3

Should the following say whoever or whomever. And why?

Each of us is free to pretend to be whoever/whomever we wish to be.

This sentence needs an object, right?

tchrist
  • 134,759
martina tuwin
  • 31
  • 3
    Basic rule: Don't ever use whomever. Therefore the answer is whoever. – John Lawler Jul 14 '17 at 23:19
  • 1
    :) funny, but no! – martina tuwin Jul 14 '17 at 23:39
  • @martina Since you're talking about freedom, consider whatever. That's closer to whoever. I think whomever there would sound like picking a specific person and pretending to be that person. Whoever is broader, and includes picking personality traits or occupations as well as picking actual people. – Lawrence Jul 14 '17 at 23:40
  • Why does the sentence need an object, and what do you think "whomever" would be the object of? "To be" does not take an object. See Shoe's answer to Why do we say “who you were” and not “whom you were”? Isn't it the object of the verb? – herisson Jul 14 '17 at 23:47
  • @martinatuwin It wasn't a joke... – Aleksandr Hovhannisyan Jul 15 '17 at 00:29
  • @Lawrence I can't! this is the sentence in something I'm proofing, so I have no choice in words... – martina tuwin Jul 15 '17 at 01:12
  • @martinatuwin If you have "no choice in words", is your proofreading accomplishing anything? – Lawrence Jul 15 '17 at 04:12
  • You are right @martina tuwin that 'this complex sentence' needs an object for 'pretend to be': and that object is whoever/whomever we wish to be -- now it is a question of deciding whether 'wish to be' needs an object: I found the form 'wish to be' defined as an intransitive verb here: http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/wish_1 see definition 2, intransitive verb, which has an example 'I don't wiah to be rude, etc -- intransitive means it does not need an object, so the object pronoun whomever is not to be used, which is the answer to your question: so use whoever! – English Student Jul 15 '17 at 04:51
  • 4
    It seems like only yesterday that John Lawler was saying "The rule is – never use 'whomever'." In fact, I think it was yesterday. – Edwin Ashworth Jul 15 '17 at 14:42
  • I was serious. The answer is whoever; it's the complement of be in the embedded question clause whoever we wish to be, which is the complement of to be in the clause above it. None of these NPs are direct objects, and therefore there is no reason whatever for whom or whomever. Intermediate rule: don't ever use whom, not even disguised as whomever. – John Lawler Jul 15 '17 at 15:05
  • 3
    I was, and with this same sentence, too. Whoever is correct because there's simply no accusative slots open for it to fit in. – John Lawler Jul 15 '17 at 15:18
  • Contrastive examples: Is he correct? I think he is correct. Do you think he is correct? Who is correct? Who do you think is correct? Do you think him correct? Whom do you think correct? Do you think him an impostor? Whom do you think an impostor? Who do you think his impostor is? Whom do you think his impostor is tricking? See how easy this is? :) – tchrist Jul 15 '17 at 15:24
  • Each of us is freer than ever to believe whatever and pretend to be whoever we wish. – pujji Jul 15 '17 at 14:29
  • thank you @pujji! but why? does the sentence not need an object, whomever? – Molly W Jul 15 '17 at 14:39
  • @MollyW Since be is not a transitive verb, it can take no object by definition — in theory. It’s a copula, which is a special kind of intransitive verb. Historically a copula takes a nominative complement (well, or adjectival), but formal It is he is rare in speech compared with It’s him. Note however that this is normal, not some odd exception: He just wants to be himself. That’s because himself should be thought of here not as an object form but as an emphatic one, just like in He himself has said so. – tchrist Jul 15 '17 at 15:32
  • 2
    @MollyW and original poster: which English class is sending its students here for help with their homework? The two of you have asked an identical question of an unusually detailed sentence within the space of a day. What class is using us as a resource? This is not forbidden; I'm simply curious. – tchrist Jul 15 '17 at 15:44
  • I don't agree with J Lawler. I don't see it as an embedded question clause, but a fused relative construction where "who(m)ever" means any person who(m). The complement of "be" is missing but understood as "who(m)ever. Nowadays there is a preference to use accusative case pronouns as complement of "be" (Don't worry; it is only me), so if anything "whomever" is more appropriate. Nevertheless, the opposite is true here and nominative "whoever" is probably the favourite. – BillJ Jul 15 '17 at 17:48
  • @tchrist something is off. I'm noticing an unusually lot of whomever/whoever questions, too. – NVZ Jul 15 '17 at 18:59

3 Answers3

5

Whoever vs. whomever is basically the same problem as who vs. whom, and there are some who argue that the problem so baffles so many users of English that we may as well just give up on the objective forms with the m in them, and just use the forms without it in all contexts.

The problem and confusion tend to arise because these (as used here, at least) are relative pronouns, and a relative pronoun can sometimes seem to be at once an object and a subject:

Solon gave the responsibility and authority to launch a criminal prosecution to whoever so wills.

People are tempted to use the m form there because the relative appears to be (and indeed is) the object of the preposition to. But more importantly, and generally across multiple languages, the case of the relative is determined by its grammatical role within the relative clause, in this case as the subject of the verb wills; so subjective case is quite properly used. The tension will bother some users of English even so.

In your example, the relative may appear to be the object of both the verb be and the verb wish, so whomever is tempting. But be is rather a linking verb than a transitive one, and wish is elliptical for wish to be, so on both counts whoever should be preferred.

Some say using subjective (aka nominative) forms with be (including where it is thus elided), as in “it is I” or “He is taller than I [am],” is stuffy and pretentious and should be abandoned; but when the pronoun is who or whoever, the same objection is raised against the objective form in all contexts, so in this case the old-fashioned purist/prescriptivist and the go-with-the-flow evolutionist are actually likely to agree in preferring whoever.

Brian Donovan
  • 16,289
  • I see it as a 'fused' relative construction where "who(m)ever" means "any person who(m)". The pronoun is the predicative complement of "be" in the relative clause, so in accordance with modern grammar accusative "whomever" woild seem preferable (cf. Don't worry; it is only me). Nevertheless, nominative "whoever" is generally preferred. – BillJ Jul 15 '17 at 17:43
  • @BillJ "Don't worry; it is only me" -- Do you have a link explaining this rule and when it applies? I grew up being taught that the (more stilted) "It is I" is grammatically correct, technically. – Jonah Oct 29 '19 at 14:10
1

I am interpreting this as a case where whom/whomever is not to be used for the following reasons, whereas much of modern English grammar advice would anyway echo John Lawler's comment that whom/whomever is never required.

(1) Who/whoever is a subject pronoun and whom/whomever is an object pronoun.

Who” and “whoever” are subjective pronouns; “whom” and “whomever” are in the objective case. That simply means that “who” (and the same for “whoever”) is always subject to a verb, and that “whom” (and the same for “whomever”) is always working as an object in a sentence.

Source: http://web.ku.edu/~edit/whom.html

This may be interpreted as follows: whom/whomever should be used only if there is the need for an object pronoun, and in all other cases (even as default in all cases, as highlighted in comments by grammar expert John Lawler) who/whoever is to be used.

(2) 'To be' is the basic form of is/am/was/were and therefore does not need a object.

In fact 'be' is a linking verb which

connects the subject with a word that gives information about the subject, such as a condition or relationship. They do not show any action; but, they link the subject with the rest of the sentence.

Source: http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-linking-verbs.html

Example:

I am a student // I wish to be a student.

Here I am the subject but 'student' is not the object, but rather a 'state' or condition of being.

Who do you wish to be?

I wish to be a student.

Well, you can be whoever you wish to be.

(3) In short, 'who/whom we wish to be' does not need an object pronoun and therefore 'whoever' is to be used here.

Community
  • 1
English Student
  • 7,372
  • 2
    This learned member disagrees that whatever is more appropriate. – Arm the good guys in America Jul 15 '17 at 03:19
  • @Clare 'what do you wish to be' is more commonly used in Indian English and 'who do you wish to be' is rather less common. I have also heard statements like 'you can be whatever you wish to be' which is why I tend to agree with the comment of Lawrence. Of course if you think it controversial I can delete that sentence from my answer. – English Student Jul 15 '17 at 03:23
  • 1
    "I wish to be him" or "I wish to be he"? Nobody actually says "I wish to be he". (But then, nobody uses whom**, either.) – Peter Shor Jul 15 '17 at 03:48
  • @Peter Shor something very similar to that question has actually been asked before and in relation to who/whom https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/251039/whom-will-it-be-vs-will-it-be-he-him and I quote from the answer by sumelic: _ native English speakers tend to put the complement in the accusative in all circumstances. That's why sentences like "Will it be him?" are commonly produced and judged as grammatical by native speakers. _ I think a modern sensibility would consider 'be him' simple and 'be he' unnecessary but at this point it has almost become a matter of style... – English Student Jul 15 '17 at 03:49
  • @English Student: and sumelic's answer says that it's he in that case, but him in a case that's closer to one in this question: "I know it to be him." – Peter Shor Jul 15 '17 at 03:53
  • @Peter Shor I am no grammarian myself but "I wish to be him" also sounds vaguely ungrammatical, though rather better than "be he": naming the person might be the best option instead of using a pronoun here. In the same answer sumelic has stated: _ "Whom will it be?" is a hypercorrection: it isn't justified either by the grammatical rules that come naturally to English speakers, or by the set of rules that are traditionally prescribed _ which is probably the answer to OP's question here. – English Student Jul 15 '17 at 04:05
  • The traditional rules say that you should use whoever you wish to be if you would say I wish to be he, and whomever you wish to be if you would say I wish to be him. – Peter Shor Jul 15 '17 at 04:08
  • @Peter Shor You are right: I see now that is indeed the best way to put it. However the English speaking world seems nowadays much in agreement against poor enbattled 'whom' and 'whomever!' -- this is a most interesting discussion but if I continue, this entire comments section will be moved to chat. – English Student Jul 15 '17 at 04:12
  • @Clare & EnglishStudent: My suggestion of whatever was a broadening of the OP's choices. The question supplied very little context, allowing future careers, impersonation and personal development within its scope, with whatever, whomever and whoever being idiomatic in each case, respectively. – Lawrence Jul 15 '17 at 04:21
  • @PeterShor: Everything in English Student's answer looks correct to me. There is an objective/accusative pronoun in "I know it to be ...", but there is none in "I wish to be ...", so prescriptively the pronoun after "be" would be supposed to be in the subjective/nominative case, as it refers back to the pronoun "I". – herisson Jul 15 '17 at 04:41
  • @sumelic: it's still the case that nobody ever says "I wish to be he." Searching through Google books, "I wish to be him" is much more common. Possibly the explanation is that the reference back to I is indirect enough that people treat it as a stand-alone clause that doesn't refer either to a subject or an object, so that it gets the objective case by default. – Peter Shor Jul 15 '17 at 12:24
  • ... continued. For example, in traditional grammar, should the person we believe to be he/him really take he or him depending on whether the person is a subject or object, or should it just always be him? – Peter Shor Jul 15 '17 at 12:30
  • @PeterShor: still, my understanding is that "I wish to be he" is the traditionally prescribed form. Take a look at the guide I cite in my question here: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/318508/being-he-him-is-not-easy-which-is-prescriptively-correct – herisson Jul 15 '17 at 13:05
  • @sumelic: You're right ... traditionally, it appears the prescriptivists say that to be takes the subjective case as a default. – Peter Shor Jul 15 '17 at 15:11
  • 1
    @sumelic: But I found a different grammar book from 1878 on Google books. Quote: "The assumed subject of the infinitive being omitted when it is the same as the principal subject, him, in the sentence I wish to be him — equalling I wish (me or myself) to be him — is the proper form, being in the same case as me." Since this book agrees with usage, I'm inclined to trust it more for this sentence. – Peter Shor Jul 18 '17 at 01:13
  • @Peter Shor the textbook you have linked also makes the point that constructions like 'to be he'/ 'to be him' are quite rare and therefore the grammatical uncertainty they embody is apparently of not much practical importance: but where the practical significance comes is that substituting he/him can lead to a false determination of 'whom' where 'who' is called for, as in this question, which is one weakness of this 'substitution test' for differentiating between who and whom. – English Student Jul 18 '17 at 01:16
  • No. I think that according to that book, whomever is clearly called for here. There's an implicit object pronoun: Each of us is free to be whomever we wish (ourself) to be. And the case of whomever needs to match it. – Peter Shor Jul 18 '17 at 03:16
  • Having said that, this is completely non-intuitive for modern-day native English speakers. We don't put the subject complement of to be in the nominative case anymore, and we hardly ever use whom. And furthermore, the answer is useless: questions like this are never going to appear on grammar tests, since to find the traditionally correct answer to them we have to puzzle over antique grammar books, which seem to disagree among themselves. – Peter Shor Jul 18 '17 at 03:16
  • @Peter Shor - yes indeed these are uncommon constructions -- possibly not even relevant now that experts suggest "never use whom" -- but I suppose you like the arcane aspects of canonical grammar as much as I have begun to, since joining ELU! What I understood is that when knowledgeable and interested members like you are there to guide a non-expert, grammar opens up the door into the engine room of the language: very illuminating. – English Student Jul 18 '17 at 07:11
-1

This answer uses a somewhat different line of reasoning (from my previous answer), which is why I have presented it as a separate answer to OP's question.

You are right that 'this complex sentence' needs an object for the transitive verb form 'pretend to be'...

Definition of pretend [transitive verb] 1 : to give a false appearance of being, possessing, or performing

does not pretend to be a psychiatrist.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pretend

...and that object according to your sentence is the noun clause "whoever/whomever we wish to be" -- now it is a question of deciding whether the verb form 'wish to be' needs an object:

I found the form 'wish to be' defined as an intransitive verb here:

Wish verb 2 [intransitive] to want to do something; to want something to happen

I don't wish to be rude, but could you be a little quieter// I wish to speak to the manager.

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/wish_1

Intransitive means it does not need an object, so the object pronoun 'whomever' is not to be used, which is the answer to your question: so use "whoever."

On the other hand, if 'wish to be' is replaced by a transitive verb form like 'wish to see' or 'wish to meet' then whomever is to be chosen as the object pronoun.

Community
  • 1
English Student
  • 7,372
  • But what if the sentence does not end with "to be"? Does that change your answer? "Each of us is free to pretend to be whoever/whomever we wish." – martina tuwin Jul 15 '17 at 13:00
  • 1
    @martina tuwin you are welcome! The sentence will not change if the last 'to be' is dropped because in this case it is assumed that 'whoever we wish' really means 'whoever we wish to be.' Again the key is that the 'wish (to be)' verb form is intransitive and therefore requires no object. On the other hand, if 'wish to be' is replaced by a transitive verb form like 'wish to see' or 'wish to meet' then whomever is to be chosen as the object pronoun. – English Student Jul 15 '17 at 15:42
  • 1
    @martina tuwin (contd.) ...as in, Whom do you wish to see? We can see whomever we wish to see. However whom/whomever are no longer commonly used by native speakers of English and grammar experts like John Lawler strongly recommend that we use who/whoever in all cases and never use whom/whomever, which is the surest way to avoid who/whom confusion forever! – English Student Jul 15 '17 at 15:53
  • thank you @English Student for the detailed answer! what's most confusing to me is that when I translate this sentence to Polish, the form whomever is absolutely correct... and the thing is that I use this technique whenever I'm in an ambiguous who/m situation, and it always rescues me... anyhow, whomever it is! – martina tuwin Jul 15 '17 at 17:37
  • dead @English Student one more, please! what about this sentence? "...to have marriage with whomever they wish." – martina tuwin Jul 15 '17 at 18:17
  • @martina formally, to marry whomever they wish, to get married to whomever they wish. Your phrase 'to have marriage' is not good English and thus not a good translation. For a guide to who & whom please see Oxford – Arm the good guys in America Jul 15 '17 at 23:22
  • @martina tuwin we members at English Language & Usage website are happy to help you. It also helps us to clarify our own understanding of grammar! As explained by Clare, 'to have marriage with' is idiomatically expressed in English as 'to marry' (someone) which is a transitive verb:it needs an object and therefore the formal choice is whom/whomever. Note that in this sentence whomever is applied to the verb 'marry' and not the verb 'wish' which is intransitive here -- you can marry whomever you wish (to marry),where 'to marry' at the end of the sentence is understood even if not expressed. – English Student Jul 16 '17 at 09:53
  • Note 2 @martina tuwin The other way to express the transitive verb 'to marry' (as also explained by Clare) is 'to get married to' which is the same type of transitive verb form, needing an object, and again 'whomever' is the formal choice: you can get married to whomever you wish (to get married to). There is no need to repeat the verb form at the end of the sentence: you can get married to whomever you wish. Now I think you will understand how to keep the difference between 'who' and 'whom'! – English Student Jul 16 '17 at 10:01