Return to Answer

The sentence:

'Doctor' means 'a learned man', which I suppose this man is.

is perfectly grammatical, because the antecedent of "which" is "the condition of being a learned man", which -- being a condition -- is not a specific person. The indefinite article makes the noun phrase sound like a quality, as if it were adjectival (the quality of a person) rather than nominal (the name of a person).

Another example:

• I called him a liar, which he is.

There is also a grammatical reason why "which" and not "who" or "whom" is correct, and that is the function of the antecedent in the relative clause -- a subject complement:

• I suppose this man is a learned man.

• He is a liar.

Instead, if the function of the antecedent within the relative clause is "more nominal", so to speak (for example subject or object), then "who" will be used:

• He is so aggressive people call him Hitler, who I think was much more cruel than he is. (Hitler was much more cruel.)

• He is so talented people call him Da Vinci, who he studied a lot about. (He studied a lot about Da Vinci: object to the preposition "about")

In the two sentences above, while the proper name is used as a quality in the main clause, the proper name recovers its full meaning as the designation of a specific person in the relative clause, and this accounts for the use of "who".

The sentence:

'Doctor' means 'a learned man', which I suppose this man is.

is perfectly grammatical, because the antecedent of "which" is "the condition of being a learned man", which -- being a condition -- is not a specific person. The indefinite article makes the noun phrase sound like a quality, as if it were adjectival (the quality of a person) rather than nominal (the name of a person).

Another example:

• I called him a liar, which he is.

There is also a grammatical reason why "which" and not "who" or "whom" is correct, and that is the function of the antecedent in the relative clause -- subject complement:

• I suppose this man is a learned man.

• He is a liar.

Instead, if the function of the antecedent within the relative clause is "more nominal", so to speak (for example subject or object), then "who" will be used:

• He is so aggressive people call him Hitler, who I think was much more cruel than he is. (Hitler was much more cruel.)

• He is so talented people call him Da Vinci, who he studied a lot about. (He studied a lot about Da Vinci: object to the preposition "about")

In the two sentences above, while the proper name is used as a quality in the main clause, the proper name recovers its full meaning as the designation of a specific person in the relative clause, and this accounts for the use of "who".

The sentence:

'Doctor' means 'a learned man', which I suppose this man is.

is perfectly grammatical, because the antecedent of "which" is "the condition of being a learned man", which -- being a condition -- is not a specific person. The indefinite article makes the noun phrase sound like a quality, as if it were adjectival (the quality of a person) rather than nominal (the name of a person).

Another example:

• I called him a liar, which he is.

There is also a grammatical reason why "which" and not "who" or "whom" is correct, and that is the function of the antecedent in the relative clause -- a subject complement:

• I suppose this man is a learned man.

• He is a liar.

Instead, if the function of the antecedent within the relative clause is "more nominal", so to speak (for example subject or object), then "who" will be used:

• He is so aggressive people call him Hitler, who I think was much more cruel than he is. (Hitler was much more cruel.)

The sentence:

'Doctor' means 'a learned man', which I suppose this man is.

is perfectly grammatical, because the antecedent of "which" is "the condition of being a learned man", which -- being a condition -- is not a specific person. The indefinite article makes the noun phrase sound like a quality, as if it were adjectival (the quality of a person) rather than nominal (the name of a person).

Another example:

• I called him a liar, which he is.

There is also a grammatical reason why "which" and not "who" or "whom" is correct, and that is the function of the antecedent in the relative clause -- a subject complement:

• I suppose this man is a learned man.

• He is a liar.

Instead, if the function of the antecedent within the relative clause is "more nominal", so to speak (for example subject or object), then "who" will be used:

• He is so aggressive people call him Hitler, who I think was much more cruel than he is. (Hitler was much more cruel.)

• He is so talented people call him Da Vinci, who he studied a lot about. (He studied a lot about Da Vinci: object to the preposition "about")

In the two sentences above, while the proper name is used as a quality in the main clause, the proper name recovers its full meaning as the designation of a specific person in the relative clause, and this accounts for the use of "who".

The sentence:

'Doctor' means 'a learned man', which I suppose this man is.

is perfectly grammatical, because the antecedent of "which" is "the condition of being a learned man", which -- being a condition -- is not a specific person. The indefinite article makes the noun phrase sound like a quality, as if it were adjectival (the quality of a person) rather than nominal (the name of a person).

Another example:

• I called him a liar, which he is.

There is also a grammatical reason why "which" and not "who" or "whom" is correct, and that is the function of the antecedent in the relative clause -- a subject complement:

• I suppose this man is a learned man.

• He is a liar.

Instead, if the function in the antecedent is "more nominal", so to speak (for example subject or object), then "who" will be used:

• He is so aggressive people call him Hitler, who I think was much more cruel than he is. (Hitler was much more cruel.)

The sentence:

'Doctor' means 'a learned man', which I suppose this man is.

is perfectly grammatical, because the antecedent of "which" is "the condition of being a learned man", which -- being a condition -- is not a specific person. The indefinite article makes the noun phrase sound like a quality, as if it were adjectival (the quality of a person) rather than nominal (the name of a person).

Another example:

• I called him a liar, which he is.

There is also a grammatical reason why "which" and not "who" or "whom" is correct, and that is the function of the antecedent in the relative clause -- a subject complement:

• I suppose this man is a learned man.

• He is a liar.

Instead, if the function of the antecedent within the relative clause is "more nominal", so to speak (for example subject or object), then "who" will be used:

• He is so aggressive people call him Hitler, who I think was much more cruel than he is. (Hitler was much more cruel.)