Who/Whom Q

Kinski

Just wondering about the following sentence, found in a news article on RTÉ's website:

The priest who RTÉ defamed by accusing him of raping a woman and fathering her child has told his parishioners that the broadcaster's apology freed him from lies, false allegations and baseless accusations.

Now, the priest is the subject of the sentence's main clause: "The priest [...] told his parishioners that the broadcaster's apology freed him from lies, false allegations and baseless accusations." But he is the object of the dependent clause, "who RTÉ defamed by accusing him of raping a woman and fathering her child."

Since he is the object of the secondary clause, shouldn't the sentence read "The priest whom RTÉ defamed..." (which is how I would have written it), or does his status as the main subject of the sentence override the rule in this instance?

Black Dog

Perhaps the following might have been better: "The priest, who was defamed by RTE when they accused him of raping a woman and fathering her child, has told his parishioners etc."

Or: "The priest, defamed by RTE when they accused him of raping a woman and fathering her child, has told his parishioners etc."

As with you, "whom" would certainly have sounded better than "who" in the sentence you quoted.

Kinski

Black Dog wrote: »

Perhaps the following might have been better: "The priest, who was defamed by RTE when they accused him of raping a woman and fathering her child, has told his parishioners etc."

Or: "The priest, defamed by RTE when they accused him of raping a woman and fathering her child, has told his parishioners etc."

Yes, either of those could work instead, but as it's the opening sentence you wouldn't put a comma after "priest," since that suggests you are referring back to a subject that was already introduced.

MathsManiac

Or of course they could have said: "The priest that RTE defamed..."

Kinski

Looking at this again, I'm certain it should have been 'whom.'

yeah, whom

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

MathsManiac

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Not necessarily. For example, consider:

• The man that I saw had dark hair.
• The man whom I saw had dark hair.

I suggest that the first of these would be far more common (and natural) than the second.

"That" is very commonly used to refer to people in a defining relative clause, although it would obviously not be used to introduce a non-defining relative clause.

In the original sentence, I think we are all agreed that "who" is wrong. It is my view that any of the following would have been correct:
"The priest whom RTÉ defamed..."
"The priest that RTÉ defamed..."
"The priest RTÉ defamed..."

As you have pointed out, "whom" can seem overly formal to many people, but there were still other satisfactory and correct options available.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

MathsManiac

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

While you previously said that that is "generally" not used in this way, now you are saying it is incorrect, so I have to take issue.

I think you will find that far more reference works will indicate that this usage is correct than the reverse. For example, the Concise OED entry for "that" includes: "7. used instead of which or whom to introduce a defining relative clause, esp. one essential to identification". (8th ed.)

Kinski

As well as the OED, Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage supports MathsManiac's claim that "that" can be used in place of "who/whom":

I]T[/Ihat came back into literary usage around the beginning of the 18th century after falling out of favor during the 17th [...] It may be that some carryover from the 18th-century general dislike of that has produced the apparently common, yet unfounded, notion that that may be used to refer only to things.

By heaven, I'll make a ghost of him that lets me
Hamlet

Rubecula

Kinski wrote: »

Just wondering about the following sentence, found in a news article on RTÉ's website:



Now, the priest is the subject of the sentence's main clause: "The priest [...] told his parishioners that the broadcaster's apology freed him from lies, false allegations and baseless accusations." But he is the object of the dependent clause, "who RTÉ defamed by accusing him of raping a woman and fathering her child."

Since he is the object of the secondary clause, shouldn't the sentence read "The priest whom RTÉ defamed..." (which is how I would have written it), or does his status as the main subject of the sentence override the rule in this instance?

The Priest who...

The priest to whom....

Rubecula

Rubecula wrote: »

The Priest who...

The priest to whom....

the priest whom rte defamed

the priest who was defamed by rte

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

MathsManiac

Well, since the OED and Werriam Webster don't seem to be good enough for you, let's lob in a few more:

Chambers Giant Paperback Dictionary:
Entry for that: "pronoun used instead of which, who or whom, to introduce a relative clause which defines, distinguishes or restricts the person or thing mentioned in the preceding clause: All the children that were late received detention."


Collins English Grammar:
“In defining relative clauses, that can be used instead of which and is sometimes used instead of who or whom.” Goes on to give several examples, including the following as an example where both are correct: She is the girl who was at Sam’s party. She is the girl that was at Sam’s party.


Chambers Good English guide:
“Many people think that the relative pronoun that (as in the man that I saw) is informal, and that it should be replaced by who or which in formal speech and writing. This is not the case at all: that is as appropriate in formal contexts as it is in a more colloquial style of language, and is often much to be preferred as sounding much more natural than which or who. However, where the relative clause is separated from the rest of the sentence, by pauses in speech or commas in writing, only who or which may be used, never *that. Compare The man that I saw suddenly turned and ran off and The man, whom I had seen the day before, suddenly turned and ran off.

And if you want examples of its use in modern contexts in newspapers of good repute:

The Times (London), December 2004:
“A desperate desire to see the child that he and Kimberly Quinn had together has landed David Blunkett in personal and political turmoil.”

The Guardian, 9 October:
This is the man that Chris Brasher, Olympic gold medallist and London marathon founder, said was the greatest of them all.

Chicago Tribune, 10 August 2001
The tomb of Stephen A. Douglas is an odd enough sight during the day: a 96-foot-high monument to the politician that time forgot,…

Financial Times, 18 September 2005:
But he is not the man that many hoped or feared he might be.

New York Times, 19 October 2006:
As of midday today, neither Mr. Foley’s lawyer nor the Archdiocese of Miami had released the name of the priest that Mr. Foley says abused him.

Maybe you'd like to see it in a book title: The Child That Books Built (Francis Spufford)

Or maybe a song: The Girl That I Marry (Irving Berlin)

Need I go on?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.