1

Which of the following sentences is correct according to English grammar and usage? (Note: this was asked in an examination and I have to select only one of the four sentences.)

1) The fishermen, whom the flood victims owed their lives, were rewarded by the government.

2) The fishermen, to which the flood victims owed their lives, were rewarded by the government.

3) The fishermen, to whom the flood victims owed their lives, were rewarded by the government.

4) The fishermen, that the flood victims owed their lives, were rewarded by the government.

I think it is 1) or 3), but I’m not sure which. Is “to” required before “whom” in a sentence like this?

herisson
  • 81,803
empty-soul
  • 19
  • Both are fine. You can even say: The fisherman, whom* the river victims owed their lives to, were rewarded…* (note the extra comma) – Mari-Lou A Feb 06 '19 at 12:05
  • See this answer https://english.stackexchange.com/a/237463/44619 – Mari-Lou A Feb 06 '19 at 12:08
  • Related: “Without whom…” or “whom … without”? – Mari-Lou A Feb 06 '19 at 12:12
  • 2
    I don't like (1). But you could use The fisherman, who the river victims owed their lives to, were rewarded by the government. – Peter Shor Feb 06 '19 at 12:21
  • What are your views about (2) @PeterShor – empty-soul Feb 06 '19 at 12:23
  • 1
    Yeah, #1 is not good. – Hot Licks Feb 06 '19 at 12:25
  • I actually think (1) is fine grammatically. I think it sounds wrong to me because dropping the to, which is grammatically acceptable, and which would be fine in shorter sentences, makes this one more difficult to parse. For example, I don't see anything wrong with The man whom I owed ten dollars. – Peter Shor Feb 06 '19 at 12:29
  • Both sentences are poorly punctuated and ungrammatical. This is not English. Don't take this exam, run away. – RegDwigнt Feb 06 '19 at 12:40
  • @PeterShor In that case, 'The man' is the object of the verb 'owed'. In this case, the verb is 'were rewarded' and the fishermen are the subject of the verb. It is important to distinguish the relative clause here. – JDF Feb 06 '19 at 12:57
  • @Deonyi: If you insist, we can complete the relative clause to the sentence: The man whom I owed ten dollars won the lottery yesterday. I don't see anything wrong with that sentence, either. – Peter Shor Feb 06 '19 at 13:11
  • @RegDwigнt i have edited the question. is it correct now? – empty-soul Feb 07 '19 at 15:07
  • Note that this is *not* a duplicate of the question people are about to close it as a duplicate as. That one is on the difference between to whom and whom .... to. This one is about the difference between to whom and whom ... (no to). – Peter Shor Feb 07 '19 at 15:57
  • 1
    There's still the problem of the plural verb (were) not agreeing with the subject (the fisherMAN) which escaped my attention the first time. Who was rewarded? The fisherman or the river / flood victims? – Mari-Lou A Feb 07 '19 at 16:51
  • 1
    This is a duplicate of the same question, with the same mistakes: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/484416/question-asked-in-an-exam#comment1169518_484416 However, it was closed and has no accepted answers. – Cascabel_StandWithUkraine_ Feb 07 '19 at 17:47
  • @PeterShor I honestly have no idea what I was thinking back then regarding relative clauses, objects and subjects. Maybe it will come to me. Sorry about that. – JDF Feb 12 '19 at 10:46

2 Answers2

3

If you have to choose only one option from "whom the river victims owed their lives" and "to whom the river victims owed their lives", go with "to whom the river victims owed their lives". This version of the relative clause is undeniably grammatical in standard written English. Putting a prepositional phrase containing a wh-word at the front of a relative clause is called "pied-piping" by linguists; it is relatively formal and may sound stilted in conversational English, but it wouldn't be considered "incorrect" in the context of an examination that is testing your mastery of standard written English.

There is less clarity about the status of clauses like "whom the river victims owed their lives". In this relative clause, the word "whom" represents the "indirect object" of the verb owe. Some sources say that wh-fronting of indirect objects is ungrammatical, or at least "infelicitous". For specific references, see my answer to Is “Whom did you give the book?” ungrammatical? Different speakers seem to have different judgements of the acceptability of clauses with fronted wh-words functioning as indirect objects.

herisson
  • 81,803
  • you are right. i made some mistake and sorry for that.. i am now editing the question with exact sentences.. please look again at the question.. again am very sorry for that. – empty-soul Feb 07 '19 at 14:57
  • 1
    @empty-soul "some" mistakes? You left out some of the punctuation, you forgot about the other two options, you omitted the fact that it came from a test paper. Better late than never I suppose, so I've retracted my downvote. However, it means Sumelic answer only discusses the difference between 1 and 3. – Mari-Lou A Feb 07 '19 at 22:21
  • Examination was online and question paper was not released until then. What i have written previously in question was memory based. Yesterday i got the question paper and hence corrected accordingly. – empty-soul Feb 08 '19 at 05:27
0

It appears that all four edited examples are in error. The singular subject "fisherman" requires a singular verb "was."

Patrick Owens
  • 53
  • 5