By Whom, Accusative

Both are ok. But if you wanted to be really proper and old-fashioned you'd say: 1a) Whom are you waiting for? 2a) Whom are you looking at? To explain why this is the case might be abit more complicated, bear with me: As you already know, 'whom' marks for the dative case, which is often the...

*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...

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: take "whom" only as a question word for DO (accusative objects). So...

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...

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....

Hello people I came across to an idea I had been too much stuck to the Chomskians' interpretation of the SVOO structure. I got another explanation to the question: why the wh-question of 'She gave him the book) in current English) must be 'To who(m) did you give the book?'. It would be simply...

Hi MrP Yeah I agree to your view that the double objects construction had been established when case inflection was still retained English. I guess you are rather special in linguistic sense. I'm a little doubtful of common English speakers in the sense of differentiating objects into dative and...

Hello Casi Thank you for the message. Speaking frankly I'm still in the mud of this question. I've thought about it since I put the last posting. One of the problems we, ESL learners, (or I should say at least me) have is that we tend to try to understand English sentences through the...

my first thought is that "whom" is a object case of "who", and since the chap is the subject of this verb to be, then the object (or accusative) case would not be appropriate ... as for the use of which, that etc - these choices are not always clear to native speakers, there are some rules, but...

"Whom" is the accusative case of "who". It's really easy to get this right. Forget all the rules - just imagine you're saying "he" or "him" instead of "who" or "whom". Get that right, and then switch pronouns - replace "he" (which has no "m") with "who", and "him" (which ends in an "m") with...