'Alert whomever may read' - should it be 'whoever'? [duplicate]
up vote
-2
down vote
favorite
This question already has an answer here:
Whoever or whomever: 'happy for ___ has the pleasure of working with you next.'
1 answer
“Put me in touch with whomever created it”? [duplicate]
1 answer
I read this morning :
... words which leap from the second verse and alert whomever may read the epistle ... to the fact that ...
I am not clear with what exactly is going on with 'alert whomever may read'. Is 'whomever' the grammatical object of 'alert' or is it the grammatical subject of 'may read' ? Or is it both ?
So should it be 'whoever' ?
grammaticality
asked Dec 5 at 9:24
Nigel J
16.8k94281
marked as duplicate by Kris, Janus Bahs Jacquet, Mark Beadles, sumelic, Community♦ Dec 5 at 22:06
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
|
show 7 more comments
up vote
-2
down vote
favorite
This question already has an answer here:
Whoever or whomever: 'happy for ___ has the pleasure of working with you next.'
1 answer
“Put me in touch with whomever created it”? [duplicate]
1 answer
I read this morning :
... words which leap from the second verse and alert whomever may read the epistle ... to the fact that ...
I am not clear with what exactly is going on with 'alert whomever may read'. Is 'whomever' the grammatical object of 'alert' or is it the grammatical subject of 'may read' ? Or is it both ?
So should it be 'whoever' ?
grammaticality
asked Dec 5 at 9:24
Nigel J
16.8k94281
marked as duplicate by Kris, Janus Bahs Jacquet, Mark Beadles, sumelic, Community♦ Dec 5 at 22:06
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
Where is whomever / whoever in the original full text?
– Kris
Dec 5 at 9:54
Your extended context seems to be missing "alert whomever".
– TripeHound
Dec 5 at 9:55
It's natural to use the objective here with respect to the verb alert. Why would you use the subjective?
– Kris
Dec 5 at 9:58
1
@Kris You have noted incorrectly. The relevant verb is not alert, but may read, since that is the verb with which who(m)ever has a direct relation. Who(m)ever is not the object of alert, but it is the subject of may read.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Dec 5 at 18:34
1
Why are people bothering to use 'whom' any more? The question is asking about English from a hundred years ago so is reasonable, but the answer for today is "It's always 'who...'"
– Mitch
Dec 6 at 15:57
|
show 7 more comments
up vote
-2
down vote
favorite
up vote
-2
down vote
favorite
This question already has an answer here:
Whoever or whomever: 'happy for ___ has the pleasure of working with you next.'
1 answer
“Put me in touch with whomever created it”? [duplicate]
1 answer
I read this morning :
... words which leap from the second verse and alert whomever may read the epistle ... to the fact that ...
I am not clear with what exactly is going on with 'alert whomever may read'. Is 'whomever' the grammatical object of 'alert' or is it the grammatical subject of 'may read' ? Or is it both ?
So should it be 'whoever' ?
grammaticality
asked Dec 5 at 9:24
Nigel J
16.8k94281
This question already has an answer here:
Whoever or whomever: 'happy for ___ has the pleasure of working with you next.'
1 answer
“Put me in touch with whomever created it”? [duplicate]
1 answer
I read this morning :
... words which leap from the second verse and alert whomever may read the epistle ... to the fact that ...
I am not clear with what exactly is going on with 'alert whomever may read'. Is 'whomever' the grammatical object of 'alert' or is it the grammatical subject of 'may read' ? Or is it both ?
So should it be 'whoever' ?
This question already has an answer here:
Whoever or whomever: 'happy for ___ has the pleasure of working with you next.'
1 answer
“Put me in touch with whomever created it”? [duplicate]
1 answer
grammaticality
grammaticality
asked Dec 5 at 9:24
Nigel J
16.8k94281
asked Dec 5 at 9:24
Nigel J
16.8k94281
edited Dec 6 at 11:38
asked Dec 5 at 9:24
Nigel J
16.8k94281
asked Dec 5 at 9:24
Nigel J
16.8k94281
asked Dec 5 at 9:24
Nigel J
16.8k94281
16.8k94281
marked as duplicate by Kris, Janus Bahs Jacquet, Mark Beadles, sumelic, Community♦ Dec 5 at 22:06
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
marked as duplicate by Kris, Janus Bahs Jacquet, Mark Beadles, sumelic, Community♦ Dec 5 at 22:06
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
Where is whomever / whoever in the original full text?
– Kris
Dec 5 at 9:54
Your extended context seems to be missing "alert whomever".
– TripeHound
Dec 5 at 9:55
It's natural to use the objective here with respect to the verb alert. Why would you use the subjective?
– Kris
Dec 5 at 9:58
1
@Kris You have noted incorrectly. The relevant verb is not alert, but may read, since that is the verb with which who(m)ever has a direct relation. Who(m)ever is not the object of alert, but it is the subject of may read.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Dec 5 at 18:34
1
Why are people bothering to use 'whom' any more? The question is asking about English from a hundred years ago so is reasonable, but the answer for today is "It's always 'who...'"
– Mitch
Dec 6 at 15:57
|
show 7 more comments
Where is whomever / whoever in the original full text?
– Kris
Dec 5 at 9:54
Your extended context seems to be missing "alert whomever".
– TripeHound
Dec 5 at 9:55
It's natural to use the objective here with respect to the verb alert. Why would you use the subjective?
– Kris
Dec 5 at 9:58
1
@Kris You have noted incorrectly. The relevant verb is not alert, but may read, since that is the verb with which who(m)ever has a direct relation. Who(m)ever is not the object of alert, but it is the subject of may read.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Dec 5 at 18:34
1
Why are people bothering to use 'whom' any more? The question is asking about English from a hundred years ago so is reasonable, but the answer for today is "It's always 'who...'"
– Mitch
Dec 6 at 15:57
Where is whomever / whoever in the original full text?
– Kris
Dec 5 at 9:54
Where is whomever / whoever in the original full text?
– Kris
Dec 5 at 9:54
Your extended context seems to be missing "alert whomever".
– TripeHound
Dec 5 at 9:55
Your extended context seems to be missing "alert whomever".
– TripeHound
Dec 5 at 9:55
It's natural to use the objective here with respect to the verb alert. Why would you use the subjective?
– Kris
Dec 5 at 9:58
It's natural to use the objective here with respect to the verb alert. Why would you use the subjective?
– Kris
Dec 5 at 9:58
1
1
@Kris You have noted incorrectly. The relevant verb is not alert, but may read, since that is the verb with which who(m)ever has a direct relation. Who(m)ever is not the object of alert, but it is the subject of may read.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Dec 5 at 18:34
@Kris You have noted incorrectly. The relevant verb is not alert, but may read, since that is the verb with which who(m)ever has a direct relation. Who(m)ever is not the object of alert, but it is the subject of may read.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Dec 5 at 18:34
1
1
Why are people bothering to use 'whom' any more? The question is asking about English from a hundred years ago so is reasonable, but the answer for today is "It's always 'who...'"
– Mitch
Dec 6 at 15:57
Why are people bothering to use 'whom' any more? The question is asking about English from a hundred years ago so is reasonable, but the answer for today is "It's always 'who...'"
– Mitch
Dec 6 at 15:57
|
show 7 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
It should be 'whoever' since the pronoun must agree with the verb in the dependent clause to which the pronoun belongs (whoever may read):
https://www.grammarbook.com/grammar/whoever.asp
answered Dec 5 at 9:46
Alex_ander
7156
See my comment at OP.
– Kris
Dec 5 at 9:59
Yes, but the noun phrase "who(m)ever may read the epistle" is object of "alert", which would favour accusative "whomever".
– BillJ
Dec 5 at 13:23
@BillJ No it doesn't. This is because the object of "alert" is not just the one following word, but the entire clause "whoever may read the epistle titled 'Hebrews'". Making that clause the object of a verb in a surrounding clause does not entail changing "whoever" into "whomever".
– Rosie F
Dec 5 at 16:53
@RosieF Let me put it another way: there is a clash between the function of the whole NP and that of the relativised element - respectively object of "alert" and subject (note that "who(m)ever may read the epistle" is not a clause but an NP in a fused relative construction). OK now?
– BillJ
Dec 5 at 19:25
And pronouns which function as head of direct object are normally accusative case, i.e. "whomever". Which explains why this answer is not accurate.
– BillJ
Dec 6 at 8:01
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
... words which leap from the second verse and alert who(m)ever may read
the epistle ... to the fact that ...
Both sound a little weird, because the construction imposes competing but unsatisfiable requirements: "who(m)ever" must be nominative because it's the subject of "may read", but it must be accusative because it's the head of the NP "who(m)ever may read the epistle" and it can't be both, so you have a quandary.
There's no way to get out of the quandary: you have to infringe one condition or the other. English is not well designed in this respect!
answered Dec 5 at 13:00
BillJ
3,9871913
1
@NigelJ "Whoever" is preferable in contemporary language, though many would regard it as less than fully acceptable in formal style. I would be loathe to criticise "whomever" in ancient or religious texts such as your example.
– BillJ
Dec 5 at 13:36
1
Why must who(m)ever be accusative to be the head of a NP? In particular when that NP (can you even call it a NP?) is a clause in which who(m)ever is the subject? Just because the clause as a whole is the object of a verb, its subject doesn’t have to be in the objective case. I can’t see any real quandary here.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Dec 5 at 18:33
"... you have to infringe one condition or the other." -- there's only one, and nothing has been infringed upon. See my comment at OP.
– Kris
Dec 6 at 11:10
2
@Kris Nonsense. You are clearly clueless about the grammar here.
– BillJ
Dec 6 at 12:30
@JanusBahsJacquet: Does it make sense to say that the clause as a whole is the object? A clause is not/does not mean the same thing as its subject
– sumelic
Dec 6 at 12:58
|
show 1 more comment
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
It should be 'whoever' since the pronoun must agree with the verb in the dependent clause to which the pronoun belongs (whoever may read):
https://www.grammarbook.com/grammar/whoever.asp
answered Dec 5 at 9:46
Alex_ander
7156
See my comment at OP.
– Kris
Dec 5 at 9:59
Yes, but the noun phrase "who(m)ever may read the epistle" is object of "alert", which would favour accusative "whomever".
– BillJ
Dec 5 at 13:23
@BillJ No it doesn't. This is because the object of "alert" is not just the one following word, but the entire clause "whoever may read the epistle titled 'Hebrews'". Making that clause the object of a verb in a surrounding clause does not entail changing "whoever" into "whomever".
– Rosie F
Dec 5 at 16:53
@RosieF Let me put it another way: there is a clash between the function of the whole NP and that of the relativised element - respectively object of "alert" and subject (note that "who(m)ever may read the epistle" is not a clause but an NP in a fused relative construction). OK now?
– BillJ
Dec 5 at 19:25
And pronouns which function as head of direct object are normally accusative case, i.e. "whomever". Which explains why this answer is not accurate.
– BillJ
Dec 6 at 8:01
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
It should be 'whoever' since the pronoun must agree with the verb in the dependent clause to which the pronoun belongs (whoever may read):
https://www.grammarbook.com/grammar/whoever.asp
answered Dec 5 at 9:46
Alex_ander
7156
See my comment at OP.
– Kris
Dec 5 at 9:59
Yes, but the noun phrase "who(m)ever may read the epistle" is object of "alert", which would favour accusative "whomever".
– BillJ
Dec 5 at 13:23
@BillJ No it doesn't. This is because the object of "alert" is not just the one following word, but the entire clause "whoever may read the epistle titled 'Hebrews'". Making that clause the object of a verb in a surrounding clause does not entail changing "whoever" into "whomever".
– Rosie F
Dec 5 at 16:53
@RosieF Let me put it another way: there is a clash between the function of the whole NP and that of the relativised element - respectively object of "alert" and subject (note that "who(m)ever may read the epistle" is not a clause but an NP in a fused relative construction). OK now?
– BillJ
Dec 5 at 19:25
And pronouns which function as head of direct object are normally accusative case, i.e. "whomever". Which explains why this answer is not accurate.
– BillJ
Dec 6 at 8:01
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
It should be 'whoever' since the pronoun must agree with the verb in the dependent clause to which the pronoun belongs (whoever may read):
https://www.grammarbook.com/grammar/whoever.asp
answered Dec 5 at 9:46
Alex_ander
7156
It should be 'whoever' since the pronoun must agree with the verb in the dependent clause to which the pronoun belongs (whoever may read):
https://www.grammarbook.com/grammar/whoever.asp
answered Dec 5 at 9:46
Alex_ander
7156
answered Dec 5 at 9:46
Alex_ander
7156
answered Dec 5 at 9:46
Alex_ander
7156
answered Dec 5 at 9:46
Alex_ander
7156
7156
See my comment at OP.
– Kris
Dec 5 at 9:59
Yes, but the noun phrase "who(m)ever may read the epistle" is object of "alert", which would favour accusative "whomever".
– BillJ
Dec 5 at 13:23
@BillJ No it doesn't. This is because the object of "alert" is not just the one following word, but the entire clause "whoever may read the epistle titled 'Hebrews'". Making that clause the object of a verb in a surrounding clause does not entail changing "whoever" into "whomever".
– Rosie F
Dec 5 at 16:53
@RosieF Let me put it another way: there is a clash between the function of the whole NP and that of the relativised element - respectively object of "alert" and subject (note that "who(m)ever may read the epistle" is not a clause but an NP in a fused relative construction). OK now?
– BillJ
Dec 5 at 19:25
And pronouns which function as head of direct object are normally accusative case, i.e. "whomever". Which explains why this answer is not accurate.
– BillJ
Dec 6 at 8:01
add a comment |
See my comment at OP.
– Kris
Dec 5 at 9:59
Yes, but the noun phrase "who(m)ever may read the epistle" is object of "alert", which would favour accusative "whomever".
– BillJ
Dec 5 at 13:23
@BillJ No it doesn't. This is because the object of "alert" is not just the one following word, but the entire clause "whoever may read the epistle titled 'Hebrews'". Making that clause the object of a verb in a surrounding clause does not entail changing "whoever" into "whomever".
– Rosie F
Dec 5 at 16:53
@RosieF Let me put it another way: there is a clash between the function of the whole NP and that of the relativised element - respectively object of "alert" and subject (note that "who(m)ever may read the epistle" is not a clause but an NP in a fused relative construction). OK now?
– BillJ
Dec 5 at 19:25
And pronouns which function as head of direct object are normally accusative case, i.e. "whomever". Which explains why this answer is not accurate.
– BillJ
Dec 6 at 8:01
See my comment at OP.
– Kris
Dec 5 at 9:59
See my comment at OP.
– Kris
Dec 5 at 9:59
Yes, but the noun phrase "who(m)ever may read the epistle" is object of "alert", which would favour accusative "whomever".
– BillJ
Dec 5 at 13:23
Yes, but the noun phrase "who(m)ever may read the epistle" is object of "alert", which would favour accusative "whomever".
– BillJ
Dec 5 at 13:23
@BillJ No it doesn't. This is because the object of "alert" is not just the one following word, but the entire clause "whoever may read the epistle titled 'Hebrews'". Making that clause the object of a verb in a surrounding clause does not entail changing "whoever" into "whomever".
– Rosie F
Dec 5 at 16:53
@BillJ No it doesn't. This is because the object of "alert" is not just the one following word, but the entire clause "whoever may read the epistle titled 'Hebrews'". Making that clause the object of a verb in a surrounding clause does not entail changing "whoever" into "whomever".
– Rosie F
Dec 5 at 16:53
@RosieF Let me put it another way: there is a clash between the function of the whole NP and that of the relativised element - respectively object of "alert" and subject (note that "who(m)ever may read the epistle" is not a clause but an NP in a fused relative construction). OK now?
– BillJ
Dec 5 at 19:25
@RosieF Let me put it another way: there is a clash between the function of the whole NP and that of the relativised element - respectively object of "alert" and subject (note that "who(m)ever may read the epistle" is not a clause but an NP in a fused relative construction). OK now?
– BillJ
Dec 5 at 19:25
And pronouns which function as head of direct object are normally accusative case, i.e. "whomever". Which explains why this answer is not accurate.
– BillJ
Dec 6 at 8:01
And pronouns which function as head of direct object are normally accusative case, i.e. "whomever". Which explains why this answer is not accurate.
– BillJ
Dec 6 at 8:01
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
... words which leap from the second verse and alert who(m)ever may read
the epistle ... to the fact that ...
Both sound a little weird, because the construction imposes competing but unsatisfiable requirements: "who(m)ever" must be nominative because it's the subject of "may read", but it must be accusative because it's the head of the NP "who(m)ever may read the epistle" and it can't be both, so you have a quandary.
There's no way to get out of the quandary: you have to infringe one condition or the other. English is not well designed in this respect!
answered Dec 5 at 13:00
BillJ
3,9871913
1
@NigelJ "Whoever" is preferable in contemporary language, though many would regard it as less than fully acceptable in formal style. I would be loathe to criticise "whomever" in ancient or religious texts such as your example.
– BillJ
Dec 5 at 13:36
1
Why must who(m)ever be accusative to be the head of a NP? In particular when that NP (can you even call it a NP?) is a clause in which who(m)ever is the subject? Just because the clause as a whole is the object of a verb, its subject doesn’t have to be in the objective case. I can’t see any real quandary here.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Dec 5 at 18:33
"... you have to infringe one condition or the other." -- there's only one, and nothing has been infringed upon. See my comment at OP.
– Kris
Dec 6 at 11:10
2
@Kris Nonsense. You are clearly clueless about the grammar here.
– BillJ
Dec 6 at 12:30
@JanusBahsJacquet: Does it make sense to say that the clause as a whole is the object? A clause is not/does not mean the same thing as its subject
– sumelic
Dec 6 at 12:58
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
1
down vote
... words which leap from the second verse and alert who(m)ever may read
the epistle ... to the fact that ...
Both sound a little weird, because the construction imposes competing but unsatisfiable requirements: "who(m)ever" must be nominative because it's the subject of "may read", but it must be accusative because it's the head of the NP "who(m)ever may read the epistle" and it can't be both, so you have a quandary.
There's no way to get out of the quandary: you have to infringe one condition or the other. English is not well designed in this respect!
answered Dec 5 at 13:00
BillJ
3,9871913
1
@NigelJ "Whoever" is preferable in contemporary language, though many would regard it as less than fully acceptable in formal style. I would be loathe to criticise "whomever" in ancient or religious texts such as your example.
– BillJ
Dec 5 at 13:36
1
Why must who(m)ever be accusative to be the head of a NP? In particular when that NP (can you even call it a NP?) is a clause in which who(m)ever is the subject? Just because the clause as a whole is the object of a verb, its subject doesn’t have to be in the objective case. I can’t see any real quandary here.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Dec 5 at 18:33
"... you have to infringe one condition or the other." -- there's only one, and nothing has been infringed upon. See my comment at OP.
– Kris
Dec 6 at 11:10
2
@Kris Nonsense. You are clearly clueless about the grammar here.
– BillJ
Dec 6 at 12:30
@JanusBahsJacquet: Does it make sense to say that the clause as a whole is the object? A clause is not/does not mean the same thing as its subject
– sumelic
Dec 6 at 12:58
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
... words which leap from the second verse and alert who(m)ever may read
the epistle ... to the fact that ...
Both sound a little weird, because the construction imposes competing but unsatisfiable requirements: "who(m)ever" must be nominative because it's the subject of "may read", but it must be accusative because it's the head of the NP "who(m)ever may read the epistle" and it can't be both, so you have a quandary.
There's no way to get out of the quandary: you have to infringe one condition or the other. English is not well designed in this respect!
answered Dec 5 at 13:00
BillJ
3,9871913
... words which leap from the second verse and alert who(m)ever may read
the epistle ... to the fact that ...
Both sound a little weird, because the construction imposes competing but unsatisfiable requirements: "who(m)ever" must be nominative because it's the subject of "may read", but it must be accusative because it's the head of the NP "who(m)ever may read the epistle" and it can't be both, so you have a quandary.
There's no way to get out of the quandary: you have to infringe one condition or the other. English is not well designed in this respect!
answered Dec 5 at 13:00
BillJ
3,9871913
answered Dec 5 at 13:00
BillJ
3,9871913
answered Dec 5 at 13:00
BillJ
3,9871913
answered Dec 5 at 13:00
BillJ
3,9871913
3,9871913
1
@NigelJ "Whoever" is preferable in contemporary language, though many would regard it as less than fully acceptable in formal style. I would be loathe to criticise "whomever" in ancient or religious texts such as your example.
– BillJ
Dec 5 at 13:36
1
Why must who(m)ever be accusative to be the head of a NP? In particular when that NP (can you even call it a NP?) is a clause in which who(m)ever is the subject? Just because the clause as a whole is the object of a verb, its subject doesn’t have to be in the objective case. I can’t see any real quandary here.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Dec 5 at 18:33
"... you have to infringe one condition or the other." -- there's only one, and nothing has been infringed upon. See my comment at OP.
– Kris
Dec 6 at 11:10
2
@Kris Nonsense. You are clearly clueless about the grammar here.
– BillJ
Dec 6 at 12:30
@JanusBahsJacquet: Does it make sense to say that the clause as a whole is the object? A clause is not/does not mean the same thing as its subject
– sumelic
Dec 6 at 12:58
|
show 1 more comment
1
@NigelJ "Whoever" is preferable in contemporary language, though many would regard it as less than fully acceptable in formal style. I would be loathe to criticise "whomever" in ancient or religious texts such as your example.
– BillJ
Dec 5 at 13:36
1
Why must who(m)ever be accusative to be the head of a NP? In particular when that NP (can you even call it a NP?) is a clause in which who(m)ever is the subject? Just because the clause as a whole is the object of a verb, its subject doesn’t have to be in the objective case. I can’t see any real quandary here.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Dec 5 at 18:33
"... you have to infringe one condition or the other." -- there's only one, and nothing has been infringed upon. See my comment at OP.
– Kris
Dec 6 at 11:10
2
@Kris Nonsense. You are clearly clueless about the grammar here.
– BillJ
Dec 6 at 12:30
@JanusBahsJacquet: Does it make sense to say that the clause as a whole is the object? A clause is not/does not mean the same thing as its subject
– sumelic
Dec 6 at 12:58
1
1
@NigelJ "Whoever" is preferable in contemporary language, though many would regard it as less than fully acceptable in formal style. I would be loathe to criticise "whomever" in ancient or religious texts such as your example.
– BillJ
Dec 5 at 13:36
@NigelJ "Whoever" is preferable in contemporary language, though many would regard it as less than fully acceptable in formal style. I would be loathe to criticise "whomever" in ancient or religious texts such as your example.
– BillJ
Dec 5 at 13:36
1
1
Why must who(m)ever be accusative to be the head of a NP? In particular when that NP (can you even call it a NP?) is a clause in which who(m)ever is the subject? Just because the clause as a whole is the object of a verb, its subject doesn’t have to be in the objective case. I can’t see any real quandary here.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Dec 5 at 18:33
Why must who(m)ever be accusative to be the head of a NP? In particular when that NP (can you even call it a NP?) is a clause in which who(m)ever is the subject? Just because the clause as a whole is the object of a verb, its subject doesn’t have to be in the objective case. I can’t see any real quandary here.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Dec 5 at 18:33
"... you have to infringe one condition or the other." -- there's only one, and nothing has been infringed upon. See my comment at OP.
– Kris
Dec 6 at 11:10
"... you have to infringe one condition or the other." -- there's only one, and nothing has been infringed upon. See my comment at OP.
– Kris
Dec 6 at 11:10
2
2
@Kris Nonsense. You are clearly clueless about the grammar here.
– BillJ
Dec 6 at 12:30
@Kris Nonsense. You are clearly clueless about the grammar here.
– BillJ
Dec 6 at 12:30
@JanusBahsJacquet: Does it make sense to say that the clause as a whole is the object? A clause is not/does not mean the same thing as its subject
– sumelic
Dec 6 at 12:58
@JanusBahsJacquet: Does it make sense to say that the clause as a whole is the object? A clause is not/does not mean the same thing as its subject
– sumelic
Dec 6 at 12:58
|
show 1 more comment
Where is whomever / whoever in the original full text?
– Kris
Dec 5 at 9:54
Your extended context seems to be missing "alert whomever".
– TripeHound
Dec 5 at 9:55
It's natural to use the objective here with respect to the verb alert. Why would you use the subjective?
– Kris
Dec 5 at 9:58
1
@Kris You have noted incorrectly. The relevant verb is not alert, but may read, since that is the verb with which who(m)ever has a direct relation. Who(m)ever is not the object of alert, but it is the subject of may read.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Dec 5 at 18:34
1
Why are people bothering to use 'whom' any more? The question is asking about English from a hundred years ago so is reasonable, but the answer for today is "It's always 'who...'"
– Mitch
Dec 6 at 15:57