1) They arrested whoever was there.
2) They arrested whomever was there.

3) They arrested who was there.
4) They arrested whom was there.

Which are grammatical?
Which used to be grammatical and are now
unidiomatic?

I know that '1' is grammatical and idiomatic. I know that
'whom' is very rarely used these days. I also know that "who"
and "whom" are almost never used instead of "whoever"
and "whomever" except in some formulaic expressions (e.g. to
whom it may concern).

I was just curious to know which would still be
considered grammatical today, albeit very stilted
and old-fashioned, and which would be considered
grammatical say a century or two ago.

This is basically a theoretical question.

--
Gratefully,
Navi

Wandering in the Twilight Zone of the English language
Interested in structures on the margins of grammaticality
and sometimes in archaic structures
Obsessed with ambiguity

On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 3:45:02 AM UTC-4, arthurvv vart wrote:

> 1) They arrested whoever was there.
> 2) They arrested whomever was there.
>
> 3) They arrested who was there.
> 4) They arrested whom was there.
>
> Which are grammatical?

(1)-(3)

> Which used to be grammatical and are now
> unidiomatic?

(3)

Why would it be one and not the other? When does something
stop being grammatical?

> I know that '1' is grammatical and idiomatic. I know that
> 'whom' is very rarely used these days. I also know that "who"
> and "whom" are almost never used instead of "whoever"
> and "whomever" except in some formulaic expressions (e.g. to
> whom it may concern).
>
> I was just curious to know which would still be
> considered grammatical today, albeit very stilted
> and old-fashioned, and which would be considered
> grammatical say a century or two ago.
>
> This is basically a theoretical question.

The case of a relative pronoun is determined by its subordinate
clause, not by its matrix clause.

You can check who(m) by using he/him or she/her or they/them
in a similar construction.

"Whom" is usually used nowadays only when directly following
the verb or preposition that governs it.

On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 1:45:02 AM UTC-6, arthurvv vart wrote:
> 1) They arrested whoever was there.
> 2) They arrested whomever was there.
>
> 3) They arrested who was there.
> 4) They arrested whom was there.
>
> Which are grammatical?

1.

> Which used to be grammatical and are now
> unidiomatic?

3?

The OED gives,

1656
Through the ingratitude of who commands [Italian di chi domanda].

Earl of Monmouth, translation of T. Boccalini, Ragguagli di Parnasso
ii. xxiv. 262

....

1871
He should know, sitting on the throne, how tastes Life to who sweeps
the doorway.

R. Browning, Prince Hohenstiel-Schwangau 70

and under a different sense

1996
People should be allowed to invite who they want to their parties without
others pettily getting upset.

H. Fielding, Bridget Jones's Diary 287

> I know that '1' is grammatical and idiomatic. I know that
> 'whom' is very rarely used these days. I also know that "who"
> and "whom" are almost never used instead of "whoever"
> and "whomever" except in some formulaic expressions (e.g. to
> whom it may concern).
>
> I was just curious to know which would still be
> considered grammatical today, albeit very stilted
> and old-fashioned, and which would be considered
> grammatical say a century or two ago.
>
> This is basically a theoretical question.

As PTD said, traditional prescriptions say you should choose "whoever"
or "whomever" based on its function in the subordinate clause, not
the main clause. 2 and 4 violate that. However, you'll see things like
4, so it might be called idiomatic. (For that example, "They arrested
everyone who was there" seems more idiomatic to me.)

--
Jerry Friedman

On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 9:42:28 AM UTC-4, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 1:45:02 AM UTC-6, arthurvv vart wrote:

> > 1) They arrested whoever was there.
> > 2) They arrested whomever was there.
> >
> > 3) They arrested who was there.
> > 4) They arrested whom was there.
> >
> > Which are grammatical?
> 1.
> > Which used to be grammatical and are now
> > unidiomatic?
> 3?
>
> The OED gives,
>
> 1656
> Through the ingratitude of who commands [Italian di chi domanda].
>
> Earl of Monmouth, translation of T. Boccalini, Ragguagli di Parnasso
> ii. xxiv. 262
>
> ...
>
> 1871
> He should know, sitting on the throne, how tastes Life to who sweeps
> the doorway.
>
> R. Browning, Prince Hohenstiel-Schwangau 70
>
> and under a different sense
>
> 1996
> People should be allowed to invite who they want to their parties without
> others pettily getting upset.
>
> H. Fielding, Bridget Jones's Diary 287

NB "ungrammatical"

> > I know that '1' is grammatical and idiomatic. I know that
> > 'whom' is very rarely used these days. I also know that "who"
> > and "whom" are almost never used instead of "whoever"
> > and "whomever" except in some formulaic expressions (e.g. to
> > whom it may concern).
> >
> > I was just curious to know which would still be
> > considered grammatical today, albeit very stilted
> > and old-fashioned, and which would be considered
> > grammatical say a century or two ago.
> >
> > This is basically a theoretical question.
>
> As PTD said, traditional prescriptions say you should choose "whoever"
> or "whomever" based on its function in the subordinate clause, not
> the main clause. 2 and 4 violate that. However, you'll see things like
> 4, so it might be called idiomatic. (For that example, "They arrested
> everyone who was there" seems more idiomatic to me.)

I think you'd get (2) but not (4).

On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 7:49:39 AM UTC-6, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 9:42:28 AM UTC-4, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> > On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 1:45:02 AM UTC-6, arthurvv vart wrote:
>
> > > 1) They arrested whoever was there.
> > > 2) They arrested whomever was there.
> > >
> > > 3) They arrested who was there.
> > > 4) They arrested whom was there.
> > >
> > > Which are grammatical?
> > 1.
> > > Which used to be grammatical and are now
> > > unidiomatic?
> > 3?
> >
> > The OED gives,
> >
> > 1656
> > Through the ingratitude of who commands [Italian di chi domanda].
> >
> > Earl of Monmouth, translation of T. Boccalini, Ragguagli di Parnasso
> > ii. xxiv. 262
> >
> > ...
> >
> > 1871
> > He should know, sitting on the throne, how tastes Life to who sweeps
> > the doorway.
> >
> > R. Browning, Prince Hohenstiel-Schwangau 70
> >
> > and under a different sense
> >
> > 1996
> > People should be allowed to invite who they want to their parties without
> > others pettily getting upset.
> >
> > H. Fielding, Bridget Jones's Diary 287
>
> NB "ungrammatical"
>
> > > I know that '1' is grammatical and idiomatic. I know that
> > > 'whom' is very rarely used these days. I also know that "who"
> > > and "whom" are almost never used instead of "whoever"
> > > and "whomever" except in some formulaic expressions (e.g. to
> > > whom it may concern).
> > >
> > > I was just curious to know which would still be
> > > considered grammatical today, albeit very stilted
> > > and old-fashioned, and which would be considered
> > > grammatical say a century or two ago.
> > >
> > > This is basically a theoretical question.
> >
> > As PTD said, traditional prescriptions say you should choose "whoever"
> > or "whomever" based on its function in the subordinate clause, not
> > the main clause. 2 and 4 violate that. However, you'll see things like
> > 4, so it might be called idiomatic. (For that example, "They arrested
> > everyone who was there" seems more idiomatic to me.)

> I think you'd get (2) but not (4).

Oops. That's what I meant.

--
Jerry Friedman