Re: Fool's-object ``whom''

From: Ron Hardin (rhhardin_at_mindspring.com)
Date: 09/29/04 

Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 23:06:45 GMT

John Lawler wrote:
> In the cited sentence, "whom" can be analyzed (by some)
> as the object of "rethink", or as the object of "employ",
> or as a constituent of a pseudo-cleft, or of an embedded
> question, or of a headless relative. The potentialities
> for objective use vary, according to the analysis.
>
> In such a situation, one who wishes to shine uses "whom".
> And one who wishes to challenge cries foul. And the
> reader without interest in battles looks elsewhere.
>
> This is why I tell my students never to use "whom", and
> to avoid constructing sentences where the issue might
> arise. Its use adds nothing to comprehension, merely
> subtracting from clarity, much like using "s/he".

BUT, and here is the point, the sentence actually sounds wrong.
So, the question is, why? Analysis choice is there, but there is
this datum to deal with.

If the sounds fine to somebody, they won't have much of an interest
in the problem.

If it doesn't sound fine, it means you're carrying around a rule
that, so far, you can't articulate; and you're curious, or perhaps not,
how complex the rule in fact is.

The interesting cases are suppressed implications of apparently
unrelated rules, getting things so it all works out internally. 

-- 
Ron Hardin
rhhardin@mindspring.com
On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.