CHAPTER X.
ON THE INTERROGATIVE PRONOUN.
[§ 535]. Questions are of two sorts, direct and oblique.
Direct.—Who is he?
Oblique.—Who do you say that he is?
All difficulties about the cases of the interrogative pronoun may be determined by framing an answer, and observing the case of the word with which the interrogative coincides. Whatever be the case of this word will also be the case of the interrogative.
DIRECT.
Qu. Who is this?—Ans. I.
Qu. Whose is this?—Ans. His.
Qu. Whom do you seek?—Ans. Him.
OBLIQUE.
Qu. Who do you say that it is?—Ans. He.
Qu. Whose do you say that it is?—Ans. His.
Qu. Whom do you say that they seek?—Ans. Him.
Note.—The answer should always be made by means of a pronoun, as, by so doing we distinguish the accusative case from the nominative.
Note.—And, if necessary, it should be made in full. Thus the full answer to whom do you say that they seek? is, I say that they seek him.
[§ 536]. Nevertheless, such expressions as whom do they say that it is? are common, especially in oblique questions. The following examples are Mr. Guest's.—Philological Transactions.
"And he axed hem and seide, whom seien the people that I am? Thei answereden and seiden, Jon Baptist—and he seide to hem, But whom seien ye that I am?"—Wiclif, Luke ix.
"Tell me in sadness whom she is you love."
Romeo and Juliet, i. 1.
"And as John fulfilled his course, he said, whom think ye that I am?"—Acts xiii. 25.
Two circumstances encourage this confusion. 1. The presence of a second verb, which takes the appearance of a governing verb. 2. The omission of a really oblique antecedent or relative. 3. The use of accusative for nominative forms in the case of personal pronouns.
[§ 537]. The presence of a second verb, &c.—Tell me whom she is. Here tell is made to govern whom, instead of whom being left, as who, to agree with she.
[§ 538]. The omission, &c.—Tell me whom she is you love. Here the full construction requires a second pronoun—tell me who she is whom you love; or else, tell me her whom you love.
[§ 539]. To the question, who is this? many would answer not I, but me. This confusion of the case in the answer favours a confusion of case in the question.
It is clear that much of this reasoning applies to the relative powers of who, as well as to the interrogative.
But, it is possible that there may be no incorrectness at all: insomuch as whom may have become a true nominative. Mr. Guest has truly remarked that such is the case in the Scandinavian language, where hve-m=who=qui.
This view, if true, justifies the use of whom after the conjunctions than and as; so that the expression,—
Satan than whom
None higher sat,
may be right.
Nevertheless, it does not justify such expressions as—
None sit higher than me.
None sit higher than thee.
None sit higher than us.
None sit higher than her.
The reason of this is clear. Whom is supposed to be admissible, not because the sentence admits an accusative case; but because custom has converted it into a nominative. For my own part, I doubt the application of the Danish rule to the English language. Things may be going that way, but they have not, as yet, gone far enough.