"To who[m]ever took..."

Question

Quick question to settle a disagreement:
"To whoever took my shears: bring 'em back"
or
"To whomever took my shears..."
My flatmate wrote "whomever", being the object of the preposition "to". I prefer "whoever", being the subject of "took". Which takes precedence?

K.

Usenet · Accepted Answer

[nq:1]"To whoever took my shears: bring 'em back" or "To whomever took my shears..." My flatmate wrote "whomever", being the object of the preposition "to".[/nq]
But it isn't; "whoever took my shears" is.
[nq:1]I prefer "whoever", being the subject of "took". Which takes precedence?[/nq]
Go with
To whoever took my shears.
Its syntax differs from that of
To whomever it may concern (trace),
which your flatmate may be thinking of.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Quick question to settle a disagreement: "To whoever took my shears: bring 'em back" or "To whomever took my shears..." My flatmate wrote "whomever", being the object of the preposition "to". I prefer "whoever", being the subject of "took". Which takes precedence?[/nq]
Precedence doesn't enter into it. One is right, and one is wrong. The right answer is yours. Pronouns take their case from their role in the clause that contains them. "Whoever took my shears" is the clause, and "whoever" is the subject of it clause.

English speakers have so far lost the sense of case that they often choose the form the traditional rules proscribe. Here are three examples of such usages:
-Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
-I am the person whom he says is his principal supporter. -Give the prize to whoever John chooses.
You'll hear and see variants of the three preceding sentences all over the place, yet all of them break the traditional rules. You can get a good argument started here over such usages Have they become so common that it's time to stop calling them "wrong"? I hope I haven't started another one. I do think it safe to say that the particular example that started your argument still has a clear right answer, and it's "whoever."

Bob Lieblich
Whatever ...

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]Quick question to settle a disagreement: "To whoever took my ... prefer "whoever", being the subject of "took". Which takes precedence?[/nq]
[nq:1]Precedence doesn't enter into it. One is right, and one is wrong. The right answer is yours. Pronouns take their ... safe to say that the particular example that started your argument still has a clear right answer, and it's "whoever."[/nq]
It's also possible to argue that case is completely gone from English, and "whom" and "whomever" are as relevant as "thee" and "thou". You won't be far wrong if you do.
Jon Miller

Usenet · Answer

The inimitable Jon and Mary Miller (Email Removed) stated on 08 Sep 2003:
[nq:1]It's also possible to argue that case is completely gone from English, and "whom" and "whomever" are as relevant as "thee" and "thou". You won't be far wrong if you do.[/nq]
You'd be very far wrong to do so. The word "completely", like most absolutes in most situations, kills your argument. While fewer and fewer(1) native speakers understand when "whom" and "whomever" may be used either in speech or in writing, there are still enough of us who know and use them both, especially in formal writing and careful, formal spoken English. Not even the newest generation of speakers old enough to know and use these forms is completely ignorant of their use. Christopher Johnson seems to be a case in point.
Note:
(1) That's "less and less" for the usage-impaired who are also ignorant about "whom" and "whomever".

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]It's also possible to argue that case is completely gone ... and "thou". You won't be far wrong if you do.[/nq]
[nq:1]You'd be very far wrong to do so. The word "completely", like most absolutes in most situations, kills your argument. ... case in point. Note: (1) That's "less and less" for the usage-impaired who are also ignorant about "whom" and "whomever".[/nq]
People always overstate their cases: a minor human weakness. But none of those who use "thou" and "thee" today in spite of the depressing social stigma sometimes attached to the usage would get the cases wrong.
It is quite impossible for any mentally healthy person of normal intelligence to argue that case is completely gone from English. Anybody who says it is may safely be ignored. Me say so to they, whatever him may say to she. What them mean is that "who" is now OK in some places where standard literary English would once rigorously have insisted on "whom": these was an different kettle about fish.

Linguistic schadenfreude is one of the minor features of the quasi-Maoist or mini-Pol-Potist politics which would have us throw away anything old simply because it is old. Comfortable middle-class people in the West can enjoy their little pretend Cultural Revolution without risk of losing their privileges: in the unlikely event of its success, it would ensure a prosperous future for their children by preserving the disadvantages of lesser classes, so you can hardly blame them.
Mike.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]People always overstate their cases: a minor human weakness. But none of those who use "thou" and "thee" today in spite of the depressing social stigma sometimes attached to the usage would get the cases wrong.[/nq]
I suspect that you are wrong about that. If anyone uses "thou" and "thee" today or variations of same I would expect that some of them do indeed make errors. Consider the following, concerning how speakers of Quaker plain speech use "thee" and "you":
From
http://www.sls.hawaii.edu/bley-vroman/thee.txt
"(S)peakers have naturally become less 'proficient' as the forms have begun to die out. Also, some Quakers now are less careful in distinguishing plural from singular, using "thee" even to more than one person."

If the author is correct in thinking that the dying out of plain speech has led to errors in the speech of the speakers of plain speech that is, errors according to the traditional rules then we can look at the "thou/thee" question similarly. I would expect that at least some dialects where some form of "thou" and "thee" are used today are in the process of dying out, and errors such as using "thee" for "thou" and vice versa will occur.

To put it more bluntly: If you can find a Quaker using "thee" to address more than one person you can probably find a speaker of a "thou/thee" dialect using those pronouns incorrectly (according to the traditional rules).

Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]English speakers have so far lost the sense of case that they often choose the form the traditional rules proscribe. ... first stone. -I am the person whom he says is his principal supporter. -Give the prize to whoever John chooses.[/nq]
In that very long "he who is without sin" thread, I didn't see a single mention of the distinction between restrictive and non-restrictive uses of "who is without sin". The traditional rules blur this distinction. The modern variant allows us to distinguish between
Let him, who is without sin, cast the first stone
and
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
That's a useful upgrade to the language, in my opinion; and it's consistent with the notion that inflections nowadays apply to phrases rather than single words. (Who among us would still argue in favour of "the queen's of England crown"?)

In My Harrogant Opinion, of course. You might get a different answer from She Who Must Be Obeyed.

Peter Moylan (Email Removed) http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au (OS/2 and eCS information and software)

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]People always overstate their cases: a minor human weakness. But ... sometimes attached to the usage would get the cases wrong.[/nq]
[nq:1]I suspect that you are wrong about that. If anyone uses "thou" and "thee" today or variations of same I would expect ... Also, some Quakers now are less careful in distinguishing plural from singular, using "thee" even to more than one person."[/nq]
[nq:1]To put it more bluntly: If you can find a Quaker using "thee" to address more than one person you can probably find a speaker of a "thou/thee" dialect using those pronouns incorrectly (according to the traditional rules).[/nq]
You're right to mention "plain speech"; perhaps wrongly, I don't regard it as "natural" thee-thou dialect such as is still found in parts of England, and, I think, in that closely-related language, Scots. (I've never heard it in Wales, interestingly; though a few traces of West-Country English influence are found here.)

If it's permissible, I'd call "plain speech" a social rather than a regional form; and I don't know any British Quakers who use it. I stand by my observation that I've never noticed a British "thee-thou" speaker mix the cases. It would be as odd as using "him" as the subject of a verb, which I don't think I've ever heard either; I exclude demonstrative "them", and I do think I may have heard "er" as subject as well as "us folk" (which I don't think is strictly "non-standard" in dialect).
Mike.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1] While fewer and fewer(1) native speakers understand when "whom" and "whomever" may be used either in speech or in writing, there are still enough of us who know and use them both, especially in formal writing and careful, formal spoken English. [/nq]
I understand all the rules. But the choice of which to use in my "formal writing" depends on the persons to whom my formal writing is aimed, my assessment of their English standards, and what I might want from them.

\P. Schultz

Usenet · Answer

The inimitable Schultz (Email Removed) stated on 16 Jul 7616:
[nq:2] While fewer and fewer(1) native speakers understand when "whom" ... especially in formal writing and careful, formal spoken English. [/nq]
[nq:1]I understand all the rules. But the choice of which to use in my "formal writing" depends on the persons to whom my formal writing is aimed, my assessment of their English standards, and what I might want from them.[/nq]
Absolutely. But I think the same goes for informal writing or speaking. I usually choose my language carefully and tailor what I say and how I say it to the listener/reader and for the occasion. That obviously doesn't always work. Sometimes I'm out of control, sometimes my assessments are incorrect, and sometimes I don't have the time or even the interest. Anyone who blindly follows all the rules of language or anything else that doesn't require interacting with a computer (which is still not smart enough to understand human language beyond its own set of programmed rules of translation) is more of an automoton than a human being. Or else has a slave mentality. Knowing the rules (1) and following them are two distinct things.

NOTE:
(1) There should be no real distinction between having a conscious knowledge of the rules and knowing how to use the language well without being able to articulate the rules. In practice, however, there are many who know the rules well without knowing how to use the language well and you can find millions of them here in Far East Asia, all taught in educational systems that value quantitative over quality results. Knowledge of the rules is not sufficient to guarantee good English (or any other language) expression any more than is ignorance of how to explain the rules sufficient to guarantee poor expression.

"To who[m]ever took..."

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions