1

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?

tchrist
  • 134,759
Kate Bertelsen
  • 201
  • 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. – Kate Bertelsen Jan 06 '14 at 18:17
  • http://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. – Andrew Leach Jan 06 '14 at 18:37
  • It's always *he who pays the piper calls the tune*, never *him*. – FumbleFingers Jan 06 '14 at 19:32
  • That's because he is the subject of calls the tune, not because it's modified by a relative clause. – John Lawler Jan 06 '14 at 19:36
  • 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 06 '14 at 19:39
  • @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? – Kate Bertelsen Jan 06 '14 at 19:40
  • @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?" – Kate Bertelsen Jan 06 '14 at 19:44
  • 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 06 '14 at 19:51
  • @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)

     – Kate Bertelsen Jan 06 '14 at 19:59
  • 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 06 '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 06 '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 06 '14 at 20:40
  • 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. – Kate Bertelsen Jan 07 '14 at 00:41
  • @KeithB. I answered a similar question about whoever/whomever here:http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/121073/may-i-please-help-whomever-is-next/121078#comment289390_121078 . – Shoe Jan 07 '14 at 07:26

0 Answers0