I understand that it should be "It was he" or "It is I" grammatically, but I thought everybody favoured 'him' or 'me' in those places. This can not be extrapolated to 'whom' then? Your analysis is

Please tell me why this sentence is correct: Alcohol and tobacco are harmful to whoever consumes them. I thought that if the pronoun is a direct object then the objective case is used. However, it is appropriate to use the nominative case when the

1. Can you tell me who her sister is? (Her sister is Mary)Mary is object. I supposed that it should be whom. I don't know why it should be whom. It shouldn't be "whom." This is a being verb ("is"), and it doesn't

Indeed, modern English syntax is all (well, mostly) about position, not inflection. In Russian, a "noun in the instrumental case" would not be positioned as a subject in a sentence - it's against the syntactical rules. So I suppose

In regards to Who or whom, as with all other pronouns which have different cases, the case is determined by whether it is the subject (nominative) or object (of the verb or preposition) in its own clause. Is this right? Yes. (Sorry, my quote

Cool thanks Avangi. Just to make sure I have it right, here is what i think: In regards to Who or whom, as with all other pronouns which have different cases, the case is determined by whether it is the subject (nominative) or object (of the verb

When who or whom is not part of the relative clause, but still exists, it is easier to find out if it is objective or nominative, correct? You may find it easier. It depends on the amount of experience you have in working with these ideas.

Wow, thanks a lot, again!! Haha, you just make it harder and harder for me. O.k. i actually understand that somehow. So when there is a relative clause with the word who/whom, I need to look to see if there is parenthtical elements that can

'We have people whom/who can testify this fact if necessary' Eddie: The main clause is: We have people. It is as complete a sentence as: We have dogs. The subordinate (dependent) clause is whom/who can testify this fact (if necessary)

Very informative and clear once again, thanks! I never realised there were rules around the contraction isn't! It is great to now know. One final question (I hope I am not over using your knowledge, haha) is in regards to this sentence.