Re: Whom was given the book?

MrPedantic — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 21:51:35 GMT

Hello eq Thanks for that – I'm actually looking at a slightly different question here. In another thread, it was pointed out to me by an AmE native speaker that 'Whom did you give the book?' was an acceptable AmE form. This intrigued me, as in BrE, you would say 'To whom did you give the book', or 'Who did you give the book to?', but not the sentence above. It occurs to me that if you can say (in AmE) 'Whom did you give the book', you should also presumably be able to say (in AmE) 'Whom was given the book?', where the sentence is taken as an inversion with the subject (book) at the end. I myself cannot 'hear' 'Whom was given the book?' as a grammatical sentence. However, I'd be interested to know if anyone else can. MrP

Re: Whom was given the book?

equivocal — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 21:51:35 GMT

*Whom was given the book? The syntactical subject of passives usually take the direct object, which is in an accusative case, changes it into the nominative case. In the sentence, " the book" is not the subject but the direct object. The construction doesn't have an overt subject (null subject). The active construction reads: 1. (null)-subj gave-V -DO ? This construction is fine: 2. Who was given the book? The problem in the sentence above is clearly one of a case mismatch. "Whom" is a rare word that still retains its dative case marking. When fronted as the subject of the passive, it cannot be in the dative case but in the nominative case. eq

Whom was given the book?

MrPedantic — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 20:51:35 GMT