# Who/whom: Mrs Kraus <?> I believe was dedicated, was fired ...



## Beautifully

Greetings! 
I wonder in this case of the following, whether the only 'who' can be used to be correct.
According to Collins Cobuild,  whom is used in formal or written English instead of 'who' when it is the object of a verb or preposition.

Mrs.Kraus ___ I believe was dedicated, was fired for not performing the duties outlined
in her contract.
(a) whom (b) who 

I am looking forward to hearing your invaluable answer.


----------



## Trinite

I'd say whom, but I'm not a native.


----------



## bibliolept

Going out on a limb here, but this is how I figured it out in this instance:

1) I change the order form "___ I believe was dedicated" to "I believe ___ was dedicated."
2) Then I see which one sounds right, "he" ( = "who") or "hi*m*" ( = "who*m*").

"I believe he ( = 'who' ) was dedicated" sounds right. So I choose "who."

all of who/whom are required to be urban-planning majors

Many threads: who whom


----------



## Franzi

'Whom' is gradually falling out of use in English.  I'm sure there are many threads here about it.  Your example sentence sounds quite awkward to me, so I'm having trouble figuring out what I would naturally say in that context.  What do you mean by "dedicated"?


----------



## Beautifully

I meant whether both whom and who could be used to each other in that blank with having the same meaning as well as being correct?

Ah! I can't explain the meaning of dedicated because I don't know where the text came from. Even if it's hard to understand of the meaning of it. Would you try to let me know the answer about what I asked? I would appreciate your sincere kindness.


----------



## johndot

Greetings!
 
Mrs.Kraus ___ I believe was dedicated, was fired for not performing the duties outlined in her contract.
 
To be correct, the sentence should be: “Mrs Kraus, whom I believe was dedicated, was fired...”
 
(Note the comma after _Mrs Kraus_)
 
The main clause is _Mrs Kraus was fired..._
The subordinate clause, if written as a main clause, becomes _I believe she was dedicated._
_Mrs Kraus _is the object of the subordinate clause, and the pronoun _who_ must be in the Accusative case i.e. _whom_.
 
As Franzi says (post #4), _whom_ is used less in spoken English, now, than it used to be (that is to say, _who_ is used instead; it doesn’t change the meaning of the sentence).


----------



## johndot

In fact, even that is not quite right: better would be,
 
“Mrs Kraus, whom I believe to have been dedicated, was fired...”


----------



## Gordonedi

The definitive answer depends upon who did the dedicating.

If her manager dedicated Mrs Kraus to a specific role in his team, then the answer is *whom*.

If Mrs Kraus dedicated herself to her job, then the answer is *who*.

I'm afraid that I disagree with bibliolept's method - it's a good idea, but in changing the order of the words, the meaning of the sentence is also changed.


----------



## Trinite

Trinite agrees with johndot


----------



## Cagey

I agree with _bibliolept_; *who* is the correct form.

Here another way of another way of analyzing it:Mrs.Kraus*,* *who *[I believe] was dedicated, was fired .....

In the relative clause, "who" is the subject of "was dedicated", and not the object of any verb.

"I believe" is inserted, and does not affect the form of "who".
​The object form "whom" would be used only if the relative were the object of a verb or a preposition.  Here it is neither.

Edit: A related thread: Who or whom - They told me <who, whom> they thought did it.


----------



## Ynez

I think the two groups are understanding the sentence in a different way.

I had understood it the way johndot did, with an implied idea in the setence of _something_ dedicated _to_ Mrs. Kraus. Now I can see the other idea Cagey is explaining.


----------



## Beautifully

I don't understand this mean 'If her manager dedicated Mrs Kraus to a specific role in his team, then the answer is *whom*.'
As I guess, Her manager made Mrs Kraus dedicate to a specific role in ...  Would you let me know the meaning of it?


----------



## Franzi

Beautifully said:


> I meant whether both whom and who could be used to each other in that blank with having the same meaning as well as being correct?
> 
> Ah! I can't explain the meaning of dedicated because I don't know where the text came from. Even if it's hard to understand of the meaning of it. Would you try to let me know the answer about what I asked? I would appreciate your sincere kindness.


 
To be honest, the text doesn't make sense to me and it sounds wrong. I'm sorry, but I really can't choose which word is correct when the sentence doesn't sound correct to me. Is this from an English test? I know you don't know where it came from originally, but where did you find it?

Edited to add:  My best guess as to what the sentence means (rephrased so it sounds correct to me) is:

Mrs.Kraus, whom I believed to be dedicated to her job, was fired for not performing the duties outlined
in her contract.


----------



## bibliolept

Yes, I added the comma after Krause. That is how I understood the sentence.


----------



## johndot

_Mrs Kraus (I believe her to have been dedicated) was fired._
Mrs Kraus, whom I believe to have been dedicated, was fired.
 
The pronoun _her_, which relates to Mrs Kraus, is in the Accusative.
The pronoun _whom_, which relates to Mrs Kraus, is in the Accusative.


----------



## Cagey

Franzi said:


> Edited to add:  My best guess as to what the sentence means (rephrased so it sounds correct to me) is:
> 
> Mrs.Kraus, whom I believed to be dedicated to her job, was fired for not performing the duties outlined
> in her contract.



To avoid confusion about the use of _who_ in the sentence in the original post: I would like to point out that this revision, with_ whom .... to be_ is another grammatical structure.  Here _whom_ is correct, but not in the original formulation.

Here is a thread that discusses the difference between the two constructions:
The man who/whom I thought was my friend deceived me.

Johndot's revision similarly differs from the original in using an infinitive, "to have been dedicated", and thus takes the form "whom".


----------



## wheaten

I agree with cagey. The innermost clause can be rendered: "she was dedicated"; hence 'who', subjective case.

It is quite odd to invoke that the manager may have 'dedicated' her. Then it would have to say, originally, "Mrs Krause, whom the manager dedicated to this project, was fired." That is plainly NOT what was meant. The writer thinks/believes she was dedicated, i.e. diligent, persevering.

I agree that johndot's rendering of the original significantly changes the grammatical structure:
Mrs Kraus, whom I believe to have been dedicated, was fired


----------



## panjandrum

Mrs.Kraus ___ I believe was dedicated, was fired for not performing the duties outlined in her contract.

Mrs Kraus, who was green, was fired ...
Mrs Kraus, who was dedicated, was fired ...
Mrs Kraus, who (I believe) was dedicated, was fired ...
Mrs Kraus, who I believe was dedicated, was fired ...

I don't think it matters which variety of dedicated you choose.
Dedicated (adjective) - who is the subject of was.
Dedicated (participle) - who is the subject of was dedicated.


----------



## El escoces

I agree with panj and disagree with all of the other comments and interesting analyses.

My understanding is that "whom" can only correctly follow a preposition.  "To whom", "with whom", etc.  With or without comma, "Mrs Kraus, whom I believe was dedicated, was fired..." cannot be correct.


----------



## Gordonedi

That does it for me, Panj, and I withdraw my previous response.
"Who" is correct, regardless of whether Mrs Kraus was dedicated by her manager or dedicated herself to her duties.


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

Panj is completely right, and the only correct word to use here is "who: "whom", on the other hand, is wrong.

Mrs. Kraus is not the object of the phrase "I believe", and by throwing in that "I believe" (which is actually a separate clause from the one involving Mrs. Kraus) you are not adding anything essential to the sentence. You are not saying "I believe Mrs. Kraus", as if someone else had doubted her truthfulness but you were attesting to the veracity of something Mrs. Kraus had said; what the phrase means here is "I believe THAT Mrs. Kraus was dedicated."

The true clause, once that incidental "I believe" is removed (and for the purposes of analyzing the sentence, it certainly should be taken out) is "[relative pronoun standing in for the name _Mrs. Kraus_] was dedicated." In that clause, the pronoun serves as the subject, and so one needs "who".


----------



## johndot

Mrs.Kraus ___ I believe was dedicated, was fired for not performing the duties outlined in her contract.
(a) whom (b) who 
 
I have re-read the thread and have to say that I stick by what I’ve written; perhaps I haven’t explained myself clearly. I will try to make amends, now, by asking (and suggesting answers to) these questions:
 
In the original example sentence, who is the subject of the verb _to believe?_ Quite clearly the answer is _I_, because _I_ is in the Nominative case.
 
Next: who or what is the object of that clause? Unfortunately, not a single word (that would have been too easy!) but a clause performs that function: the words _Mrs Kraus was dedicated_ is the object clause of the subject and verb _I believe_.
 
Finally: If _Mrs Kraus,_ as part of an object clause, is replaced by a pronoun, what case must the pronoun take? I maintain it must be Accusative.
 
Furthermore:
 
My understanding is that "whom" can only correctly follow a preposition. "To whom", "with whom", etc. With or without comma, "Mrs Kraus, whom I believe was dedicated, was fired..." cannot be correct. (El escoces, post #19)
 
Part of the confusion with regard to the _who/whom_ argument is caused by the belief that _whom_ must be preceded by a preposition: in other words, that it is only used in the Genitive, Dative or Ablative cases. However, as I’ve said elsewhere: _whom_ is also the Accusative form _and should therefore be used with direct objects too._


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

No, you are mistaken.

The case of the pronoun in the clause is not the case of the function of the clause in the sentence as a whole, but of the function of the pronoun in the clause.

For example, consider the sentence _Let him who is without sin cast the first stone. _The clause "who is without sin" modifies "him". "Him" is clearly the object of the verb _let_ -- but in the *clause* (and *not* the sentence as a whole!!), the pronoun is not the object of "let", but the subject of "is".  It therefore must take the form "who".

In your sentence, "I believe" is a parenthetical addition that is not essential to the clause "who was dedicated". Furthermore, the word "believe" is being used intransitively, and has _NO_ object at all. The correct case for the pronoun, then, since it serves as the subject of "was", is "who".

If you do not want to make it "who", then you really have to say what word, if not the relative pronoun, serves as the subject of the verb "was". The subject of "was" can only be the relative pronoun, and so its case must be nominative.


----------



## Ynez

I've realized I had read the sentence in an illogical way.


----------



## liliput

"*Who*" is a subject pronoun, like "he", "she" and "we".
"*Whom*" is an object pronoun, like "him", "her" and "us".
"*Who*" does an action and "*whom*" receives an action. You remember "*whom*" and "*who*" remembers you.
Examples:
We knew the actress *who* starred in the movie. (subject of adjective clause)
They hired the man *whom* we interviewed last week. (object of adjective clause)

*In the case of the example sentence we are talking about Mrs Kraus, who was dedicated (I believe). As has been pointed out, "I believe" is incidental, the gap in the sentence should be filled by the subject pronoun as it is the subject of the adjective clause.*

Those who erroneously interpreted the sentence to mean that Mrs Kraus had been dedicated to somoone or something by somebody were correct to choose _whom_, because in that case the pronoun would be the object of the adjective clause. However, as has also been pointed out, this is not a natural interpretation of the sentence.

The argument is largely academic in any case, as "*whom*" is becoming less common and many native speakers think it sounds strange or old-fashioned, particularly in the US. Most people prefer to use "*who*" as the object pronoun.


----------



## panjandrum

liliput said:


> *[...]*
> 
> Those who erroneously interpreted the sentence to mean that Mrs Kraus had been dedicated to somoone or something by somebody were correct to choose _whom_, because in that case the pronoun would be the object of the adjective clause. However, as has also been pointed out, this is not a natural interpretation of the sentence.


Isn't Mrs Kraus still the subject of was dedicated no matter how you interpret the sentence?

Perhaps whom could be the object of believe - (_Mrs Kraus whom I believe)_, with whom I believe being an essential relative clause referring to Mrs Kraus?
That would be quite acceptable, though it presumes a context in which it is reasonable to say _I believe Mrs Kraus._ 
Perhaps there has been an incident of some kind involving Mrs Kraus and someone else and they have given very different statements about the incident. In that case we have a complex subject for was dedicated:
 (Mrs Kraus whom I believe) was dedicated.
- or a complex subject for was fired.
(Mrs Kraus whom I believe) was fired for not performing the duties outlined.

But Mrs Kraus whom I believe can't be the subject of both verbs unless the sentence is changed.
(Mrs. Kraus whom I believe) was dedicated, was fired for not performing the duties outlined.


> The argument is largely academic in any case, as "*whom*" is becoming less common and many native speakers think it sounds strange or old-fashioned, particularly in the US. Most people prefer to use "*who*" as the object pronoun.


There are still many contexts outside the academic context of English exams  where _whom _is used.  But no doubt it is dying out.


----------



## liliput

> Isn't Mrs Kraus still the subject of was dedicated no matter how you interpret the sentence?


 
Er...yes, you're right. I was trying to work it out and changed it from what would be, if the other interpretation were correct, the passive voice. I should not have done so.

*She was dedicated (to her work) - she is equivalent to who*
She was dedicated by him - she is equivalent to who
He dedicated her - her is equivalent to whom


----------



## El escoces

> *She was dedicated (to her work) - she is equivalent to who
> *She was dedicated by him - she is equivalent to who
> He dedicated her - her is equivalent to whom


 
It seems to me that most of the "confusion" about the use of "whom" in this thread has arisen from what is, for me, a very strange interpretation of "dedicated".  I still can only take one meaning from it - she was a dedicated employee.  I just don't get these other interpretations - the boss dedcated her, or she was dedicated by him.  Are these AE usages?


----------



## liliput

El escoces said:


> It seems to me that most of the "confusion" about the use of "whom" in this thread has arisen from what is, for me, a very strange interpretation of "dedicated". I still can only take one meaning from it - she was a dedicated employee. I just don't get these other interpretations - the boss dedcated her, or she was dedicated by him. Are these AE usages?


 
The idea was mentioned early on in the thread as a way in which "whom" might be used. I don't think it really makes much sense in BE or AE.


----------



## El escoces

> The idea was mentioned early on in the thread as a way in which "whom" might be used. I don't think it really makes much sense in BE or AE.


 
I agree with that entirely, but doesn't your post #27 appear to present these as alternative interpretations, in one of which whom would properly be used?


----------



## johndot

Thank you, liliput, for your comments and explanations. I accept what you say (but not without reservations!).
 
To be honest, I think that the phrasing of the original text is, at best, rather awkward—and as a result, neither _who_ nor _whom_ fits comfortably. There are definitely two (or more?) ways of understanding the sentence.
 
The shorter and simpler version I would write like this:
 
Mrs K, who was dedicated, I believe, was fired...
 
The trouble with this phrasing is that it doesn’t convey the element of surprise which I believe the author would have been intending. Compare the sense of that simple sentence with this version, in which I’ve modified a verb structure to accord with what I perceived, at the outset, to be the true ‘meaning’:
 
Mrs K, whom I had believed to be dedicated, was fired...
 
Can you, and other contributors, see what I’m getting at? I don’t think the problem can be resolved, syntactically, until the whole sentence has been slightly reworked.


----------



## Franzi

johndot said:


> Can you, and other contributors, see what I’m getting at? I don’t think the problem can be resolved, syntactically, until the whole sentence has been slightly reworked.


 
Agreed, and that's what I was trying to get at in my answers.  I actually find the original bad enough that it's not grammatical for me, so the question is an impossible one to answer.


----------



## Cagey

It seems to me that punctuation -- or lack of it -- causes some of the problems people are having with the original sentence.  It would be easier to see "I believe" as an independent insertion if it had been set off with commas, as it is in this example of the same construction from a discussion of the use of relative pronouns:
He is the person *who, I believe,* will help you.*** ​ Adding two commas would have made the original sentence even more difficult follow, but dashes or brackets might have made the structure more apparent. 
Mrs.Kraus*,* who - I believe - was dedicated, was fired....
Mrs.Kraus*,* who (I believe) was dedicated, was fired....​
***A search for the above sentence  will lead you to the source, as HTML or as a document. See #5.


----------



## MikeLynn

Cagey, thanks a lot, I DO believe that who _is_ the right choice here and it is the poor, or ambiguous, punctuation that is to be blamed here.


----------



## liliput

El escoces said:


> I agree with that entirely, but doesn't your post #27 appear to present these as alternative interpretations, in one of which whom would properly be used?


 
I can't answer a question about how it appears to other people, but I did explicitly mention in post 27 that the interpretation was incorrect, as was my previous analysis of the incorrect interpretation.

The structure, however, is sound. The problem is with the use of the verb - it's not possible to dedicate someone, in the way that you might dedicate a song or a novel. 


Regarding the use of punctuation, I see nothing wrong with the sentence;
*"Mrs. Kraus, who I believe was dedicated, was fired...."* I don't find it difficult to understand and would only interpret it one way.

The alternative suggestions, along the lines of
"Mrs. Kraus who, I believe, was dedicated, was fired..." 
are also fine, but seem stilted and the emphasis is rather different.

Johnot's restructuring, on the other hand, completely changes the meaning - implying that the speaker no longer believes Mrs. Klaus to be dedicated. In the original sentence we have the impression that the speaker still believes that Mrs. Klaus was dedicated to her job.


----------



## iskndarbey

El escoces said:


> I agree with panj and disagree with all of the other comments and interesting analyses.
> 
> My understanding is that "whom" can only correctly follow a preposition.  "To whom", "with whom", etc.  With or without comma, "Mrs Kraus, whom I believe was dedicated, was fired..." cannot be correct.



This is not correct. It would be correct to say, for example, "Mrs. Kraus, whom I saw last Tuesday..." although most people now will say 'who' in this context.

However, in the original sentence, 'who' is the correct choice (assuming the intended meaning is that she is dedicated to her job).


----------



## johndot

Mrs K, whom I had believed to be dedicated, was fired... (johndot, post #31)
 
Johnot's restructuring, on the other hand, completely changes the meaning - implying that the speaker no longer believes Mrs. Klaus to be dedicated. In the original sentence we have the impression that the speaker still believes that Mrs. Klaus was dedicated to her job. (liliput, post #35)
 
I prefer to say that the restructuring I suggested in post #31 does not ‘change the meaning’—rather, it clarifies one of the possible meanings.
 
Neither does the restructuring necessarily imply that the speaker has changed his mind about Mrs K’s dedication—it simply specifies his beliefs at the time she was fired.


----------



## panjandrum

It doesn't necessarily change the meaning, but it does change the sentence structure.
Change the structure so that the pronoun becomes the object rather than the subject and indeed it should be _whom_.
But that is the answer to a different question.


----------



## johndot

panjandrum said:


> It doesn't necessarily change the meaning, but it does change the sentence structure.
> Change the structure so that the pronoun becomes the object rather than the subject and indeed it should be _whom_.
> But that is the answer to a different question.


 If this is a direct reply to post #37, I'm afraid I don't follow. What point, specifically, are you making?


----------



## panjandrum

johndot said:


> If this is a direct reply to post #37, I'm afraid I don't follow. What point, specifically, are you making?


I was, indeed, responding to your post #37.  I'll explain more clearly, I hope.

The sentence we were given in post #1 requires who.

Restructuring the sentence to the form you quoted in post #37 creates a different sentence.  This new sentence may, or may not, mean the same as the original sentence.  That does not matter.  My point is that it is a new sentence.

In the new sentence, it may indeed be correct to use _whom_.  That is not particularly relevant to the choice between _who _and _whom _for the original sentence.

At this point, the discussion is so far from the original purpose of the thread that I do not intend to post again.

Goodnight.


----------



## Forero

johndot said:


> Next: who or what is the object of that clause? Unfortunately, not a single word (that would have been too easy!) but a clause performs that function: the words _Mrs Kraus was dedicated_ is the object clause of the subject and verb _I believe_.
> 
> Finally: If _Mrs Kraus,_ as part of an object clause, is replaced by a pronoun, what case must the pronoun take? I maintain it must be Accusative.


In "I believe Mrs. Kraus _was_ dedicated", we can substitute "she", not "her", for "Mrs. Kraus", but in "I believe Mrs. Kraus _to be_ dedicated", we can substitute "her", not "she" for "Mrs. Kraus".

Similarly, when we say "Mrs. Kraus, who I believe was dedicated", we use "who" since the meaning is "Mrs. Kraus, the 'she' in 'I believe she was dedicated'", but when we say "Mrs. Kraus, whom I believe _to be_ dedicated", we use "whom" because the meaning is "Mrs. Kraus, the 'her' in 'I believe her to be dedicated'".


----------



## liliput

johndot said:


> Mrs K, whom I had believed to be dedicated, was fired... (johndot, post #31)
> 
> Johnot's restructuring, on the other hand, completely changes the meaning - implying that the speaker no longer believes Mrs. Klaus to be dedicated. In the original sentence we have the impression that the speaker still believes that Mrs. Klaus was dedicated to her job. (liliput, post #35)
> 
> I prefer to say that the restructuring I suggested in post #31 does not ‘change the meaning’—rather, it clarifies one of the possible meanings.
> 
> Neither does the restructuring necessarily imply that the speaker has changed his mind about Mrs K’s dedication—it simply specifies his beliefs at the time she was fired.


 
I know we're getting further away from the original question but I think it's important to point out that the use of the past perfect clearly implies that the speaker believed Mrs. Klaus was dedicated *up until the point she was fired*. To simply specify his beliefs at the time she was fired the correct tense would be simple past.

With regards to the original question, I believe forero's interpretation of the facts (post 41) to be correct.


----------



## johndot

I agree entirely with Forero’s post #41—and in my post #31 I tried to make that clear. The restructuring for the second interpretation of the original text was done, as I explained, because it was _that_ interpretation which struck me first, and seemed the most likely.
 
As panjandrum has already pointed out, I used the pluperfect instead of the perfect tense (which argued in favour of what he had just suggested—the opposite of my intention—oops, sorry), but that would have made no difference to the _who vs whom _debate.


----------



## wheaten

Forero said,

_Similarly, when we say "Mrs. Kraus, who I believe was dedicated", we use "who" since the meaning is "Mrs. Kraus, the 'she' in 'I believe she was dedicated'", but when we say "Mrs. Kraus, whom I believe to be dedicated", we use "whom" because the meaning is "Mrs. Kraus, the 'her' in 'I believe her to be dedicated'"._

As I read him, and since his first example is the wording of the original example, he calls for "who"; no objective/accusative case.

The issue of the case for the revised wording is separate. I do not personally see any added clarity, and just more words in the 'to be' suggestion.


----------

