[§ 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—