Search results for 'tag:Whom tag:Accusative' matching tags 'Whom' and 'Accusative'

Re: Whomever vs. whoever

Huevos — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 18:35:55 GMT

Anonymous
Adobe have launched their new text editor Buzzword. Their Welcome to Buzzword document includes the sentence "The owner can share the document with whomever she wishes." A pity they didn't read this forum.

And what's 'she' doing in this sentence?

That sentence is fine. "She" is the subject of the subordinate clause. The antecedent of "she" is "the owner". Also it's obvious whom is correct because it follows a preposition (always accusative, never nominative).

Re: Which way would you sway?

MrPedantic — Fri, 25 May 2007 00:08:15 GMT

Milky wrote:

<I would be interested to see quotations from the early English grammarians that presented spoken English as somehow inferior, or that demonstrated an imposition of inappropriate rules from Latin. >

Do you doubt that was the case?

"Doubt" is too strong a word. I would be interested to see the quotations.

If so, I guess you disagree with this:

"If they have studied "English Grammar", this is probably an encumbrance which they might well put aside for the present, since it is based on a more or less imitative recapitulation of Classical Latin Grammar, which is totally non-applicable to the English language as it now stands.

I would disagree that Classical Latin Grammar is "totally non-applicable" to the English language (or vice versa). It would be truer to say that many aspects of Latin grammar are non-applicable to English.

I would also disagree with the notion that the study of English grammar for any given person is bound to have been based on Latin grammar; though no doubt the statement is true for some people.

[Lowth] condemned "forcing the English under the rules of a foreign Language"¹).

Sounds sensible.

His most famous (or infamous) contribution to the study of grammar was his prescription that sentences ending with a prepositionâsuch as "what did you ask for?"âare inappropriate in formal writing.

Sounds doubtful. Though Lowth doesn't appear to mention Latin in his reasoning:

"This is an Idiom which our language is strongly inclined to; it prevails in common conversation, and suits very well with the familiar style in writing; but the placing of the Preposition before the Relative is more graceful, as well as more perspicuous; and agrees much better with the solemn and elevated Style."

And he seems to limit his prescription to the "solemn and elevated Style", which is a relatively rare form of English.

Thus Lowth condemns Addison's sentence "Who should I meet the other night, but my old friend?" on the grounds that the thing acted upon should be in the "Objective Case" (corresponding, as he says earlier, to an oblique case in Latin), rather than taking this example and others as evidence from noted writers that "who" can refer to direct objects.

I would not agree with Lowth about Addison's sentence; but nothing here suggests that his justification lay in Latin grammar.

"Objective case" doesn't seem a particularly pernicious phrase; "whom" is undeniably an example; and what remains of the objective case in English "corresponds" in some of its functions to the accusative case in Latin.

I know that some popular sources repeat the notion that early English grammarians attempted to impose Latin grammar on English; but I've yet to see any primary evidence.

MrP

Re: who/whom special

Katarina — Tue, 17 Jan 2006 21:06:37 GMT

Hello Swiss Jake,

Are you a German-speaking Swiss? If yes, then this should help a bit:
'Whom' is used in the accusative case, which is very obvious in German inflections but only seen in English prounouns, e.g. him, her, us, and whom. However, where in German there are two distinctive cases, accusative and dative, in Modern English there's only one case, which comprises both the accusative and the dative. This case is called objective.

So have a look at the following sentences:

a. I saw the man who won the prize.
(German: Ich habe den Mann gesehen der den Preis gewonnen hat.)

'who' in this relative clause is the subject of the verb won, so the nominative case is required, just as it is clearly seen in German.

b. He is the man whom I admire.
(German: Er ist der Mann den ich bewundere.)

Here 'whom' is the object of the verb admire, therefore the objective case is required. Compare the Accusative den in German.

Hope this helps.

Kat

Re: whomever or whoever?

paco2004 — Mon, 29 Aug 2005 02:48:21 GMT

Hello
Charles-James N Bailey, Professor Emeritus of Berlin Technical University, argues online ('How Grammars of English Have Missed the Boat') his historic view on English grammar. According to him, basic words used in current English were mostly those borrowed from the underclass's language (Anglo-Saxon) but its grammar structure comes from the upperclass's language (French/Latin). He takes 'whom' and 'whomever' as examples for the discussion. He argues:

'Whom' does not directly derive from the Anglo-Saxon accusative; Germanic (non-neuter) accusatives end in -n, whereas the dative was 'hwam'. If final -m became -n through what linguists call an unmarking development, this process was operative at language-birth and must have been influenced by Latin (non-neuter) accusatives ending in -m (cf. Latin 'quem' - 'whom'). 'Whom' has never been fully integrated into the English system, and remains marginal in educated speech (only following a preposition that has been moved to a clause-initial position). Errors made by professional writers -- e.g. 'the person whom I said had done it' and 'give it to whomever is there to sign for it'--'the one whom the residents of that settlement had assured me would repair it,' 'It was for whomever over there wanted to win quick acclaim,' and 'at the expense of whomever is wrong' -- show how un-integrated 'whom' and 'whomever' are in the English system. Even the 1611 Bible has the Lord making a grammatical error in 'Whom say ye that I am?' The French forms suggest why 'him' and 'them' endure: Unlike unchanging French 'qui' (or 'elle'-'her', she, 'nous' - 'us', 'we', or 'vous' - 'you-all'), the French words for for 'him' and 'them' contrast with those for 'he' and 'they.' The grammar comes from French structure -- never mind the etymology of words borrowed from any source.

paco

Re: who Vs whome

Eimai_Anglos — Thu, 07 Jul 2005 23:59:03 GMT

There's no such word as "whome" in english.

I would say "whom did you give it?" and "who did you hit?"
(Dative and accusative cases, yes?)

Re: Whom or Who?

Meneldil — Fri, 03 Jun 2005 13:01:44 GMT

Can someone just clarify what I believe to be true:
'Who' is the nominative form, while 'Whom' is the form in all other cases (accusative, dative, genitive (though 'whose' can also be used for genitive), etc.) - is this correct?

Re: Possessive before a gerund.

Skater — Mon, 11 Apr 2005 14:45:06 GMT

Paco, I too was taught the "one's doing" formulation in the sixties and have never stopped using it, and neither have any of my friends and family whom I consider careful speakers of English. I have also found it to be universally followed in American formal writing (anything from newspapers to scholarly publications). I have never found it awkward to use the same grammatical rules in speech as one would find in a scholarly article, but perhaps that's because I grew up in Berkeley and am now surrounded by fellow lawyers. If someone tried to persuade me to speak otherwise, I would be inclined to ignore it.

CailfJim, there needn't be a reason why English uses an accusative subject with an infinitive but a genitive with a gerund -- it just does. It is the same in Latin, which may account for why the English rule (at least in America) was settled the same way, although ultimately the reason Latin uses those rules is probably the same -- it just does.

Re: Whom was given the book?

CalifJim — Sun, 06 Mar 2005 05:52:56 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?

paco2004 — Sat, 05 Mar 2005 03:53:46 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 [except the one case of 1539's Bible] 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 independent question.
(a.) as indirect object (dative) or as object of a preposition (or after than) .
c1000 Ags. Gosp. John vi. 68 Drihten to hwam ga we? 1300 Cursor M. 8353 O mi kingrike quat redes Ã¾ou? Quam sal i giue it for to ledd? 1400â50 Wars Alex. 463 To quam has Ã¾ou Ã¾e tane till, tell me Ã¾e sothe. 1535 Coverdale Ezek. xxxi. 2 Whom art thou like in thy greatnesse? I Isa. xl. 18 To whom then will ye licken God? 1539 Bible. Isa. xxviii. 9 Whom then shal such one teach knowlege? 1591 Shakes. Two Gent. ii. i. 153 Speed. To be a Spokesman from Madam Siluia. To whom? 1603 Dekker & Chettle Grissil iv. i. Shaks. Soc.52 Seek'st thou a better nurse? A better nurse than whom? 1780 Warner in Jesse Selwyn & Contemp. IV. 369 For whom in the world do you think that I was kept so long kicking my heels? 1842 Ruskin Lett. to a College Friend 129 To whom should I write if not to the only one of my friends whom I cannot see? 1866 Le Fanu All in Dark viii, I played today..two rubbers of fives; with whom do you think?
(b.)as direct object (accusative).
971 Blickl. Hom. 45 Hwane manaÃ¾ God maran gafoles Ã¾onne Ã¾one biscop? c1000 Ags. Gosp. John xviii. 4 HwÃ¦ne sece ye? 1300 E.E. Psalter xxvi. 1 Wham sal I drede? 1320 Cast. Love 206 Whom mai he to helpe crauen? 1382 Wyclif Matt. xvi. 15 Whom seien ze me to be? Ibid. xxvii. 21 Whom of the two wolen ze to be left? 1450 Holland Howlat 69 Quhom sall I blame? 1513 Douglas Ãneis i. vi. 38 Bot, O thou virgine, quham sall I call the? 1535 Coverdale Isa. vi. 8 Whom shall I sende, and who wilbe oure messaunger? 1539 Bible. Ps. lxxiii. 25 Whom haue I in heauen but the? 1704 Taverner Faithf. Bride iii. 27 Whom wou'dst thou injure with a Villains Name? 1855 Tennyson Maud i. vi. ii, Whom but Maud should I meet? 1870 Morris Earthly Par. III. 489 Whom think you she has seen?

paco

Re: Whom was given the book?

CalifJim — Fri, 04 Mar 2005 03:45:08 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