# Embedded Question: who Peter Pan is / who is Peter Pan



## Kenny Chang

Hello, everyone. Before I posted this thread, I had read some relevant threads in this forum. And I'd like to interpret the following two sentences in my way. Could you guide me if my interpretation is correct or not?
*1. I don't know who Peter Pan is.*
> I have never heard of Peter Pan. So I don't know who Peter Pan is. (Or even *what *he is because I've never heard of this name).

*2. I don't know who is Peter Pan.*
> Two students are going to play a drama called _Peter Pan_. One needs to play Peter Pan, and the other needs to play Captain Hook.  I don't know who (which student) is Peter Pan, and who is Captain Hook. 

Thanks for your help, and my interpretation is based on this thread:
know who is he / know who he is (Indirect interrogative)


----------



## entangledbank

This really comes down to the fact that "A is B" often also means "B is A"; plus the fact that we use statement order, not question inversion, in indirect questions:

Peter Pan is a little boy who refuses to grow up.
I don't know who Peter Pan is.
A little boy who refuses to grow up is Peter Pan.

Harrison Ford is Peter Pan, and Cate Blanchett is Tinkerbell.
I don't know who is Peter Pan.

But for the part, we can also say:
Peter Pan is Harrison Ford.
I don't know who Peter Pan is.
(This is less likely than the other way, but still possible.)


----------



## Kenny Chang

entangledbank said:


> This really comes down to the fact that "A is B" often also means "B is A"; plus the fact that we use statement order, not question inversion, in indirect questions:
> 
> Peter Pan is a little boy who refuses to grow up.
> I don't know who Peter Pan is.
> A little boy who refuses to grow up is Peter Pan.
> 
> Harrison Ford is Peter Pan, and Cate Blanchett is Tinkerbell.
> I don't know who is Peter Pan.
> 
> But for the part, we can also say:
> Peter Pan is Harrison Ford.
> I don't know who Peter Pan is.
> (This is less likely than the other way, but still possible.)


Thank you, entangledbank.  So can I interpret those two sentences like that?


----------



## billj

Kenny Chang said:


> Hello, everyone. Before I posted this thread, I had read some relevant threads in this forum. And I'd like to interpret the following two sentences in my way. Could you guide me if my interpretation is correct or not?
> *1. I don't know who Peter Pan is.*
> > I have never heard of Peter Pan. So I don't know who Peter Pan is. (Or even *what *he is because I've never heard of this name).
> 
> *2. I don't know who is Peter Pan.*
> > Two students are going to play a drama called _Peter Pan_. One needs to play Peter Pan, and the other needs to play Captain Hook.  I don't know who (which student) is Peter Pan, and who is Captain Hook.
> 
> Thanks for your help, and my interpretation is based on this thread:
> know who is he / know who he is (Indirect interrogative)


[1] I don't know who Peter Pan is.
[2] I don't know who is Peter Pan.

In [1] the underlined element is an interrogative clause (embedded question). Note the absence of subject-auxiliary inversion. The meaning is:

_I don't know the answer to the question 'Who is Peter Pan?'"_

[2] is not possible irrespective of its intended meaning because it has subject-auxiliary inversion, which is not normally permitted in subordinate interrogatives. Additionally, "who" cannot be used in a relative clause like this, so its ungrammaticality is two-fold. One possibility is "I don't know which student is playing which part".


----------



## dojibear

Kenny Chang said:


> 1. I don't know who Peter Pan is.


I would write it this way:
I don't know who "Peter Pan" is.

This means _I do not know the significance of the name "Peter Pan"._



Kenny Chang said:


> I don't know who is Peter Pan.


*(In this perfermance)* I don't know who is *(playing the role of) *"Peter Pan".

The quotation marks help in this sentence too. The words *in parentheses* may be supplied by the context. If not, they need to be included for the sentence to have the correct meaning.

Here the verb "is" is a helper verb for the full verb "is playing the role", rather than "is" having some new meaning. Usually a native speaker would say "who is playing Peter Pan" instead of "who is Peter Pan", even when the context is clear.


----------



## Kenny Chang

Thank you very much, everyone. Because a foreign teacher, who is from South America, said that both of the sentences are correct. The sentence we discussed yesterday was I don't know who is Nick / who Nick is. But from what I learned before, I would say "I don't know who is Nick" is wrong. And my friend, who is also from South America and a native speaker of English, told me they used/heard both sentences naturally in daily life. That's why I was confused and came here to find some answers. 

Is there any difference between AE and BE in this case?


----------



## natkretep

I don't think there's any AmE-BrE distinction here.

You basically have a _wh-_ clause acting as the object; in such a situation you still have the subject + verb word order (with the proviso that the _wh-_ word needs to be fronted). We don't use the interrogative structure. I'd certainly go along with etb's explanation.

S= subject, V = verb, SC = subject complement
Peter Pan  is [V] a little boy who refuses to grow up [SC].
I don't know who Peter Pan  is [V]. _Who_ functions as SC here.

Harrison Ford  is [V] Peter Pan [SC], and Cate Blanchett is Tinkerbell.
I don't know who is [V] Peter Pan [SC]. _Who _functions as S here.


----------



## billj

natkretep said:


> You basically have a _wh-_ clause acting as the object; in such a situation you still have the subject + verb word order (with the proviso that the _wh-_ word needs to be fronted). We don't use the interrogative structure. I'd certainly go along with etb's explanation.



The clause is not an object. It's an interrogative clause (embedded question) functioning as complement of "know". The OP's example 2. is of course ungrammatical in most contexts.


----------



## velisarius

Kenny Chang said:


> And my friend, who is also from South America and a native speaker of English, told me they used/heard both sentences naturally in daily life.



It's becoming increasingly common, especially in speech. I agree with nat and doji that there is a special case for  inversion when _I don't know who is Peter Pan_  means _I don't know who is playing the role of Peter Pan._

The informal inversion seems to be especially popular in Irish English and AE speech. (Link below)
Inversion in embedded questions  | Yale Grammatical Diversity Project: English in North America.


----------



## Loob

velisarius said:


> special case for inversion


I don't see _I don't know who is Peter Pan (= I don't know who is playing Peter Pan) _as inversion. "Who", there, is the subject - just as it would be in _I don't know who is coming._


----------



## koper2

entangledbank said:


> Harrison Ford is Peter Pan, and Cate Blanchett is Tinkerbell.
> I don't know who is Peter Pan.


Does it mean: _I don't know who is who_?



Loob said:


> I don't see _I don't know who is Peter Pan (= I don't know who is playing Peter Pan) _as inversion. "Who", there, is the subject - just as it would be in _I don't know who is coming._


Indeed, there is the same subject "who", but predicates are different, which, I've got to admit, confuses me whether "who is Peter Pan" is inversion or not.


----------



## billj

Loob said:


> I don't see _I don't know who is Peter Pan (= I don't know who is playing Peter Pan) _as inversion. "Who", there, is the subject - just as it would be in _I don't know who is coming._


In the ungrammatical *"I don't know who is Peter Pan", the subject is "Peter Pan", not "who".


----------



## Andygc

billj said:


> It would be if it were grammatical, but it's not.


What's ungrammatical about "I do not know who is coming"? As in "I do not know who is coming to my party". That seems to me to be wholly unremarkable English, and as such must be grammatical. Grammar describes a language; it does not prescribe it.

As the Roman might have said "I don't know who is Spartacus" - an old film, I know.


----------



## Loob

billj said:


> It would be if it were grammatical, but it's not.


As so often, billj, you and I disagree.


----------



## Loob

billj said:


> In the ungrammatical *"I don't know who is Peter Pan", the subject is "Peter Pan", not "who".


Oh, I see you've edited the post I just replied to.

Never mind, I still disagree


----------



## billj

Andygc said:


> What's ungrammatical about "I do not know who is coming"? As in "I do not know who is coming to my party". That seems to me to be wholly unremarkable English, and as such must be grammatical. Grammar describes a language; it does not prescribe it.
> 
> As the Roman might have said "I don't know who is Spartacus" - an old film, I know.


I didn't say that "I don't know who is coming" is ungrammatical. But *"I don't know who is Peter Pan" is ungrammatical, since subordinate interrogatives don't normally have subject-auxiliary inversion


----------



## Loob

<sigh>

To quote Nat:


natkretep said:


> Harrison Ford is [V] Peter Pan [SC], and Cate Blanchett is Tinkerbell.
> I don't know who is [V] Peter Pan [SC]. _Who _functions as S here.


----------



## billj

Loob said:


> <sigh>
> 
> To quote Nat:


In the ungrammatical *"I don't know who is Peter Pan", "Peter Pan" is subject and "who" is PC (predicative complement). This simple test proves it: "Who is the actor?" vs "Who are the actors"?, Notice that the switch from singular "actor" to plural "actors" changes the verb from "is" to "are." For the same reason "Peter Pan" is PC not subject. "Who is Peter Pan" ~ "Peter Pan is ..."


----------



## Edinburgher

Loob said:


> I don't see _I don't know who is Peter Pan (= I don't know who is playing Peter Pan) _as inversion.


I think what veli meant is inversion from the usual interrogative word order (which is itself inverted from non-interrogative statement order).
So it's basically a re-inversion.


billj said:


> It would be if it were grammatical, but it's not.


That's controversial, and basically untrue except as an oversimplification.  If people say it, and if it's widely accepted, then it is by definition grammatical, because grammar follows usage.  If your grammar rules don't accept what people say, then the rules need revising.  Mind you, sometimes people do say things that are simply wrong, and we should be careful about letting grammar evolve too quickly by making it too easy for wrong to become right and chaos to ensue.

That  said, of course, if the intended meaning of "I don't know who is Peter Pan" is "I've never heard of Peter Pan, who is he?" (to which the answer is "He's a character in a story/play/film"), then I don't think anyone will disagree that it is indeed incorrect, because "Peter Pan", not "who", is the subject.  But if the intended meaning is "I don't know who is playing Peter Pan in this production", in which "who" is the subject, then it is correct and therefore must also be grammatical in the same way as if we had had an action verb: "I don't know who shot J.R."

Is grammar permitted to have knowledge of meaning?  If so, then your parser can mark the same text as either ungrammatical or grammatical depending on what it knows you mean.  But if not, if grammar is context-free, then it must accept even the incorrect version as grammatical, because there exists a correct version that happens to look the same.

But isn't this already covered by the following?


billj said:


> since subordinate interrogatives don't normally have subject-auxiliary inversion


Doesn't your "normally" indicate that you accept that there can be exceptions, i.e. "abnormal" cases?


----------



## Andygc

Hmm
As it says when you edit a post.





> Please be considerate of users who have responded to this post.
> Don't edit it in a way that makes their responses seem strange.





Loob said:


> Oh, I see you've edited the post I just replied to





billj said:


> I didn't say that "I don't know who is coming" is ungrammatical.


----------



## Edinburgher

Andygc said:


> As it says when you edit a post.


To be fair, he didn't edit it after Loob responded, but by chance at the same time.  His edit and her post are both timed at 2.23.


----------



## natkretep

billj said:


> I didn't say that "I don't know who is coming" is ungrammatical. But *"I don't know who is Peter Pan" is ungrammatical, since subordinate interrogatives don't normally have subject-auxiliary inversion


I disagree about the interrogative in the embedded clause, but I don't wish to pursue it.

We have been saying that in the sentence 'Harrison Ford is Peter Pan', _Peter Pan _is not the subject. This becomes clear if we change the verb, 'Harrison Ford plays Peter Pan'. In an embedded clause, we have, 'I don't know who plays Peter Pan' - which is totally unremarkable, and no-one will challenge the grammaticality of the sentence. If you insist on making _Peter Pan _the subject there, you'll need a passive structure, 'I don't know who Peter Pan is played by'.


----------



## koper2

natkretep said:


> I disagree about the interrogative in the embedded clause, but I don't wish to pursue it.
> 
> We have been saying that in the sentence 'Harrison Ford is Peter Pan', _Peter Pan _is not the subject. This becomes clear if we change the verb, 'Harrison Ford plays Peter Pan'. In an embedded clause, we have, 'I don't know who plays Peter Pan' - which is totally unremarkable, and no-one will challenge the grammaticality of the sentence. If you insist on making _Peter Pan _the subject there, you'll need a passive structure, 'I don't know who Peter Pan is played by'.


I am, as a non-native, a bit confused about the grammaticality of the embedded 'Harrison Ford is Peter Pan'. I wonder whether it is possible to switch from the grammatical analysis to the semantic one to put that grammatical ambiguity to rest. Then, without doubt, 'Harrison Ford' occupies the place of the subject in the embedded clause.


----------



## billj

natkretep said:


> I disagree about the interrogative in the embedded clause, but I don't wish to pursue it.
> 
> We have been saying that in the sentence 'Harrison Ford is Peter Pan', _Peter Pan _is not the subject. This becomes clear if we change the verb, 'Harrison Ford plays Peter Pan'.


I never said it wasn't. Loob in #17 and you in #7 said that in *_I don't know who is Peter Pan_, "who" is the subject, and I said that in fact it's "Peter Pan", as I explained in my post #18. But it's irrelevant anyway, since this particular sentence is ungrammatical.



natkretep said:


> In an embedded clause, we have, 'I don't know who plays Peter Pan' - which is totally unremarkable, and no-one will challenge the grammaticality of the sentence. If you insist on making _Peter Pan _the subject there, you'll need a passive structure, 'I don't know who Peter Pan is played by'.


Again, I never said otherwise. In_ I don't know_ [_who plays Peter Pan_] the subject of the embedded interrogative is indeed "who".

Note that I only talked about the OP's two original examples, which both had "be" as the subordinate clause verb.


----------



## billj

koper2 said:


> I am, as a non-native, a bit confused about the grammaticality of the embedded 'Harrison Ford is Peter Pan'. I wonder whether it is possible to switch from the grammatical analysis to the semantic one to put that grammatical ambiguity to rest. Then, without doubt, 'Harrison Ford' occupies the place of the subject in the embedded clause.


_Harrison Ford is Peter Pan_.

I don't follow you. There's no embedding in this sentence. What is the sentence in full that you don't understand?


----------



## Andygc

billj said:


> But it's irrelevant anyway, since this particular sentence is ungrammatical.


I look at 25 boys. I know none of them. I say "I don't know who is Peter Pan". I would find it wholly unremarkable if I heard somebody else say the same.

I am in a theatre. I'm watching a play. I'm a bit puzzled by the plot "I don't know who is Peter Pan. Is it the chap in the red jacket?"

Again in the theatre. "I know who is playing Wendy. I don't know who is Peter Pan".

I've been speaking English for about 70 years, I had a pedantic Scottish father, I got good grades in English examinations, I have a degree and three postgraduate qualifications. I have often been complimented on the clarity of my written work, especially by people who have been paying for it. I understand the difference between prescriptive and descriptive grammar. 

I'll happily stick with descriptive grammar.


----------



## billj

Andygc said:


> I look at 25 boys. I know none of them. I say "I don't know who is Peter Pan". I would find it wholly unremarkable if I heard somebody else say the same.
> 
> I am in a theatre. I'm watching a play. I'm a bit puzzled by the plot "I don't know who is Peter Pan. Is it the chap in the red jacket?"
> 
> Again in the theatre. "I know who is playing Wendy. I don't know who is Peter Pan".


The simple fact is that unlike main clause interrogatives, subordinate ones  do not have inversion. Even beginners are aware of (or at least taught) this simple basic fact of English grammar.


----------



## Loob

billj said:


> unlike main clause interrogatives, subordinate ones do not have inversion.


We agree on that, billj. I'm surprised you haven't realised that.


----------



## tunaafi

billj said:


> The simple fact is that unlike main clause interrogatives, subordinate ones  do not have inversion. Even beginners are aware of (or at least taught) this simple basic fact of English grammar.


The* fact *is that some native speakers find "I don't know who is Peter Pan" acceptable in some contexts.


----------



## oleg ya

I think following examples would be better for analysis.
1.I don't know the meaning of the word "snorkeler".
How to say correctly:"I don't know who a snorkeler is" or "I don't know who is a snorkeler"?
2. There are three men.One of them is a snorkeler.
  How to say correctly:"I don't know who a snorkeler is" or "I don't know who is a snorkeler"?


----------



## billj

Loob said:


> We agree on that, billj. I'm surprised you haven't realised that.


How strange that you omitted to mention that in any of your posts, especially the one where you failed to correctly identify the subordinate clause subject in the second example in your post #17!


----------



## billj

tunaafi said:


> The* fact *is that some native speakers find "I don't know who is Peter Pan" acceptable in some contexts.


Inverted order is found in examples with strong question-orientation (mainly in AmE), but that is not the case here.


----------



## Loob

Time for me to bow out again, with another <sigh>.


----------



## Andygc

oleg ya said:


> I think following examples would be better for analysis.
> 1.I don't know the meaning of the word "snorkeler".
> How to say correctly:"I don't know who a snorkeler is" or "I don't know who is a snorkeler"?
> 2. There are three man.One of them is a snorkeler.
> How to say correctly:"I don't know who a snorkeler is" or "I don't know who is a snorkeler"?


Do you want a prescriptive grammar or a descriptive grammar answer? If the latter:
1. "I don't know what a snorkeler is."
2. "I don't know who is a snorkeler."


----------



## Edinburgher

billj said:


> unlike main clause interrogatives, subordinate ones do not have inversion.


But that principle is not being violated here.  In the instances of "I don't know who is Peter Pan" that we've been discussing (where it does not mean the same as "I don't know who Peter Pan is") there is no inversion, because in that context, _*who*_ is the subject and _*Peter Pan*_ is the complement.


----------



## billj

Edinburgher said:


> But that principle is not being violated here.  In the instances of "I don't know who is Peter Pan" that we've been discussing (where it does not mean the same as "I don't know who Peter Pan is") there is no inversion, because in that context, _*who*_ is the subject and _*Peter Pan*_ is the complement.



If it were acceptable, the clause "who is Peter Pan" has "Peter Pan" as subject and "who" as PC (see #18).

This is not an instance of strong question-orientation (see #32), so inverted order renders it ungrammatical. Compare "He asked who was Peter Pan", which does have such orientation, though it's non-standard and (I believe) occurs mainly in AmE.


----------



## Edinburgher

billj said:


> If it were acceptable, the clause "who is Peter Pan" has "Peter Pan" as subject and "who" as PC (see #18).


I don't see the relevance of the "simple test" in #18 to what we've been discussing.

The two statements (A) "I don't know who is Peter Pan" and (B) "I don't know who Peter Pan is" both embed the same question, that is, they both say "The question to which I don't know the answer is: _Who is Peter Pan?_".   But this question can have two structurally different meanings.   One of them is the usual one: that which expects the answer to be something like "Peter Pan is a boy who refuses to grow up".  The embedding version of that question can only be correctly written as (B). (A) would be incorrect: it would be a basic word-order error of the kind frequently made by learners.  We're all agreed on that, right?

The other meaning is that which expects an answer like "Jimmy is Peter Pan tonight.  Bob was Peter Pan yesterday, and it'll be his turn again tomorrow."
In this answer, clearly Jimmy is the subject.  When that version of the question is embedded, (A) becomes correct, and *then* "who" is the subject, and "Peter Pan" is the complement because it's also the complement in the answer.  Perhaps the easiest way to come to accept this is that in (A), "is" is really an abbreviation for "is playing" (I guess that probably means that "Peter Pan" is really more of an object than a complement).

You would, I'm sure, accept that, if the subordinate clause were "who is *playing* Peter Pan", then "who" would be the subject. If we elide this "playing", the construction doesn't suddenly become wrong. Can't your grammar cope with elision?


----------



## Vronsky

You see a group of people. One of them is the president, but you don't know who. So you say,
"I don't know who is the president."

"I don't know who the president is." 
Is it correct?


----------



## oleg ya

something like that:
  1. I don't know who PETER PAN IS.
PETER PAN IS a boy

2. I don't know who IS PETER PAN.
   He  IS PETER PAN.


----------



## koper2

[a] I don't know who is who.

Which "who" is the subject of subordinate clause in [a]?


----------



## oleg ya

koper2 said:


> [a] I don't know who is who.
> 
> Which "who" is the subject of subordinate clause in [a]?


I think, the first "who" is the subject.


----------



## tunaafi

Is it worth worrying about?


----------

