# Whom did you give...? / To whom did ... ? /  Whom did you give ... to?



## yamaya

Hello,
Let me know whether the following sentences could be applied in English.
Whom did you give the letter.
To whom did you give the letter.
Whom did you give the letter to.
Thanks.


----------



## PaulQ

yamaya said:


> Please let me know whether the following sentences could be applied work/ are OK in English.


Which do you think are correct and which wrong?


----------



## yamaya

Sorry for mistakes made by me. I think whom did you give the letter is correct


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

Unfortunately, no.  "Whom" here requires a preposition.  You would say either "To whom did you give the letter?", or, if you have no objection to prepositions at the end of a sentence, you could say "Whom did you give the letter to?"


----------



## Forero

"Whom (not "who") did you give the letter" sounds fine to me, but I would be more likely to ask "Who(m) did you give the letter to?" or an exasperated "You gave who(m) the letter?".


----------



## RM1(SS)

I would use either version of "Whom did you give the letter [to]?"


----------



## yamaya

Thanks everyone for your clarification.


----------



## Englishmypassion

I would not separate "to" from "whom" but place it before "whom" ( not at at the end). If I used "to" at the end, which I usually would,  I'd start the sentence with "who", not " whom".
I'd _generally_ say the following (in the order of my preference):

1st: *Who* did you give the letter *to?*
2nd: *To whim* did you give the letter*?*
3rd: *Whom* did you give the lette*r?*

Note: Each of the three sentences must end with a question marks.


Edited: To say it more clearly


----------



## Lun-14

Hi Emp,



Englishmypassion said:


> *Who* did you give the letter *to*?
> *Whom* did you give the letter?
> *To whom* did you give the letter?
> *Whom *did you give the letter *to*?
> *Who* did you give the letter?



Of these five, which versions are standard formal English and which are informal English? Thank you.


----------



## Hermione Golightly

*Who* did you give the letter *to*? Normal standard.
*Whom* did you give the letter? Surely this can't exist. We need to keep the preposition 'to'.
*To whom* did you give the letter? Very formal or old-fashioned BrE.
*Whom *did you give the letter *to*? 
I don't like this mix at all! Choose the first or the third.
*Who* did you give the letter? We can't leave out 'to'.


----------



## PaulQ

If you want to know when which version should be used,
For examinations use* "To whom* did you give the letter?"
In all other circumstances except the most formal, use "*Who* did you give the letter to?"
In the most formal circumstances, also use "*To whom* did you give the letter?"


----------



## ewie

Englishmypassion said:


> 1st: *Who* did you give the letter *to?*




Any version that includes the word _whom_ sounds 'unnatural' to me.


----------



## Englishmypassion

Do you also find the "whom" version without "to" ungrammatical?
Thanks.


----------



## PaulQ

I do. "Who/whom (and whose/which)" requires a preposition as a dative grammatical case marker to distinguish the direct (accusative) or indirect (dative) object. This is not necessarily true of other pronouns where the case is shown via syntax.

That is the man whom (direct (accusative) object) I saw yesterday.
That is the man *to* whom (indirect (dative) object) I gave the money.
That is the man *for* whom (indirect (dative) object) I baked the cake.


----------



## ewie

Englishmypassion said:


> Do you find the "whom" version without "to" ungrammatical?


'Ungrammatical' _and_ 'unnatural'


----------



## Forero

I do not equate any object of a preposition with an object of a verb. Two sentences, one with a preposition and one without, might "mean" the same thing, but they are not grammatically the same sentence. A preposition takes its own object, which cannot be simultaneously an object of a verb.

Some verbs, such as "give" take indirect objects. An indirect object is an object of a verb, formerly in dative case, that is not a direct object.

When English had dative and accusative cases, indirect objects of verbs were in dative case, and most of what we now call direct objects of verbs were in accusative case. Now that we have lost these cases, however, we tend to call some formerly dative case objects of verbs "direct" objects (e.g. "him" in "I warned him"), at least in sentences in which a "real" direct object is not explicit (as it would be in e.g. "I warned him that he was on thin ice").

English no longer has accusative, dative, or instrumental cases, but a preposition still always has its own object and is not a mere marker for a verb's object, direct or indirect.

As for objects of prepositions when English still had these cases, (if I remember correctly) the object of "to" was always dative, but the object of "for" was always accusative, never dative, and the object of "in" was accusative or dative depending on what was meant.

In the sentence "Who(m) did you give the letter to?", "who(m)" is the object of "to", not an object of "give", and in "Whom did you give the letter?", "whom" is the indirect object of "give".

The pronoun "whom" is a vestige of the old case system. It is used only an an object, either of a verb or of a preposition, never as a subject (e.g. "Who gave you the letter?") or as a complement (e.g. as in "The new President is who?").

Even as an object, "who" is much more common than "whom". For me, only "whom" works as an indirect object, and only "whom" works just after a preposition of which it is the object. Otherwise, "who" is more natural.


----------



## PaulQ

OED:





> Whom pron. The objective case of who pron.: no longer current in natural colloquial speech.
> 
> *I.*
> *1.* In an independent question.
> 
> a.       *a.*....as indirect object (dative) or as object of a preposition (or after than).
> b.      *b.*....as direct object (accusative).


 


Forero said:


> I do not equate any object of a preposition with an object of a verb.


That is a valid view.





> Two sentences, one with a preposition and one without, might "mean" the same thing, but they are not grammatically the same sentence.


 I agree that you can classify them differently through a variety of filters. “Dative” and “accusative” (along with genitive and nominative) serve as a means of distinction – basically, “the name has changed but the game is the same.”





> A preposition takes its own object, which cannot be simultaneously an object of a verb.


I have heard that theory many times, but, considering English as a Germanic language, and its history of grammatical cases, their dead hand lives with us still.

To clarify, I am not suggesting that in “To whom did you go?” that “to” is not a preposition and “to whom” is in some way an object of “go.”

But “You gave it whom?” and “You gave it to whom?” are identical, and are identical because the indirect object (dative) whom is understood as “to whom”. We might consider if the dative “whom” does not carry its own preposition as a vestige.


> Some verbs, such as "give" take indirect objects. An indirect object is an object of a verb, formerly in dative case, that is not a direct object.


I agree, although I’m not sure about “formerly” given the OED’s opinion.



> When English had dative and accusative cases,


They are still with us.





> indirect objects of verbs were in dative case, and most of what we now call direct objects of verbs were in accusative case.


I agree.





> Now that we have lost these cases, however, we tend to call some formerly dative case objects of verbs "direct" objects (e.g. "him" in "I warned him")


 There was the direct object/accusative form “hine” but that was lost and “him” took its place, so “him” is both the accusative and dative form – there is no reason why different cases cannot have the same form. However, despite this loss, the distinction made between the accusative and dative continued to exist in exactly the same way as it does today.


> The pronoun "whom" is a vestige of the old case system.


That is my point – it represents the accusative and the dative but they are distinguished in that in the dative the “to” is implied.


> For me, only "whom" works as an indirect object, and only "whom" works just after a preposition of which it is the object.


If the “to” can be omitted, whom is a dative, if it cannot, it is the object of a preposition.


----------



## Forero

PaulQ said:


> But “You gave it whom?” and “You gave it to whom?” are identical, and are identical because the indirect object (dative) whom is understood as “to whom”. We might consider if the dative “whom” does not carry its own preposition as a vestige.
> 
> I agree, although I’m not sure about “formerly” given the OED’s opinion.
> 
> They are still with us.I agree. There was the direct object/accusative form “hine” but that was lost and “him” took its place, so “him” is both the accusative and dative form – there is no reason why different cases cannot have the same form. However, despite this loss, the distinction made between the accusative and dative continued to exist in exactly the same way as it does today.
> That is my point – it represents the accusative and the dative but they are distinguished in that in the dative the “to” is implied.
> If the “to” can be omitted, whom is a dative, if it cannot, it is the object of a preposition.


But indirect objects of verbs , were always dative (as in German), even, for example, in "I baked her a cake", even though what is "implied" (by your theory) is "for her" (with accusative "her"), not "to her" (with dative "her").

In "I asked her a question", "her" was dative because of being an indirect object, but it means "of her". Is that dative or genitive?

Even "her" in "I warned her" was dative (again, as it is in German), and it can't be "understood" as "I warned to her", "I warned for her", or "I warned of her". I don't think there is a prepositional phrase that could replace dative "her" in "I warned her that there was something amiss."

I also do not accept the notion that objective _whom_ is no longer current in natural colloquial speech. To me, "Whom did you give the letter to?", "To whom did you give the letter?", and "Who did you give the letter to?" all sound natural, the last being perhaps a little more colloquial, but "To who did you give the letter?" just sounds wrong.


----------



## Englishmypassion

Great analysis,  Forero. Thank you so much.
Now I see why the whom version sounded/sounds natural to me even without "to" (though I couldn't explain it).

I really wonder whether a high knowledge of grammar, which is usually helpful, _sometimes_  stops a native speaker from instinctively recognizing a sentence as correct(/natural) -- even if not the most preferable -- (as a result of getting entangled in grammar and analyzing the sentence grammatically) if the sentence doesn't seem to follow some (contemporary) grammar rules.  Or I'm on the wrong side in such cases!? 


Thanks a lot, Paul, Ewie,  HG and RM1 too.


----------



## DonnyB

Englishmypassion said:


> I really wonder whether a high knowledge of grammar, which is usually helpful, sometimes interferes with a native speaker's instinct to recognize a sentence as correct(/natural), though not the most preferable, (as a result of getting entangled in grammar and analyzing the sentence grammatically) if the sentence doesn't seem to follow some (contemporary) grammar rules.  Or I'm on the wrong side in such cases!?


I think this is very true.  

I do remember all this stuff about accusative and dative cases from when I did Latin as a schoolboy (and to a lesser extent, German too) but I've long since ceased to have any practical use for it.  I'd be amazed, quite honestly, if it's still even taught in British schools nowadays - certainly not in English classes.

All I can usefully add is to endorse ewies's comment (post #12): the only version of the original sentence that comes across as idiomatic and natural to me is "Who did you give the letter to?" and the use of "whom" in sentences like that sounds _very_ stilted and old-fashioned.


----------



## velisarius

I read all the above, but for me "Whom did you give the letter?" still sounds quite alien.


----------



## Hermione Golightly

Omitting 'to' is poor advice to learners, whatever idiosyncratic rationale native speakers might adopt to justify the possibility in theory. We need the prepositions in the question form we're discussing here.
Apart from it not being helpful advice, I've never, ever heard it used and wouldn't dream of using it myself.

I have noticed that AmE is far more focused on the object or accusative relative pronoun forms than modern BrE. Round where I live, somebody who said "To whom did you give the letter?" might be regarded as a pedantic show-off. Of course, that's something the speaker wouldn't care about.

It's true that we omit preposition 'to' when we say "I gave her the letter/her it", or even "I gave it her", although I never invert like that.


----------



## velisarius

Hermione Golightly said:


> Omitting 'to' is poor advice to learners,



I agree completely. 

There's probably not one in a thousand native speakers who, on hearing "Whom did you give the letter?", would think to himself": "My, what a perfect command of the dative case in the English language!" He or she would most probably think "Hmm...shame nobody ever taught him to use "who/whom" correctly .


----------



## PaulQ

Hermione Golightly said:


> Omitting 'to' is poor advice to learners,


I agree, it is something I would not advise and have not done, and neither should anyone else but, as a test for the dative, it is fine for the curious, reasonably educated, native speaker or advanced student.


velisarius said:


> here's probably not one in a thousand native speakers who, on hearing "Whom did you give the letter?", would think to himself": "My, what a perfect command of the dative case in the English language!" He or she would most probably think "Hmm...shame nobody ever taught him to use "who/whom" correctly


Yes, your conclusion that there is a lack of both interest and knowledge in language in the general population is sound.


----------



## velisarius

> Yes, your conclusion that there is a lack of both interest and knowledge in language in the general population is sound.



On the contrary - there is everywhere a natural inborn tendency to pick holes in other people's grammar - in my experience.

Edit: Most people can't articulate what is wrong with an odd grammatical type, but nearly everyone will experience that feeling of  "why is he speaking funny?"


----------



## Forero

The question of whether "Whom did you give the letter?" sounds natural is probably moot, since "Who did you give the letter to?" is much more in vogue, but I would certainly accept it in writing, without imagining that a "to" has been omitted. It only works with "Whom", though, not "Who".

And, in terms of everyday speech, "You gave who(m) the letter?" (with no "to" expected or implied) is as straightforward as "You gave her what?".

It may be an AE/BE difference, but to me, "To whom?" (more formal) and "Who to?" (more colloquial) are both perfectly natural, "To who?" is colloquial (most informal) only, and "Whom to?" is just wrong.
My guess is that American English is more comforable with the word "whom" than British English. For me, "whom" is neither colloquial nor stodgy but just an acceptable alternative that becomes more preferable the more formal the context.

As for grammatical cases in Modern English, I think we have subjective (just for subjects), objective (just for objects), and sometimes disjunctive (for things other than subjects and objects). As examples of the latter, "It's me" and "It's who?" both work because the disjunctive (= stressed or default) form of "I/me" is "me" (which looks like objective) but the disjunctive form of "who/whom" is "who" (which looks like subjective). Some speakers use "I" as a disjunctive, but to my knowledge no one uses "whom" that way.


----------



## wandle

We say 'I gave him the letter': but not 'I gave the letter him';  instead of that, we say 'I gave the letter to him' (e.g. when we want to stress who the recipient was).
This might indicate a rule that when the pronoun is separated from the verb, the preposition is required.

On this basis,  I would say that 'You gave whom the letter?' is good, but not 'Whom did you give the letter?'


Forero said:


> My guess is that American English is more comforable with the word "whom" than British English. For me, "whom" is neither colloquial nor stodgy but just an acceptable alternative that becomes more preferable the more formal the context.


I agree entirely with this, except that I would have thought the transatlantic difference was the other way round.


----------



## Wilma_Sweden

Forero said:


> A preposition takes its own object, which cannot be simultaneously an object of a verb.


Forgive my ignorance, but in my world only verbs can have objects, or at least so I believed. Where in the topic sentences do you find objects of prepositions? In my world, however you construct the sentence, "whom", "who...to" or "to whom" are all the indirect object (dative) of the verb 'give' while 'the letter' is the direct object (accusative) and 'you' is the subject. Perhaps this is just a case of different labelling systems depending on what grammatical theory that was en vogue when you learned to analyse sentence structure...  I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm just confused... At least I've learned something new: that 'whom' transforms to 'who' when the preposition is placed at the end, and that years and years of struggle by prescriptionists have all been for nothing: placing a preposition at the end of a sentence in this case is perfectly natural.


----------



## Englishmypassion

How about "Whom did you show/offer/lend/send it?"
Thanks.


----------



## bennymix

Along with Velisarius, Wandle and others, EMP's 3rd suggestion is quite odd sounding and, in my opinion, likely ungrammatical, not to say unnatural.

EMP: 3rd: *Whom* did you give the lette*r?   *{bennymix's reaction}



Englishmypassion said:


> I would not separate "to" from "whom" but place it before "whom" ( not at at the end). If I used "to" at the end, which I usually would,  I'd start the sentence with "who", not " whom".
> I'd _generally_ say the following (in the order of my preference):
> 
> 1st: *Who* did you give the letter *to?*
> 2nd: *To whim* did you give the letter*?*
> 3rd: *Whom* did you give the lette*r?*
> 
> Note: Each of the three sentences must end with a question marks.
> 
> 
> Edited: To say it more clearly


----------



## Forero

wandle said:


> We say 'I gave him the letter': but not 'I gave the letter him';  instead of that, we say 'I gave the letter to him' (e.g. when we want to stress who the recipient was).
> 
> This might indicate a rule that when the pronoun is separated from the verb, the preposition is required.


I have seen things in writing (Kipling?) like "I gave it him", and though I noticed it, I understood it and thought it sounded natural. It depends on the amount of separation.





> On this basis,  I would say that 'You gave whom the letter?' is good, but not 'Whom did you give the letter?'


For me, "did you" does not separate "whom" too far from "give".

What about "Whom did you tell that you were going out?" or "Whom did you tell that story?"?





Englishmypassion said:


> How about "Whom did you show/offer/lend/send it?"
> Thanks.


Interesting. "Whom did you offer it?" sounds fine to me, but the others seem contrived, at least without further context.

Or maybe it depends on what I have been reading last.


----------



## SevenDays

A preposition can be as "transitive" as a verb, in the sense that a complement/object is needed to convey full meaning. So, yes, prepositions can have "complements/objects." Usually, elements that go together, stay together (forming a _unit_), so it makes sense to keep a preposition and its complement together (_to whom_), just as we keep the transitive verb and its direct object together; however, the complement and the preposition can be separated (_*Whom* did you give the letter *to*?_), just as a verb and its direct object can be separated (most commonly by an indirect object). A feature of prepositions is that they assign "case;" if we say "to him," "to them," "to whom," it follows that the preposition rejects nominative case (_to he; to they, to who_ ) and requires the forms_ him, them, and whom_. Using the term "dative" is problematic. "Dative" makes sense in languages where "dative case" is a morphological distinctive category (as in Latin and, to some extent, Spanish), but that morphological distinction is absent in English ("indirect" objects pronouns have the same form as "direct" object pronoun; the distinction between "indirect" and "direct" is seen in their placement in sentence structure). For that reason, we might simply say that in "to whom," the preposition assigns _*objective case*_ (rather than "accusative" or "dative" case), though some use the term "oblique object" for the "complement" of a preposition (leaving "direct object" for complements of verbs). That "to whom" is an _indirect object_ is a terminology of traditional grammar, but syntax views it as a _(prepositional) complement_ licensed by the verb. So, "Whom/who did you give the letter to?" works ("who" is a less formal alternative), but if the preposition is shifted to the front, then "whom" is the only viable choice ("to whom did you give the letter"), as "whom" is _directly_ assigned case by "to."


----------



## e2efour

velisarius said:


> I read all the above, but for me "Whom did you give the letter?" still sounds quite alien.


Not only do I agree with this (and similar views expressed by others), but for _quite alien_ I would also take _quite to _mean_ totally _(in case velisarius meant it in a less absolute sense).


----------



## Wilma_Sweden

Forero said:


> I have seen things in writing (Kipling?) like "I gave it him", and though I noticed it, I understood it and thought it sounded natural. It depends on the amount of separation.


'I gave it him' sounds very odd - I would say that 'I gave him it' is the only option, based on the standard word order: we find that the *functions* (S=subject, V=verb, dO=dative object and aO=accusative object) appear in one order when the dative object takes the *form* of a noun/name/pronoun, and another order when the dative object takes the *form* of a prepositional phrase (to + noun or object pronoun). I won't apologise for using these labels, I could call them agent, recipient and patient or widget, gadget and oojimaflip, as long as I understand their function, I'm happy.

1) Peter gave Bill the letter.          S-V-dO-aO
2) Peter gave him the letter.         S-V-dO-aO
3) Peter gave him it.                     S-V-dO-aO
4) Peter gave the letter *to Bill*.      S-V-aO-dO
5) Peter gave the letter *to him*.     S-V-aO-dO
6) Peter gave it *to him*.                  S-V-aO-dO


----------



## Cagey

Please see this previous discussion:  He gave it her. [Virginia Woolf]


----------



## Loob

Wilma_Sweden said:


> 'I gave it him' sounds very odd - I would say that 'I gave him it' is the only option,


Well... there are people for whom "I gave it him" is 100% correct, Wilma  - I recall teachers of mine who used that version.
On the other hand, "I gave him it" can sound overly informal. The simplest solution is "I gave it to him".
All that said, it doesn't address the OP'S question:


yamaya said:


> Hello,
> Let me know whether the following sentences could be applied in English.
> Whom did you give the letter.
> To whom did you give the letter.
> Whom did you give the letter to.
> Thanks.


One thing that's interesting to me is that in previous threads several AmE-speakers have said that they see structures like "Whom did you give the letter to?" as correct.
For me, they sound odd.  My choices are between:
_Who did you give the letter to.?_
And
_To whom did you give the letter?
Whom did you give the letter to? s_ounds like an awkward hybrid.


----------



## Forero

Some interesting examples:

he gave it her
give it me
He gave it her.
double object construction

Who(m) are you giving a cookie?


----------



## Englishmypassion

Loob said:


> My choices are between:
> _Who did you give the letter to.?_
> And
> _To whom did you give the letter?_
> _Whom did you give the letter to? s_ounds like an awkward hybrid.



Exactly! That's what I also said in post #8.


----------



## Loob

Englishmypassion said:


> Exactly! That's what I also said in post #8.


Yes, you did,  Emp...
We agree!


----------



## Englishmypassion

Loob said:


> We agree!




Thanks a lot; I feel fully secure with you by my side -- it's a great feeling. 




How about "Whom did you teach English/X?"
"Whom did you serve tea?" and "Whom do you owe that?" 

Thanks.


----------



## Wilma_Sweden

Loob said:


> Well... there are people for whom "I gave it him" is 100% correct, Wilma  - I recall teachers of mine who used that version.
> On the other hand, "I gave him it" can sound overly informal. The simplest solution is "I gave it to him".





Forero said:


> Some interesting examples:
> 
> he gave it her
> give it me
> He gave it her.
> double object construction
> 
> Who(m) are you giving a cookie?


Thanks Loob and Forero! I stand corrected. There were some excellent explanations in the last two links provided.


Englishmypassion said:


> How about "Whom did you teach English/X?"
> "Whom did you serve tea?" and "Whom do you owe that?"


I would say "Who did you serve tea to?" and "Whom do you owe that?", but native speakers may of course have differing opinions.


----------



## Englishmypassion

Wilma_Sweden said:


> I would say "Who did you serve tea to?" and "Whom do you owe *that?*"...



Thanks, Wilma. What's your reason for not sticking to "to" there? 

Thanks.


----------



## Wilma_Sweden

Englishmypassion said:


> Thanks, Wilma. What's your reason for not sticking to "to" there?
> 
> Thanks.


This is because of a mistaken notion that 'owe' behaves differently than 'give' with two objects. After looking around, I now retract: I would use either of these: "Who do you owe that to?" (less formal) or "To whom do you owe that?" (more formal).


----------



## velisarius

Whom are you giving a cookie? (post #37).

I don't find that site at all trustworthy I'm afraid, Forero. They endorse "Who(m) are you kidding?", where an optional "whom" seems to me completely unsuitable to be used with the highly colloquial "kidding". 

They can't spell either: 





> Who is going to the *picknick*? - We are going.



I'm quite happy with older/dialect usages such as "He gave it her" . I may even say on occasion "Give it me here".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Englishmypassion said:


> "Whom did you teach English?"
> "Whom did you serve tea?"
> "Whom do you owe that?"



No, sorry Emp, all quite alien to me. ("Quite" as in "totally")


----------



## Forero

velisarius said:


> Whom are you giving a cookie? (post #37).
> 
> I don't find that site at all trustworthy I'm afraid, Forero. They endorse "Who(m) are you kidding?", where an optional "whom" seems to me completely unsuitable to be used with the highly colloquial "kidding".


I just found that site and thought this example was interesting.

In fact "Whom are you giving a cookie?" and "Whom are you kidding?" both sound normal to me, though a little on the formal side.

To me, "Whom did you teach English?", "Whom did you serve tea?", and "Whom do you owe that?" sound fine, though uncommon. The last one needs context to explain "that".


----------



## Loob

Well, there you go, Forero: "whom" would be impossible to me in all your post 45 examples.


----------



## SevenDays

Leaving aside what sounds normal or not, not all the verbs in post #45 behave the same. _Give, teach, serve_ and _owe_ are ditransitive verbs, meaning that they take two arguments, direct object and indirect object (not counting the argument of "subject"). In question form, the argument of indirect object becomes the prepositional phrase (PP) "to whom," and it makes sense to keep the preposition, because the full PP represents one of the two arguments of the verb: _whom/who are you giving a cookie to?_ (with "who" as an informal alternative). I suppose the examples that lack "to" can be explained as having a _reduced prepositional phrase _(i.e. _whom/who are you giving a cookie?_), but not everyone accepts such construction (as seen in this thread); again, with the preposition omitted, nothing assigns "case" to _whom/who_. By contrast, "kidding" is a one argument verb ("monotransitive"), so _who(m) are you kidding?_ is perfectly ok, with _who(m) _as the direct object.


----------



## velisarius

My objection to "Whom are you kidding?" was entirely due to the use of very formal "whom" in the same breath as "you are kidding". Does anyone speak/write like that unless in jest? I read that and lost confidence in whatever else the writer of that page might be saying.


----------



## Forero

Do those who object to indirect object _whom_ (no preposition) also object to fronting an indirect object for the sake of contrast? Example:

_Her I gave my sweater, but him I gave my sweater and my hat._

This sounds normal to me, with no preposition expressed or implied. (By the way, the _m_ at the end of _him_ and _whom_ [originally _hwam_] was the Old English dative marker.)


----------



## e2efour

It's not English that I recognise. More importantly, where's your evidence? I can't find this construction in the corpuses.


----------



## Forero

e2efour said:


> It's not English that I recognise. More importantly, where's your evidence? I can't find this construction in the corpuses.


So far, the only evidence we have, besides apparently accidental occurrences, is in older forms of English and in other languages, most notably German and Latin. (Spanish, however, requires a preposition sometimes even for a direct object.)

Maybe it's just me, but I really don't feel it is necessary to convert the indirect object of certain verbs (_give_, _tell_, _warn_, _teach_, _serve_, _offer_, _owe_) to a prepositional phrase when fronting it. These sound like good sentences to me:

_I gave him my sweater and my hat, and I warned him that subzero temperatures can be dangerous.
It was him (that) I gave my sweater and my hat, and him _(_that_) _I warned that subzero temperatures can be dangerous.
Him I gave my sweater and my hat, and him I warned that subzero temperatures can be dangerous.
Whom did I give my sweater and my hat, and whom did I warn that subzero temperatures can be dangerous?_


----------



## PaulQ

Forero said:


> Do those who object to indirect object _whom_ (no preposition) also object to fronting an indirect object for the sake of contrast? Example:
> 
> _Her I gave my sweater, but him I gave my sweater and my hat._


It may help if there were context:

A: "So, as I understand it, you gave her your hat and him your jumper?"
B: "No! _Her I gave my sweater, but him I gave my sweater and my hat."
_
(There's perhaps an arguable case for a comma after 'her' and 'him, because of the implied dative "to".)


----------



## SevenDays

I suspect that, decontextualized, the "preposing" (moving a sentence element to the left) is less likely with an indirect object pronoun (_I gave her my sweater ~ Her I gave my sweater_ ??) because phonologically weak pronouns (such as this "me") are disfavored in sentence-initial position (or at least it seems to me). By contrast, a prepositional complement can readily move to the left (_I gave my sweater to her ~ To her I gave my sweater_).


----------



## Forero

SevenDays said:


> I suspect that, decontextualized, the "preposing" (moving a sentence element to the left) is less likely with an indirect object pronoun (_I gave her my sweater ~ Her I gave my sweater_ ??) because phonologically weak pronouns (such as this "me") are disfavored in sentence-initial position (or at least it seems to me). By contrast, a prepositional complement can readily move to the left (_I gave my sweater to her ~ To her I gave my sweater_).


Yes, without the context of a contrast between "her" and somebody else, such a sentence does not sound natural by itself, but an interrogative, since it indicates a choice, does not need to be part of a contrast. The only real issue I see with it is some possible ambiguity, since _whom_ might be, for example, a direct object.

Looking at the case of "I gave her that" (obviously stressed pronoun) as opposed to "I gave her it" (stressed?), I don't think the latter sentence is ungrammatical, but it does seem awkward compared with "I gave it to her" or even "I gave it her" (stressed removed from "it"). The existence of the latter construction tells me that such possible ambiguity can sometimes be forgiven. In particular, if one object is animate and the other inanimate, it seems reasonable (though not our only choice) to take the animate object as the indirect one (regardless of which is first).


----------

