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.