When I have a noun phrase that contains a pronoun as a subject (of the phrase), but the noun phrase is being used as the direct object of another verb, is the pronoun in the nominative case or the objective case?

For example, sans noun phrase:

Please tell him.

With noun phrase:

Please tell [he/him] who walks through the door.

Or, when being used more as a subordinate clause (?):

Please tell [whoever/whomever] walks through the door.

Or in a concrete example from literature, I was always under the impression that because the pronoun is the subject of a phrase, it's in the nominative case:

If ye break faith with we who die

But the actual poem I'm quoting here says:

If ye break faith with us who die

(The poem being In Flanders Fields by John McCrae) Is this just a poetic device, or is McCrae correct?

What is the generally accepted rule among "correct" English, and why?

  • 3
    BTW, why does anybody want to know the rule in [sic] "correct" English? Wouldn't people prefer to know the rule in English? – John Lawler Jan 6 '14 at 19:39
  • 1
    @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. – John Lawler Jan 6 '14 at 19:51
  • 2
    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. – John Lawler Jan 6 '14 at 20:28
  • 2
    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. – F.E. Jan 6 '14 at 20:37
  • 1
    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. – F.E. Jan 6 '14 at 20:40