Who or who with infinitive

Question

"I know (who, whom) to believe."

I am not sure if I should use "who" or "whom" in the above sentence. Please give the grammatical reason for your answer.

Thank you. i have not been able to find a discussion of this on the Internet.

Best,
Dan

Cool Breeze · Accepted Answer

I wouldn't hesitate to use who even in serious writing simply because it is so common. From a strictly grammatical point of view, whom will please those who insist on the object form when the pronoun is an object. It is the object of the infinitive to believe.(It is that in the grammatical thinking and terminology I am used to, that is!

)

CB

Avangi · Answer

Greetings, my friend.

I looked at this a few hours ago and gave up on it. I'm glad you tackled it.
I'm too old to fight about using subjective case for objects.
But my instincts let me down on what modifies what. (I know CJ thinks worring about modifiers is counterproductive.)

I know where to go. (same sentence - no case conflict)

I'm as comfortable saying that "where" is what I know and "to go" answers the question; as I am to say that "to go" is what I know and "where" modifies it.

"To go" isn't a transitive verb. Why does it have to have an object anyway?
Why is "where" such a great direct object?

Best wishes, - A.

Edit. I feel the same way about "I know what to do," and "to do" is a transitive verb.

I can say, "I know to do what," but, really, that's not what I mean. What I mean to say I know, is the thing - which I'm considering doing.

Cool Breeze · Answer

AvangiI know where to go. (same sentence - no case conflict)

I'm as comfortable saying that "where" is what I know and "to go" answers the question; as I am to say that "to go" is what I know and "where" modifies it.

"To go" isn't a transitive verb. Why does it have to have an object anyway?
Why is "where" such a great direct object?

Have an Olvi, Avangi!

I have noticed over the years that the grammar I am familiar with sometimes differs from what is used elsewhere or at least in the Anglo-Saxon world. In this particular case our opinions differ with regard to what is an object and what isn't. I'm not saying that I'm right and everybody else is wrong but this is how I see it.

I know where to go.
Where to go is the object of know. Where is an adverb and not a direct object in my grammatical thinking. What, being a pronoun, could be an object: I know what to say. However, we can't say: I know what to go because, as you said, go is an intransitive verb.

Since English is spoken in many countries and there is no Language Academy to guide and correct usage, go is actually used in informal style as a transitive verb and thus it can have an object as well: He likes to go places. Either that, or places is an adverb!

I'll let you and others argue about the grammatical nature ofplaces in that sentence, if you like!

By the way, it is in no way unusual or exceptional that grammarians analyze language differently. Anyone who has read grammar books on the grammar of various languages written by people of diverse nationalities in different periods of time has noticed that. The less acquainted a person is with this, the more likely he/she is to regard his/her opinion as the only one that leads to paradise.

CB

Avangi · Answer

Thanks for elaborating on your position, CB. Your understanding of formal grammar is clearly better integrated than mine.
When a usage is idiomatic, I can usually trust my "instincts" in matters of objects; but these particular forms seem to defy common sense.

I hope that since I began by saying I'm on the fence, you don't consider me one who thinks only his view is correct.

- A.

Who or who with infinitive

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions