Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lanl.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!lanl!jhf From: jhf@lanl.ARPA Newsgroups: net.nlang Subject: Re: Death for we who deserve it Message-ID: <18930@lanl.ARPA> Date: Fri, 4-Jan-85 13:53:33 EST Article-I.D.: lanl.18930 Posted: Fri Jan 4 13:53:33 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 7-Jan-85 01:55:42 EST References: <275@ho95b.UUCP> <692@ihnp4.UUCP> <19@spar.UUCP> Sender: newsreader@lanl.ARPA Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory Lines: 45 from michael `prepositions are things you can end sentences with' ellis: > > While we're on the subject of case, a very common error, even (especially) > in highbrow prose, is confusing the case in: > > Death for who(m)ever deserves it is one thing. > > An apparent conflict occurs because the relative pronoun acts as > both the object of a preposition and the subject of a subordinate clause. > > The relative pronoun should be in the case required by the imbedded > (subordinate) clause; `whoever' is correct. I think michael has the right answer here, but the wrong reason. The above explanation suggests that there is a case conflict that is resolved by an arbitrary rule. A better explanation is that "whoever" (or "whomever") is in fact not the object of the preposition "for". Rather, the object is the entire relative clause, "whoever deserves it". "whoever" thus has only one function, the subject of the clause, and certainly takes the nominative case. Now to the matter of gerunds: > I simply cannot accept Lyn's statement that sentence 1 is incorrect! > If Lyn were correct, then statements like the below: (np + participle) > > A1) My father objects to children eating frogs. > B1) My father objects to limburger cheese smelling up the house. > > ..should be reworded: (possessive + gerund) > > A2) My father objects to children's eating frogs. > B2) My father objects to limburger cheese's smelling up the house. > > Which sound more natural to you? I'll take the "incorrect" ones any day. I know that I was taught in school that the second pair of sentences are the correct ones. They do not sound unnatural to me, but I'll admit that may be because of a succession of severe grammarians' having beaten these rules into my head. -:) -------------------- Joe Fasel, Los Alamos National Laboratory jhf@lanl.{arpa,uucp} To assiduously avoid splitting infinitives is unnecessary.