3

I've come across the following sentence in a book:

“I wanted to learn everything I could about it from whomever in the country might have specialized knowledge of it.”

I know that the whomever is the object of the preposition from (hence whom). However, isn't it at the same time the subject of the subordinate clause? Therefore, should it not be whoever? (Like in: “I was escaping from I don't know what.” NOT “I was escaping from me don't know what.”)

In my view, the sentence would be more elegant if it read:

“I wanted to learn everything I could about it from whoever in the country might have specialized knowledge of it.”

“I wanted to learn everything I could about it from whomever in the country.”

“I wanted to learn everything I could about it from whomever in the country who might have specialized knowledge of it.”

“I wanted to learn everything I could about it from whomever in the country with specialized knowledge of it.”

Community
  • 1
jules
  • 1,503
  • Yes, of course, it is. Thanks a lot. I'm new to the site so I'm not quite sure how to go about it. Sorry for involuntary spamming. However... On the same note - two more from the same book: "I’ll get the disease if I’m around someone I think has it." (Instead of: "I’ll get the disease if I’m around someone WHO I think has it.") AND "The partner whom you believe will protect you from harm." (Instead of: "The partner who, you believe, will protect you from harm." OR "The partner whom you believe to protect you from harm.") – jules Jan 10 '14 at 16:04
  • 1
    Don't worry about posting a duplicate question … that particular duplicate isn't all that easy to find. For "the partner who(m) you believe will protect you from harm"; it should be "who", even if you don't put in the commas. The partner isn't the direct object: you don't believe the partner, you believe that he'll protect you from harm. For "I'll get the disease if I'm around someone I think has it", that question certainly has an answer somewhere on this site. Dropping the "whom" is perfectly grammatical, although leaving it in is also grammatical. – Peter Shor Jan 10 '14 at 16:13
  • Actually, I've seen a construction similar to "I'll get the disease if I'm around someone I think has it" in an otherwise decent grammar book. Still, it bugs me. IMHO "I think" could be dropped in the sentence. Therefore, if we don't leave "who", we end up with: "if I'm around someone has it" – jules Jan 10 '14 at 16:23
  • You can drop relative pronouns if they are the object of clauses but not the subject. In "I think he has it", "he" is the complement of "think", and in "I believe he will protect you from harm", "he" is acting as a subject of a relative clause, and the entire clause is the object. So in both of these cases, you need a new rule that tells you whether you can drop the "who". – Peter Shor Jan 10 '14 at 16:29
  • I guess the "subject" rule applies here. In "... if I'm around someone (who) I think has it", the "who" seems to be the necessary subject for "... has it"; therefore, it shouldn't have been dropped. "I think", which is just a redundant insertion, tricked the author into treating the "I" as the subject, and leaving out the "who". – jules Jan 10 '14 at 17:10
  • This is not a duplicate, btw. The post it points to does not contain the answer. But wth. – John Lawler Jan 10 '14 at 17:21
  • Duplicate/Not duplicate... it helped :) – jules Jan 10 '14 at 17:38
  • Your example involves a fused relative construction. Any choice you make here will probably be dubious or at best questionable, due to the conflicting case requirements on "who(m)ever" that are being made by the matrix clause and the relative clause. Though, if a choice had to be made, then "whoever" is usually preferable in sentences like yours. (Only your first example sentence might be somewhat acceptable; the other versions seem to be bad.) – F.E. Jan 10 '14 at 22:36
  • Thanks for the reply. Are you saying the three others are grammatically incorrect? Why? – jules Jan 23 '14 at 15:17

0 Answers0