2

Temporary reopen note:

This question may appear at first blush to be about whether to use who or whom. However, the naturalness and grammaticality of this phrase has to do with the periphrastic genitive versus the saxon genitive, not whether to use nominative or accusative case. For this reason this is both a useful question and not a duplicate of the linked-to post here:

The Question:

Just to give a few details: I am writing an answer to an exercise, the exercise describes arranged objects, I want to state that the provide information allows one to deduce what are the neighboring objects.

How do I say it in one sentence - "who are the neighbors of who?" It does not sound correct to me...

I would appreciate it if someone could point out if this is correct and would be grateful if there is a way to break this down or compare it with similar language construction to help me get familiar with this type of sentence.

Heartspring
  • 8,600
  • 6
  • 43
  • 73
them
  • 121
  • 2
    "Who are neighbours to whom?" – Mick Dec 29 '16 at 19:45
  • "... allows us to determine who are whose neighbors" might work. – Hellion Dec 29 '16 at 19:46
  • @Hellion, thanks, can you say "Who are whose neighbors?" without the first part of the sentence (without the "allows us to determine") would it be a correct sentence? – them Dec 29 '16 at 19:50
  • 1
    For a simple question, perhaps "Who has which neighbors?" – Hellion Dec 29 '16 at 19:52
  • @Hellion, "Who has which neighbors?" that sounds better! But I also wonder if the other forms are incorrect or just sound strange... – them Dec 29 '16 at 19:59
  • @BladorthinTheGrey Hmmm. No, it isn't a dupe, in the end. After a preposition there usually is no choice, we have to use whom. A basic point of English grammar missed in those answers but pertinent here. More importantly here though, we prefer a so-called saxon genitive when the possessor is animate - so "who is whose neighbour" would be preferred, unless there are specific reasons not to use the saxon genitive - which there aren't here. – Araucaria - Him Dec 30 '16 at 02:23
  • 1
    @Araucaria: "After a preposition there usually is no choice, we have to use whom." There are enough exceptions to that statement that I would not teach it as a general rule. In phrases like "knowledge of who was in the film" "whom" is actually impossible since the pronoun is not the object of the preposition, despite coming after it. Also, I wouldn't say "whom" is required in questions that don't use fronting, like "Have you ever heard of him?" "Have I ever heard of who"?... – herisson Dec 30 '16 at 04:01
  • 4
    @Araucaria: If you look at Google Ngram Viewer, "of who" is definitely less frequent than "of whom", but not overwhelmingly so in modern writing. – herisson Dec 30 '16 at 04:01
  • @sumelic I'm not prone to being hypertechnical in comments, but maybe I should have been here. Such a rule of thumb should be given as it is pretty reliable. But it should be stated in terms of whether the word who(m) is the complement of the preposition. In your first example, it isn't ... [Now, having said that, you will notice that I did the necessary hedges for genuine exceptions such as in situ questions by using the word usually in my original comment!] You're quite right about in situ questions. The point hereis it's not the issue for this question – Araucaria - Him Dec 30 '16 at 13:54
  • @sumelic So, to make that point a bit clearer, a preposition can obviously take an interrogative clause as a complement, in which case who will appear grammatically as the first word of the interrogative clause as opposed to as the complement of the preposition. So that is basically what your NGram is showing. It isn't showing that who is occurring significantly as frequently as whom when those words are the complements of prepositions. – Araucaria - Him Dec 31 '16 at 14:26
  • @Araucaria: I just wrote a post about when “whom” needs to be used, so maybe we can continue communicating about this in the comments there. That way "them" won’t have to worry about our posts. I thought the exception to your rule for wh-in-situ situations would be very relevant since “who” is in-situ in a sentence like “Who are the neighbors of who?", and therefore it doesn't seem to me that "whom" must be used in this situation. – herisson Dec 31 '16 at 17:47
  • @sumelic Yes, quite. That's why this question isn't a dupe. The who/whom issue isn't the issue (see my post below). Will get back to you tomorrow. Am getting ready to see in the new year ... – Araucaria - Him Dec 31 '16 at 18:30
  • Since they are objects, not people, Which neighbors which would be idiomatic. Which is neighbors with which?" would also be idiomatic – TimR Aug 24 '23 at 12:54

3 Answers3

2

In a situation where all the people are indefinite (perhaps all the people in a neighborhood or a clan), one can use who after a preposition like that. The basic fixed phrase is

  • Who is who (in this picture)? [not whom; usually contracted to Who's who?]

  • Who's standing next to who in this picture? [whom is allowed but infrequent]

The rule for whom says it's never required, except when it's the object of a pied-piped preposition. Other prepositions, like these, can use who or whom, no difference in meaning, only falutation.

John Lawler
  • 107,887
-2

It would be "who are the neighbors of whom" because though who and whom come from the same root word, "who" is properly used as a subject (like "I", "he", or "she") and "whom" is used properly as an object (like "me", "him", or "her").

cbeen
  • 55
-2

The provided information allows one to say of the objects which neighbors which.

The sentence above completely skirts the singular-plural issue. It handles both because the relationship is a reciprocal one.

The provided information allows one to say of the objects which is neighbors with which.

That sentence has a singular verb too but to get caught up in that would be silly in the given context: the cumulative effect is that all neighbor relationships can be established.

The discussion below is for people, not things, but will support the second example I've given above.

who is neighbor of who? is idiomatic colloquial American English.

Your version with the plural is marginal, to my ear: Who are the neighbors of who? Why? Not because the number agreement is ungrammatical, not at all, as it isn't, but because that's not how the question is asked in colloquial contexts. It "mixes registers".

On the singular/plural issue... Each "who" may have multiple neighbors, true, but the singular version I gave above doesn't preclude that possibility, and it is far more likely to come out of the mouths of native American English speakers speaking casually than your plural version.

At this level of colloquialism, even the verb is can refer notionally to more than one person especially if they can be subsumed under a role. (In Who is neighbor of who? the word neighbor without article is being used as a role.) We could be talking, say, about couples living in a neighborhood, and someone listening in and trying to keep straight in their mind which couples are neighbors of which, might ask "Who is neighbor of who?" or even "Who is neighbors of who?"

An example of what may seem to be the chimerical nature of number agreement in this particular colloquial context with neighbors is the following:

In this article, the numerical order is used to determine which numbers are neighbors. As an example, the number 3 is neighbors of 2 and 4.

But let's go one step further and make it a circle, 0-9 and back to 0 (01234567890123...). With that, the number 9 is neighbors of both 8 and 0. And 0 is neighbors of both 9 and 1. [my emphasis]

But there, neighbors is not so much a plural noun as it is a predicative complement that means "being in the role of neighbor". (Compare "is partners with" here.)

And so a perfectly idiomatic normal-register version of your question that accommodates a notionally singular or plural subject is:

Who is neighbors with who?

with this version being in formal register:

Who is neighbors with whom?

NOTE: I said with who(m) there since that preposition is in the linguistic thal-weg, so to speak, of this predicative use of neighbors.

Note: That predicative use is neighbors is not an Americanism.

There are people who will see of who as wrong, and think whom is the correct choice. I can't tell you what to do about that issue. whom is what educated people would probably write when trying to be formal and correct, especially if they don't want to risk being tagged as uneducated. Moreover, even if the author were to have written "with who", in many journals the editorial staff would red-pencil it and replace it with "with whom". Written attestations are to some extent artificial in that they reflect editorial preference not actual usage.

Here's an illuminating contrast:

Who's kidding who? (from Creative Pastors)

Who's kidding whom? (from National Library of Medicine)

The irony there is that the author (editor?) of the article in the National Library of Medicine is using the "correct" whom, which has been falling out of use for centuries and is largely moribund in colloquial speech, in a colloquial phrase, violating the "register" . It's like saying "Who's punking whom?" or "Who's ghosting whom?"

TimR
  • 21,116
TimR
  • 2,999
  • Please cite sources for this. To me, "who is neighbor of who?" sounds totally wrong, even if you add a determiner to "neighbor." I would, like the asker, only use the plural here, even speaking colloquially (as a fellow native AmE speaker). – alphabet Aug 24 '23 at 04:13
  • Neighbor is treated there as a "role noun". You will find this use especially in books related to Christian ministry.: *Who is neighbor to me ? " Jesus answers his question and more;" But that's just a ready example and there should be no problem finding plenty more examples of that role usage. – TimR Aug 24 '23 at 09:50
  • https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/534612/the-use-of-an-article – TimR Aug 24 '23 at 10:18
  • @TimR Am I my brother's neighbour? – Edwin Ashworth Aug 24 '23 at 10:36
  • @EdwinAshworth I suppose it depends on where he lives and on whether you are a boor (etymological joke) – TimR Aug 24 '23 at 10:57
  • @TimR "Neighbor" is not a role in the relevant sense. "He is neighbor" is obviously incorrect. – alphabet Aug 24 '23 at 11:37
  • @alphabet: can you cite anything to support your contention? Many nouns can be cast as roles. – TimR Aug 24 '23 at 11:43
  • @alphabet: They are husband and wife. But He is X is not the test for whether something is a role with zero article because some roles normally have a prepositional phrase complement: "He was predecessor to...". – TimR Aug 24 '23 at 12:12
  • He is husband to the famous crime novelist. "He is husband." would fail your test. – TimR Aug 24 '23 at 12:37
  • "Who is the neighbor of who?" would certainly be valid, but to me it's asking about a relationship, whereas "Who are the neighbors of who?" is also IMO fine, and more appropriate as a general inquiry if for instance there are some neighbors and some non-neighbors. – Stuart F Aug 24 '23 at 12:38
  • @StuartF: The question does imply they are all neighbors of someone but there's some confusion or doubt as to how they all fit together, as to which go with which. – TimR Aug 24 '23 at 12:42
  • I can find instances of neighbor used without an article, but mainly in 19th century religious texts e.g. theologian John Faulkner Potts "Everyone is neighbour to himself" (1895), or "each is neighbour to the other" (1872 translation of St Augustine). – Stuart F Aug 24 '23 at 12:43
  • I can find plenty of 20th c. texts. – TimR Aug 24 '23 at 12:45
  • If we follow OP's context closely, we shouldn't be asking who but which, as they are neighboring objects. – TimR Aug 24 '23 at 12:45
  • "Deciding who is neighbor and who is not establishes boundaries of care."

    Paying Attention: Focusing Your Congregation on What Matters (2005) ; "The sin of egocentricity is especially difficult to bring under judgment when kin- ship , ethnic solidarity or national identity becomes a criterion for who is neighbor." The Shape of Practical Theology: Empowering Ministry... (2001)

     – TimR Aug 24 '23 at 12:52