Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site voder.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!mhuxj!houxm!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!nsc!voder!gino
From: gino@voder.UUCP (Gino Bloch)
Newsgroups: net.nlang
Subject: Re: Death for we who deserve it
Message-ID: <559@voder.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 12-Dec-84 13:57:19 EST
Article-I.D.: voder.559
Posted: Wed Dec 12 13:57:19 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 15-Dec-84 00:43:38 EST
References: <275@ho95b.UUCP> <15900002@smu.UUCP>
Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara
Lines: 14

[this line stolen from Chris Torek intentionally]

> I was taught (about 8 years ago) that the first instance in both examples
> is incorrect -- that it is always (my picking) that is being referred to,
> and that in a construction like (we/us who) the who takes the case required
> by the subordinate clause and the we/us takes the case required by the 
> outer clause/phrase.
> 
> Unfortunately I don't still have the text to refer to.
I don't either - it was my ninth grade English class - several decades ago.
You're right, the original (... for we who ...) is wrong.
-- 
Gene E. Bloch (...!nsc!voder!gino)
Try to understand.