Timeline for Pronoun Case in Noun Phrases used as Direct Objects [duplicate]
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 28, 2014 at 23:21 | history | edited | tchrist♦ |
edited tags
|
|
| Jan 7, 2014 at 7:26 | comment | added | Shoe | @KeithB. I answered a similar question about whoever/whomever here:english.stackexchange.com/questions/121073/… . | |
| Jan 7, 2014 at 0:41 | comment | added | Kate Bertelsen | I agree now that this is a duplicate. For people in the future, see in particular this answer and subsequent comments. It answers my question (sans whoever/whomever, which is for a different thread) satisfactorily. | |
| Jan 6, 2014 at 20:40 | comment | added | F.E. | I have to agree with John Lawler here, in that I don't think I've yet seen a full explanation for that topic of a personal pronoun that is modified by an integrated relative clause in any previous thread. | |
| Jan 6, 2014 at 20:37 | comment | added | F.E. | Your "who(m)ever" example is a bit different from the rest, as it involves a fused relative. If you want an answer for that specific question, you'll probably be better off by creating a separate question for it. | |
| Jan 6, 2014 at 20:28 | comment | added | John Lawler | Well, I was going to post about that, but wiser heads have decided this is not a subject we may discuss here. No doubt all the answers needed are already available in the "duplicate" post. It's good to know that. | |
| Jan 6, 2014 at 20:09 | history | closed |
Andrew Leach♦ Janus Bahs Jacquet anongoodnurse FumbleFingers choster |
Duplicate of I have named him/he who shall not be named? | |
| Jan 6, 2014 at 19:59 | comment | added | Kate Bertelsen | @JohnLawler: so why did McCrae use "us" instead of "we"? There must have been some reason. Was there a rule that's grown steadily out of use, to the point where you call it archaic? (I'm well aware "correct" English is a fiction, hence my putting it in quotes. I'm at least trying to grasp what the rule historically might have been stated as, if there's no modern consensus) | |
| Jan 6, 2014 at 19:51 | comment | added | John Lawler | @KeithB: It really depends on the field. In academia, editors are usually academics and familiar with the local conventions (which can vary enormously from field to field). With a construction as archaic as a pronoun (instead of a noun) modified by a relative clause (instead of being converted to a headless relative), rareness is going to either produce idioms or find another usage or die out. In this case we're teetering on idioms, I think. That means there is no consensus in "correct" English, which is a fiction anyway. | |
| Jan 6, 2014 at 19:44 | comment | added | Kate Bertelsen | @JohnLawler: because no one cares in casual English; I hear both in the casual dialogue of people in my dialect. I was specifically trying to call out the different register of speech to conform to what I'd call historical prescriptivists, for lack of a better term. A better way to ask it is "What would a copy editor prefer, if editing to formal, published English?" | |
| Jan 6, 2014 at 19:40 | comment | added | Kate Bertelsen | @AndrewLeach: Does that apply to the whoever/whomever case, too? That is, is it "Break faith with whomever dies", because "whomever" is the object of the preposition "with"? Or is it "whoever" because it's the subject of the relative clause? | |
| Jan 6, 2014 at 19:39 | comment | added | John Lawler | BTW, why does anybody want to know the rule in [sic] "correct" English? Wouldn't people prefer to know the rule in English? | |
| Jan 6, 2014 at 19:36 | comment | added | John Lawler | That's because he is the subject of calls the tune, not because it's modified by a relative clause. | |
| Jan 6, 2014 at 19:32 | comment | added | FumbleFingers | It's always he who pays the piper calls the tune, never him. | |
| Jan 6, 2014 at 18:37 | comment | added | Andrew Leach♦ | english.stackexchange.com/a/144561/18696 With forces the pronoun to take the object case, but who is the subject of die and does not. | |
| Jan 6, 2014 at 18:17 | comment | added | Kate Bertelsen | I did some searching, and that question didn't come up. Though that one seems to be for a set phrase, and didn't end up really answering my question as near as I can tell (but I could be blind). I'd love a good, clear answer on it, though. | |
| Jan 6, 2014 at 17:39 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jan 6, 2014 at 20:09 | |||||
| Jan 6, 2014 at 17:29 | review | First posts | |||
| Jan 6, 2014 at 17:41 | |||||
| Jan 6, 2014 at 17:12 | history | asked | Kate Bertelsen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |