Timeline for I have named him/he who shall not be named?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 6, 2014 at 23:27 | comment | added | Edwin Ashworth | There's the 'rule' here, but no authority or logical justification. | |
| Jan 5, 2014 at 0:38 | comment | added | Peter Shor | @Susan: Upon reconsideration, my rule doesn't apply here: him is the object of the main clause, and who is the subject of the relative clause, so him who is correct. | |
| Jan 4, 2014 at 19:40 | comment | added | Peter Shor | It should clearly not be whom, as the rule is: if who(m) fills the role of both subject and object, use who. But him is only an object here, so I think it should be "him who shall not be named". | |
| Jan 4, 2014 at 13:37 | comment | added | Janus Bahs Jacquet | @Susan, I see what you’re saying now—I’ve un-downvoted. :-) | |
| Jan 4, 2014 at 13:01 | comment | added | Edwin Ashworth | Fowler (see the above link) labels constructions such as 'I have named he who shall not be named' ungrammatical. | |
| Jan 4, 2014 at 9:45 | history | edited | anongoodnurse | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 37 characters in body
|
| Jan 4, 2014 at 9:42 | comment | added | Janus Bahs Jacquet | This is a bit confusing, but if I understand you correctly, I'm afraid it's not correct. “I have named him whom shall not be named” is quite ungrammatical. “I have named he who shall not be named” is acceptable to most, but would fail with prescriptionists. | |
| Jan 4, 2014 at 8:24 | history | edited | anongoodnurse | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 3 characters in body
|
| Jan 4, 2014 at 8:02 | comment | added | virmaior | I understand the reasoning you are supplying, but I don't see an answer. Are you saying I have named he who shall not be named or I have named him who shall be named? | |
| Jan 4, 2014 at 7:58 | history | answered | anongoodnurse | CC BY-SA 3.0 |