Using whom instead of who

[nq:1]why do people use whom instead of who? I`d like to know why and where it becomes common or not. Here`s an example: "We feed children whom we think are hungry.?Times." which comes from http://www.bartleby.com/116/207.html.[/nq]
"Who" is the subject form: "whom" is the object form, used for the object of ver

[nq:2]why do people use whom instead of who? I`d like ... children whom we think are hungry.?Times." which comes from http://www.bartleby.com/116/207.html.[/nq]
[nq:1]"Who" is the subject form: "whom" is the object form, used for the object of verbs and prepositions. The sentence you cite is bad grammar, because

[nq:2]"Who" is the subject form: "whom" is the object form, ... be "We feed children. Wethink that they are hungry". The[/nq]
[nq:1]Or rather, if you wanted the expansion to reflect the mistake inthe original, what they are really saying is: "We feed children. Wethink that them are hungry" CV[/nq]
These guys have got a lousy teacher, haven't they? Or maybe they're just the clowns who didn'

[nq:1]why do people use whom instead of who? I`d like to know why and where it becomes common or not. Here`s an example: "We feed children whom we think are hungry.?Times." which comes from http://www.bartleby.com/116/207.html.[/nq]
Well, that's an interesting question, Jerry.
I've wondered about that myself

[nq:1]In the sentence you cite: We feed children whom we think are hungry. notice that there is already a 'we' functioning as the subject of the relative clause,[/nq]
"We" is the subject of only one of two clauses. It's the subject of "We think", but "who" is the subject of "who are hungry".
"We think who are hungry" is not idiomatically acceptable, but it is just as sound syntactically as

[nq:2]In the sentence you cite: We feed children whom we ... a 'we' functioning as the subject of the relative clause,[/nq]
[nq:1]"We" is the subject of only one of two clauses. It's the subject of "We think", but "who" is the subject of "who are hungry".[/nq]
Yes, but the two clauses are not coordinate; the second one is subordinate to the first, which means that "we" is the subject of th

[nq:1]Yes, but the two clauses are not coordinate; the second one is subordinate to the first, which means that "we" ... the use of 'me' vs 'I') is based on simple linear cues instead of complex and little-understood lookahead parsing regimes.[/nq]
Since people don't know how the sentence will end when they start it, unless they are utterly weird, they can't use such a system, and talk like an

[nq:2]Yes, but the two clauses are not coordinate; the second ... linear cues instead of complex and little-understood lookahead parsing regimes.[/nq]
[nq:1]Since people don't know how the sentence will end when they start it, unless they are utterly weird, they can't use such a system, and talk like anything normal. At least I can't.[/nq]
How do people cope, then, with a language such as

[nq:2]Yes, but the two clauses are not coordinate; the second ... linear cues instead of complex and little-understood lookahead parsing regimes.[/nq]
[nq:1]Since people don't know how the sentence will end when they start it, unless they are utterly weird, they can't use such a system, and talk like anything normal. At least I can't.[/nq]
Depends.
'People' both say and understand sent

[nq:2]Since people don't know how the sentence will end when ... system, and talk like anything normal. At least I can't.[/nq]
[nq:1]Depends. 'People' both say and understand sentences. These are quite different tasks. The choice of the relative pronoun is in ... end when they start speaking. And we're not even talking about writing, which is a different kettle of fish altogether.[/nq]
How