Essorant wrote:I am sure that between "I know whom he is" and "I know who he is" the second is the grammatically correct, but for some reason I have difficulty explaining the reason for this to my mind.
Is it something such as the word "that" being removed: "I know (that) he is who" as "I know (that) who is he"?
Lucus Eques wrote:In reality, what has been omitted is the word "him" : "I know him who he is." So "him" is the missing object you're looking for, and its objectivity is transferred fully upon the clause "who he is," though it shows no accusative marker.
Kasper wrote:Lucus Eques wrote:In reality, what has been omitted is the word "him" : "I know him who he is." So "him" is the missing object you're looking for, and its objectivity is transferred fully upon the clause "who he is," though it shows no accusative marker.
Do you have any sources you could refer to for this Luce? English is admittedly only my second language, but i don't see any need to imply the word 'him', or assume that it has been omitted, particularly 'in reality'. It seems to me that English simply does not require such a word to be expressed or implied, because the clause as object itself suffices.
Afterall, contrary to popular belief, English is not Latin in code.
Of course, i'd happily be wrong.
But why isn't "who" the object of "know" when we say "I know who he is"?
Should we consider a "whom" as being implied instead, so that in meaning it is "I know whom who he is" but written as "I know who he is"?
modus.irrealis wrote:I agree with jaihare that it's just a matter of being an indirect question, and the question word never changes when you go from direct to indirect. Also, I don't think "who" is the subject of "who is he?". Compare "who are you?" where the verb agrees with "you", and how "he" moves back in front of the verb to subject position in the indirect question like with "I know who he is" but on the other hand you have "who's here?" > "I know who's here".
Essorant wrote:Me liketh Lucus' explanation best. It makes most sense to me to to think of the object as being invisible.
But I admit I am so obstinate that I still think that "whom" may be better in this case. That is is because the object itself is meant refer to a questionable being (a who), not a specific person with indication of gender (a him). I think this may be seen a bit better in a saying such as "she is who I love". It doesn't seem correct to decipher that as "she is who (her) I love". But similar to the saying "It is that that I love" with two that's, one going with "is" and the other being the object of "love", it seems like sayings such as these have two who's, where the one that is the object (the whom) is invisible.
I know who he is = I know (whom) who he is.
She is who I love = she is who (whom) I love
The subject "who" is seen by the eye. But the object "whom" is invisible and playing the ghost.
jaihare wrote:No, I already told you. The fact that it is an embedded question is the REASON.
Lucus Eques wrote:
Hi Kasper; I had no idea that English was your second language; what's your first, if I may ask?
Essorant wrote:Certainly you can see that these two sentences are VERY different.
They are the same kind, just with a different wordorder!
paulusnb wrote:But, what about the following sentence: I have always known him to be a stand up guy. Him is the Objective case. Colloquial?
Essorant wrote:jaihare ,
I apologize for not being able to follow you very well. But my last comment was about the sentences in the context of my question, regarding "who" being used instead of "whom". From what I understand, those sentences do use "who" in basically the same manner, regardless of the difference of the verbs. In both examples we have "who" not being turned into "whom" by the verbs (know and love). If the action of the verbs "know" and "love" are not acting on "who" turning it into "whom" then where is the action of the verbs going instead? You don't think it is acting upon an omitted or implied object of "him" or "whom" "the one" "the person" (or what you will):
I know (whom/him/the one/the person, etc) who he is
She is who (whom/her/the one/the person, etc) I love
Essorant wrote:He wants that we go with him.
I never heard anyone speak like that before.
jaihare wrote:I would suggest a basic introduction to transformational grammar and syntax tree and bar structure. I think it would clarify a lot of these things.
jailhare wrote:If you can't see that difference and understand how cases work in English (since we only have two real cases), I would really start to worry about any other language you study.
jailhare wrote:I was answering in sincerity, but you were rejecting my responses without consideration — and I'm the one who is right on this. All the other theorizing in this thread is not based on the structure of the English language. I teach English for a living — and make decent money for it. I'm a professional, and I know what I'm talking about. Why reject this in preference of conjecture? Perhaps it's better that I just stay out (that's subjunctive, by the way) of people's ways and let them chase rabbits. Either way, my apologies ahead of time for the rudeness.
paulusnb wrote:jaihare wrote:I would suggest a basic introduction to transformational grammar and syntax tree and bar structure. I think it would clarify a lot of these things.jailhare wrote:If you can't see that difference and understand how cases work in English (since we only have two real cases), I would really start to worry about any other language you study.
You would be a lot more pleasant to talk to if you would stop saying things like this.
paulusnb wrote:jailhare wrote:I was answering in sincerity, but you were rejecting my responses without consideration — and I'm the one who is right on this. All the other theorizing in this thread is not based on the structure of the English language. I teach English for a living — and make decent money for it. I'm a professional, and I know what I'm talking about. Why reject this in preference of conjecture? Perhaps it's better that I just stay out (that's subjunctive, by the way) of people's ways and let them chase rabbits. Either way, my apologies ahead of time for the rudeness.
Pardon me. But when I disagree with someone over whether something is the dative of reference or the genitive of characteristic with the infinitive, I cite an authority instead of using All-caps. You may teach English for a living, but we have not signed up for your class. When you speak to us like children, it shows a lack of respect. So, perhaps instead of insulting someone who disagrees with you or asks a question of you, you could cite a grammar.
Lucus Eques wrote:"who he is" is a clause that you will agree sounds correct. For example, "Who he is astounds me!" "Who he is makes everyone tremble," etc. Therefore, "Who he is, I know him." Thus: "I know who he is." In reality, what has been omitted is the word "him" : "I know him who he is." So "him" is the missing object you're looking for, and its objectivity is transferred fully upon the clause "who he is," though it shows no accusative marker.
Lucus Eques wrote:Have you read the King James English version of the Bible? In it you'll read many unmodern forms of English, that still fully qualify as Modern English and are officially part of this very language (including "thou" and "thy," inter alia). Constructions such as, "They saw him who was fortold," and so forth, are much more common. Though the hodiern English eschews these redundancies, they used to be quite normal.
At the very least, people could weigh what I was saying against their own experience instead of just casting it off. Or, is that how it works? I either cite an authoritative grammar for my remarks or you just ignore what I type and keep on rambling in the dark asking completely irrelevant questions in the wrong direction? I mean, I'll gladly just ignore people's posts if that's the kind of forum that you want to have here. I was offering an answer that was coherent and persuasive, and I was rebuffed for it. Of course my reaction was harsh, but it was based on how people responded to me.
Lucus Eques wrote:I must say, amice Israeliane, that certainly I do agree with your arguments, and the logic you have presented with regard to this discussion.
But I take issue with the tone with which you express yourself here, as do perhaps some others here. I know that at least three of us are teachers, yourself and myself included. And you know that there are sometimes a few slow students who have trouble grasping the basics — perhaps that is what you see in us, which is why you are frustrated with us. But just as you would be with your students, I ask you to be more patient in your treatment of us. You say that your arguments have been practically air-tight in their reasoning and explanation — but if they are inherently so logical, why do we (who have a certain amount of good education ourselves on grammatical topics) feel reluctant to accept them out-of-hand, and merely trust your authority alone?
And this comes back to how we have interpreted your tone — whether you meant it or not, phrases like the ones I placed in bold above sound as if you are condescending to us — as if we were foolish middle schoolers not even worth your time. Also, some of these comments make you sound defensive, and overly self-confident, in a way that only shrouds your logical, clear statements in a haze of emotions that don't interest us so much.
Someone in this thread cited a thread from a year ago this week in which I participated — and when I read my comments now, I blush! how just a year ago, I sounded so much harsher, egotistical, and uncompromising! I feel embarrassed. But at the time, I didn't realize it — nor that my attitude just put off my colleagues and made them feel attacked, and less willing to see whatever logic or force of reason I may have had to offer.
Have I matured? I hope so, but it's always possible for me to recede back into that kind of flaming rhetoric again — and when I do, amici, I trust you will kindly redirect me to this post of mine here, and knock some sense into me about my manner of expression.
So this is why we have reacted badly. As I said, when I look beyond the emotions you have expressed to us in your posts (with very colorful and well-written language, it should be said), I see the reason of your arguments. But as far as I feel about these things, exasperation and impatience do not make me feel any more willing to listen.
Salve, Alati! Quid novi?
I agree with you, amice, and with the others who have rightly insisted that the predicate "who he is" acts as an indeclinable object unto itself, and that my own explanation — altho' I believe it fully to be correct, and demonstrable through analogy with other languages and with older forms of English — is unnecessarily obtuse. And yes, Alati, I do argue that my two examples, "They saw who was fortold," and "They saw him who was fortold," are semantically the same thing.
This is how I felt: Imagine sitting in a room with other people, and everyone there is supposed to be working together to come up with a solution for some business challenge. People start going in directions that will not be advantageous, and you can see that — so you try to get their attention and suggest what you know is the best way to look at the problem. You've got experience and have faced the problem before, and you explain yourself in such a way that you end up exerting energy in your explanation. Next thing, they look at you with blank faces, turn to each other and begin to run off in the other direction and just ignore what you presented. What do you do? Personally, I would do my best to stop them and say, "Look. I know what I'm saying. Listen up. We need to look at it from this perspective." By becoming more aggressive in my post, I felt like I was banging on the table a bit trying to get the questioner to look in the right direction.
"Whom" should take the objective case grammatically because of the fact that "her" is objective in the embedded sentence. The sentence should, according to the rules, read "She is whom I love." We don't speak like this very much, however.
Does this help at all?
Essorant wrote:Yes, your manner of examples made much sense to me.
The only place I am still a bit confused is where you say that "who" in the other sentence should rightly be "whom" ("She is whom I love", instead of "She is who I love")
I am just wondering why "who" isn't considered as going with "is" here too and therefore correct in its case.
I know (a fact)
(that) who he is
She is who (someone)
(that) I love.
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 15 guests