I have named him/he who shall not be named. Which of these is correct? I think it should be "him" because "him" is a direct object in this context. In this context, "him/he who shall not be named" is not a proper noun.
Asked
Active
Viewed 3,262 times
3
5 Answers
4
I this case, I believe "He Who Shall Not Be Named" is a set phrase, functioning a bit like proper name in this context. So you won't change that first word of it. Just like you won't change "I have named He-Man" to "I have named Him-Man" - the "He" is part of the object.
Avner Shahar-Kashtan
- 6,859
-
In this case, please assume that "He Who Shall Not Be Named" is not a proper noun. Does that change the answer? – okarin Jan 04 '14 at 07:32
-
2@okarin, it is not a proper noun as such, but (especially since the Harry Potter books), it is so much a set phrase that many will be loath to change it in any way. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Jan 04 '14 at 09:43
-
It's actually 'He Who Must Not Be Named' in the Harry Potter books, and Rowling uses it as a proper noun (which is HER prerogative), capitalising it and not changing case where conventional grammar would otherwise require it. Interestingly, therefore, saying 'He Who Must Not Be Named' is actually naming Voldemort. – Edwin Ashworth Jan 04 '14 at 12:53
-
@okarin - That's an important detail that should be included as part of your question, not buried in a comment beneath an answer. I'm glad you took the time to add it. – J.R. Jan 04 '14 at 13:04
-
@Edwin: In the Harry Potter books, the meaning is actually not "He Who Must Not Be Given a Name" but "He Whose True Name Must Not Be Spoken". See Merriam-Webster, second definition of name: to say the name of (someone or something). – Peter Shor Jan 04 '14 at 19:35
-
@Peter: I'm saying that uttering the words 'He Who Must Not Be Named' is equivalent to saying 'Voldemort', just as uttering 'Father Christmas' is equivalent to uttering 'Santa Claus'. Rowling has conferred proper noun status on the six-word lexeme. cf 'Her Indoors' and 'She Who Must Be Obeyed'. Of course, we could debate the meaning of 'true names' (Tom Riddle?), but nicknames qualify as names. – Edwin Ashworth Jan 04 '14 at 22:38
4
It needs to be I have named him who shall not be named. Him is the direct object of the verb in the main clause. The relative clause starting with who identifies the him but does not influence its (object) case.
Here is similar construction:
She made him who he is today. **
Note: You can use he in the main clause if he is the complement rather than the object of the verb:
It was he who told me.
Admittedly, this is formal English and I suspect most people (in the UK at least) would say:
It was him who told me.
**Edited: See the comment from and to Edwin Ashworth below.
Shoe
- 33,089
-
-
I don't quite get this. In 'It was he who told me', 'he' seems to me to be the object. If not, what is the object of the verb 'was'? Hence, my thought is that 'It was him who told me' is correct. – WS2 Jan 04 '14 at 09:19
-
@okarin, I wanted to be cautious in my assertion about this particular usage, being exposed mainly to BE English. Maybe someone can link to some evidence confirming or disconfirming it. As an aside, the use of shall and he who shall not be named give the sentence an archaic, religious quality. If you are writing in such a context, you may wish to retain the he. – Shoe Jan 04 '14 at 09:29
-
1@WS2, ‘to be’ is a linking verb: it cannot take an object. It takes a predicate instead, which is (traditionally, and still at least optionally in current English) the same case as its subject. This is very clear in languages that have ‘proper’ case systems, but less so in English, where the logic behind the cases has been changing and breaking down over the past few centuries. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Jan 04 '14 at 09:37
-
2@WS2. Only transitive verbs such as make, see, hit, etc. can have direct objects. To be is an intransitive verb. In colloquial contexts I doubt that many people would answer the question Who told you? with It was he!, but some might be a little hesitant to use the object pronoun in such statements in very formal contexts. – Shoe Jan 04 '14 at 09:37
-
2I have named him who shall not be named and She made him who he is today are very different structures; 'who shall not be named' is a relative clause whereas 'who he is today' is a reduced object complement ('the man (who) he is today'). – Edwin Ashworth Jan 04 '14 at 19:26
-
-
@Edwin, You are right. It was not a good example. I did concoct in my head a few sentences that were exactly parallel, but they seemed unnatural: e.g. I saw him who shall not be approached. I liked him who was disliked by everyone else, etc, so I rejected them in favour of the construction above. I have edited to refer to your comment. – Shoe Jan 04 '14 at 19:36
-
I think your conclusion is correct, but unfortunately all your examples are irrelevant. – Peter Shor Jan 04 '14 at 19:42
-
@Peter, could you expand on your comment about the rules being different for was? As to my three examples, the first was not well-chosen as explained above, but the second was intended to illustrate when he in the main clause could be the right choice, so not totally irrelevant. – Shoe Jan 04 '14 at 19:53
-
The traditional rules for the verb to be is that it takes a complement, in the nominative case, rather than an object, in the objective case. Since this is exactly what you said, ignore my earlier comment. – Peter Shor Jan 04 '14 at 20:02
-
@Peter Shor So are we saying that when I knock at my neighbour's door and he cries 'Who's there?', I must call 'It is I', not 'It is me'? The verb 'to be' certainly doesn't work like that in French. 'L'état, c'est moi'. – WS2 Jan 04 '14 at 20:56
-
@WS2: traditionally, you were indeed supposed to say "it is I", and that's what grammatical prescriptivists tell you to say. Nowadays, most people actually would say "it's me". – Peter Shor Jan 04 '14 at 21:02
-
So is it fair to say, then, that as a general rule, if a relative clause modifies a pronoun (in particular, one with different forms for different cases), that the case of the pronoun is dependent upon its role in the main clause, and not its role in the relative clause? – Kate Bertelsen Jan 06 '14 at 23:21
-
-
@Keith B: On page 231 of the Google Books copy of (old) Fowler is a list of examples of the error of using he where him [etc] is required. Fowler’s first example of the mistake is “The bell will always be rung by he who has the longest purse & the strongest arm.” I'd add 'Do not follow he who breaks the law.' Sadly, Fowler didn't justify his pronouncement, but was a highly respected grammarian. – Edwin Ashworth Jan 07 '14 at 00:11
-
@EdwinAshworth: That works. I've been doing it wrong this whole time! While googling that phrase, I also came upon this blog post, which, while not an authority, I think does a good job of explaining the rule and why. – Kate Bertelsen Jan 07 '14 at 00:39
-
@Keith B: The 'Let P (who . . .) V+' construction is arguably a little different. The 'Do not follow P who V+' construction ('follow' could be other sensibly chosen verbs, such as envy, believe, tolerate in this example alone, of course) is, I'd say, the one where there is the greatest temptation to wrongly use the objective case where the pronoun has one. I'd certainly rephrase 'Do not follow me who break the law' though. – Edwin Ashworth Jan 07 '14 at 10:17
2
I have named (him/he) (who) shall not be named. The choices are:
I have named him whom shall not be named. and I have named he who shall not be named.
Substituting a different pair;
I have killed (them/those who(m) will not be killed, would become
I have killed them whom will not be killed. or I have killed those who will not be killed.
I have never seen this construction: them whom will not be killed, nor those whom will not be killed. I cannot support this usage.
It seems to be an illogical construction. I think the who complicates the phrase, as well as the implication that you've accomplished the linguistic impossibility.
I would argue that (he-who-shall-not-be-named) is your direct object.
I have named he who shall not be named. (acceptable)
However, as I cannot cite sources, I hope a linguist will hop in on this.
anongoodnurse
- 55,278
-
1I 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*? – virmaior Jan 04 '14 at 08:02
-
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. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Jan 04 '14 at 09:42
-
Fowler (see the above link) labels constructions such as 'I have named he who shall not be named' ungrammatical. – Edwin Ashworth Jan 04 '14 at 13:01
-
1@Susan, I see what you’re saying now—I’ve un-downvoted. :-) – Janus Bahs Jacquet Jan 04 '14 at 13:37
-
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". – Peter Shor Jan 04 '14 at 19:40
-
@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. – Peter Shor Jan 05 '14 at 00:38
-
There's the 'rule' here, but no authority or logical justification. – Edwin Ashworth Jan 06 '14 at 23:27
1
Even though it is a bit of a set phrase, I would decline it (here, decline meaning change the word according to the case in which it is used -- rather than refuse).
Thus, I would say I have named him who shall not be named.
Seeing @AvnerShahar-Kashtan has given the opposite answer, I wonder if it depends on where one learned to speak English or how one speaks English. My English is American English, and I tend to maintain the proper uses of subjunctives and to decline foreign words as they decline in their own languages as best I can when using them in English (i.e. alumni for the plural of alumnus and alumnae for the feminine plural, etc.).
virmaior
- 2,667
-
Surely you wouldn't say: "I've just seen Him-Man at the cinema"? If He who must not be named / He Who Must Not Be Named / He who shall not be named is a multi-word proper noun, it is caseless. If it is considered to be a post-modified personal pronoun, it should be written in the appropriate case. – Edwin Ashworth Jan 07 '14 at 00:23
-
He-Man is unequivocally a proper name. I consider he who must not be named to be an idiom and thus subject to conjugation. – virmaior Jan 08 '14 at 01:24
-
But J K Rowling doesn't, at least in her books: <<. . . treat "[He Who Must Not Be Named]" as a single entity . . . in Harry Potter. Wizards always refer to Voldemort as He Who Must Not Be Named. They wouldn't say "Death Eaters pledge allegiance to Him Who Must Not Be Named." He who must not be named is taken as a single entity, as a name itself. As such, the pronoun doesn't change.>> As with Lloyds and Lloyd's (and Waterstones Bookshops), I'd say it's her call. – Edwin Ashworth Jan 08 '14 at 08:41
-
I haven't read those books, but I've known the idiom... so I'm not sure how it becomes the call of an author who uses an already existing idiom in a particular way. If the asker is referring to Harry Potter then surely he should copy the original author's intent. – virmaior Jan 08 '14 at 12:02
-
So should we not capitalise Batman because the word was pressed into a different usage from the original military one? I suspect more people have heard of J K Rowling than Bill Finger. I'd say that both 'batman' and 'Batman' are allowable terms, but I've never come across 'Batmen'. – Edwin Ashworth Jan 08 '14 at 22:08
-
If you are referring to Batman, the comic owned by DC, then most definitely capitalize. If you are referring to any of a number of other batmen, then don't. Even DC Comics pluralized "Batmen" on one occassion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batmen_of_All_Nations.
The rule is simple: obviously if you are just using someone else's idea follow their construction rules. If the idea is more generic that you are using, use the rules that apply to that construction. Most idioms are treated grammatically when used.
– virmaior Jan 09 '14 at 01:21 -
But the only instances of "He who must not be named" I can discover after a reasonable amount of surfing are Rowling-related. Apparently, she got the idea (though not the actual form of the expression) from two 1950s London gangsters, the mere mention of whose name could result in swift punishment. So it seems to be her idea / coinage, not a quote. So, by your own rules, following her practice, we see that "He who must not be named" doesn't have case. – Edwin Ashworth Jan 09 '14 at 12:22
-
Well maybe you should surf differently. Googling he who must not be named -voldemort -potter yields a boatload of unrelated uses. I cite a few for your ease: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20131224/opinion/He-who-must-not-be-named.500259#.Us6miNJs3zY , http://www.threadsuk.com/god-he-who-must-not-be-named/ , http://www.motherjones.com/mixed-media/2013/05/m-night-shyamalan-after-earth-marketing ,
my logic is that if he means harry potter (which we don't know) then by all means, don't decline it. If not, decline it.
– virmaior Jan 09 '14 at 13:44 -
So you would say that 'Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them' need not be Shakespeare-related? I'd say that all the examples you give are very probably – in fact almost certainly – unattributed references to Rowling's proper noun. Try to find any examples that pre-date her publications; that would be convincing evidence. Perhaps you should analyse differently. Oh, and Harry Potter is definitely a proper noun and capitalised (unless one is referring to a different entity, which obviously you aren't). – Edwin Ashworth Jan 09 '14 at 15:56
-
You also say: 'I consider he who must not be named to be an idiom' / 'a bit of a set phrase'. I can find it in no dictionary of idioms, but it is easily found (capitalised) as the obvious Rowling version in other reference works. I'm totally in agreement with you that if it's not a multi-word proper noun, it should be declined where necessary – but if these are all quotes (whether attributed or not) from a coining by Rowling, they should faithfully reproduce her original. – Edwin Ashworth Jan 09 '14 at 16:09
-1
Whom shall I say is calling? Whom is the indirect object, the dative case. I shall give this to whom? I found the right rule but didn't apply it right. He who must not be named: "he" is the direct object of "named". So neither "him" nor "whom" can go here.
-
1This is nearby (about case of a question word) but doesn't address the OP's actual question. Can you update this to talk about a pronoun's case when it is ambiguously also part of a relative clause? – Mitch Apr 25 '22 at 16:19
-
I just edited my remark. I think those rules are clear and easy, and "name" is not an exception: viz, "I named him 'George', "George" is the direct object, "him" is the indirect object, and when this sentence is made into a relative/adjectival clause, that all remains intact. The ambiguity would be, as stated by others here, if the entire phrase becomes a name itself, a proper name, as it were. Then "who" remains unaffected by how this proper name is used in a sentence. – Chris Rushlau Apr 25 '22 at 16:50
-
Two hours later I think I have this figured out. The phrase uses "name" to mean "be referred to by name", not "given a name". You refer to someone by name as the indirect object: him or her. – Chris Rushlau Apr 25 '22 at 18:59
- Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
– Edwin Ashworth Jan 04 '14 at 12:39