1

Why is this right? Give the baton to he who is closest to you when you run by. Does the case of the restrictive clause drive the case of the sentence object?

joan
  • 19
  • 6
    I'd say that accusative "him" is correct, not nominative "he". – BillJ Oct 13 '19 at 13:18
  • New American Standard Bible: *He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.* English Standard Version: Let him* who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.* – FumbleFingers Oct 13 '19 at 13:24
  • 2
    Possible duplicate of Which is grammatically correct: "Let he who..." or "Let him who..." – FumbleFingers Oct 13 '19 at 13:25
  • The pronoun in the OP's example is object of a preposition, not a subject, or object of a verb, so the imperative "Let he/him who ..." is irrelevant here. – BillJ Oct 13 '19 at 14:20
  • @Joan Why did you choose to use "he" instead of "who(m)ever"? – BillJ Oct 13 '19 at 14:29
  • Possible duplicate of What rules make “Remember me, who am your friend” grammatical? – Edwin Ashworth Oct 13 '19 at 15:25
  • @EdwinAshworth The question you link to relates to the subsidiary clause's verb, and does not entertain the possibility of the relative pronoun's antecedent being in subject case. – Rosie F Oct 13 '19 at 15:35
  • @Rosie F The thread contains 'Another example in this area is the famous

    Let him who is without sin cast the first stone. /

    Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

    The prescriptive 'over-rule' is that he/him (who is without sin), which links the letting and the casting the first stone, has its case governed by the letting (ie is in the objective) rather than by the casting the first stone. But (though hits are surprisingly low) Google stats indicate the 'incorrect' choice occurs three times as often as the 'correct'. Will the rule change!?'

     – Edwin Ashworth Oct 13 '19 at 15:37
  • 3
    It's not the personal pronoun that is subject of the relative clause but the relative pronoun "who", which is neutral in respect of its antecedent, i.e. both accusative "him" and nominative "he" are possible. But since the pronoun is object complement of the prep "to", then "him" is correct. – BillJ Oct 13 '19 at 16:44
  • Thanks you all for your reflections on this. I've since decided that the example is in fact "wrong," not "right," for the preposition must take its object (the accusative) "him" (as BillJ noted) and the relative pronoun clause must be driven by its own form (subj.-verb, etc., i.e., who is . . .). So: give the baton [to him] [who is closest to you when you run by.] As for "Let him . . ." -- same "rules": him is the object of "let"; the nonrestrictive relative pronoun clause drives its own bus: who is without sin. – joan Oct 14 '19 at 11:34
  • See also this answer. – Edwin Ashworth Nov 12 '19 at 17:40

1 Answers1

1

Well, how about this?

Give the baton to he whom you trust.

It sounds worse to me than your example, so I'm guessing that you are right, and that "he" in your example is due to agreement in case with the "who" of the relative clause.

Greg Lee
  • 17,406
  • "[Give the baton] [to --> him] [whom <-- you trust].") Object of preposition in objective/accusative case; object of "trust" likewise. – joan Oct 14 '19 at 11:43
  • Yes. In accordance with your theory, "whom" should imply "him", at least when "him" is already in an object position. – Greg Lee Oct 15 '19 at 19:30