# dont



## hamlet

How can you translate "trois filles *dont* ma mère"? Is it "including"?


----------



## tite_abeie

I would say that , including my mother


----------



## Gutenberg

three girls (women), including my mother


----------



## Jocaste

est-ce que "within" serait correct dans cette phrase ?


----------



## Gutenberg

non, "within" ne serait pas correct dans cette phrase.


----------



## hamlet

Strange but I get the feeling it's like saying "three girls plus my mother"..anyway


----------



## jann

> three girls (women), including my mother



If this is counterintuitive for you, Hamlet, then think of it another way:  _Three women, of which my mother (is one)._


----------



## Jocaste

jann said:


> If this is counterintuitive for you, Hamlet, then think of it another way:  _Three women, of which my mother (is one)._



Much more understanding ! Thanks even if I'm not the one who asked !


----------



## ChiMike

jann said:


> If this is counterintuitive for you, Hamlet, then think of it another way: _Three women, of which my mother (is one)._


 
Not that I wouldn't have said it myself  , but still "of WHOM". However, the literal meaning right on the money and explains what is actually going on in the grammar.


----------



## hamlet

you say "whom" but is it possible to say "who" as well?


----------



## Docbike

It needs to be "of whom".


----------



## jann

hello Hamlet,

No, you cannot say "who"... because "who" is a subject pronoun.  You need an object pronoun.  I used "which" (common enough to hear this in spoken English) but I should have used "whom" since we are talking about people instead of things.

_Three women, of whom my mother is one.
Three cars, of which my mother's is one._


----------



## ChiMike

jann said:


> hello Hamlet,
> 
> No, you cannot say "who"... because "who" is a subject pronoun. You need an object pronoun. I used "which" (common enough to hear this in spoken English) but I should have used "whom" since we are talking about people instead of things.
> 
> _Three women, of whom my mother is one._
> _Three cars, of which my mother's is one._


 
And to complete the matter, "which" when used as an interrogative pronoun or as an adjective *can* refer to people.

One of the three women is his mother, but I cannot say which (one).

Which (one) of the three women is his mother? (The overcorrect say: Who)

This fact explains why so many of us anglophones would say (and sometimes write) "of which" as above. As I wrote, I certainly have said it and written it myself.

The uses of "which" are so complex that Fowler's _Modern English Usage _devotes six pages to them!  But these remarks from all of us certainly suffice for now.


----------



## hamlet

jann said:


> hello Hamlet,
> 
> No, you cannot say "who"... because "who" is a subject pronoun.  You need an object pronoun.  I used "which" (common enough to hear this in spoken English) but I should have used "whom" since we are talking about people instead of things.
> 
> _Three women, of whom my mother is one.
> Three cars, of which my mother's is one._



By the way you do say "With who", "Who is this for" etc, although who here is an object pronoun...


----------



## Moon Palace

Sorry if I add to the confusion , but couldn't we also say 'three girls, among whom my mother'?


----------



## konungursvia

Jann's answer is best.


----------



## ChiMike

hamlet said:


> By the way you do say "With who", "Who is this for" etc, although who here is an object pronoun...


 
You are right that most people say, and many write, both, but purists do not, just as they insist that the preposition not be placed at the end of the sentence (For whom...). In olden times (my youth) hours of English class were devoted to corrective drills on these subjects.  

Many U.S. speakers also say such things as: "between you and I," to which the proper response is: "Yes, we must get things straight between we."  

These are the problems which arise when the last remnants of case inflexion are pronominal and even some of the pronouns (you, which, what, this, that, some) do not get bent.


----------



## ChiMike

Moon Palace said:


> Sorry if I add to the confusion , but couldn't we also say 'three girls, among whom my mother'?


 
Indeed you can , although that preposition is more frequently used for larger groups (and cannot be used about groups of two).  

This usage for larger groups is in keeping with the original meaning. In Old English, it was "on gemang" = "in the many" (cf. German: die Menge = the crowd). The word is related to "many" (OE: "manig"), although most English speakers don't really know that derivation or that there is an etymological link to "many." 

Nevertheless, almost none would say: "We divided the cake among the two of us."  If there are only two, we say: "between" in such cases and "of" in cases such as: "Of the two girls, my mother was the taller." 

Unlike French ("entre"), English preserves the distinction for the dual in these instances.


----------



## jann

Moon Palace said:
			
		

> Sorry if I add to the confusion , but couldn't we also say 'three girls, among whom my mother'?


I guess it isn't wrong (and ChiMike gave you a thumbs-up), but you must admit that it sounds very strange. It feels like there is a verb missing. If I wanted to use "among whom," I would almost certainly say, "three girls, among whom my mother _figures / is one_." And this English version is still rather awkward...



			
				hamlet said:
			
		

> By the way you do say "With who", "Who is this for" etc, although who here is an object pronoun...


ChiMike explained that what we "should" say and what we do say is often different in these cases. In spoken English, if you make a point of always using whom vs. who properly, you might sound like a bit of a snob. Written English is another matter.

Thinking of what I personally would say most of the time:
"With whom?" but "Who were you with?"
"For whom?" but "Who is this gift for?" 
"Who did you see?" "Who did you chat with?" etc.

I should technically use "whom" in all of those sentences, but I don't. I guess it sounds silly/overly proper to me to begin a question with "whom," even when that is the correct word. But it usually sounds OK to me to put "whom" at the end of a question, when it is appropriate to do so.


----------



## Moon Palace

Hello everybody
First, to answer Jann's remark on 'among whom', even though I got it my suggestion sounds weird or should at least be reduced to a larger group of people, here is a sentence I found on a site which is reliable but which I will not advertise here: 
                                                                        He visited 40 people among whom were a journalist and a florist. 
My question is: would it rather be more literary and maybe more appropriate for writing than conversation? Is it what could bother you? 

Then, I don't agree with ChiMike about whom/ who and I tend to side with Jann: 
We are usually taught that you use 'whom' when the pronoun follows the preposition (although in old English it used to apply whenever 'who' was the object regardless of its position), but not when it is the first word of the question. So
With whom are you going to play? 
Who are you going to play with? 

Hope somebody will be able to disentangle this lot...


----------



## ChiMike

Moon Palace said:


> Hello everybody
> First, to answer Jann's remark on 'among whom', even though I got it my suggestion sounds weird or should at least be reduced to a larger group of people, here is a sentence I found on a site which is reliable but which I will not advertise here:
> He visited 40 people among whom were a journalist and a florist.
> My question is: would it rather be more literary and maybe more appropriate for writing than conversation? Is it what could bother you?
> 
> Then, I don't agree with ChiMike about whom/ who and I tend to side with Jann:
> We are usually taught that you use 'whom' when the pronoun follows the preposition (although in old English it used to apply whenever 'who' was the object regardless of its position), but not when it is the first word of the question. So
> With whom are you going to play?
> Who are you going to play with?
> 
> Hope somebody will be able to disentangle this lot...


 
Hi Moon!

The problem with the "among" sentence with only three (and this may be true up to five - but I have no study...) is that, unbelievably considering that the etymology is unknown to most speakers, there is still a feeling that the group is too small. In addition, "among" is felt by many speakers to be locative - to refer to a situation where you are stating a location ("You will find it among the books on the table.") - and not to one where you are choosing or identifying, in which case, people much more often say "of", "from" or even "from among" ("He chose a first edition of Byron from among the books on the table.") But for large groups (as in your example), "among" is still alive and well - at least in my version of spoken English. What you will not hear very often, if at all, in U.S. English is "amongst." I leave an explanation of its use to our British speakers and the OED. 

On the question of "who/whom," Jann and I are actually in agreement. 
I was merely mentioning the fact that there will be some people ("purists") who will correct you if you say it - and many more who will do so if you write it. 

As I wrote, most people (in my vocabulary that is much more than "the majority" - more like 85% - 90%) use "who" when it is an interrogative at the beginning of the sentence, particularly when the preposition which might have preceded it has been moved to the end of the question, and many (at least half) also do not inflect when it is merely the first word and an interrogative: "Who did you see there?". Most people also find placing the preposition in front of "who" in a question at the beginning of the sentence ("To whom did you give it?") starchy (collet monté), if not stuffy and a bit off-putting. 

I think the reason is that, in these usages, the interrogative function of the word is more important than its simple pronominal function, and, in analogy to "what", the word is therefore not inflected. It becomes very much like "qui" in French in these constructions. 

This would not be the first time that English has moved toward French, nor will it be the last.  The other famous example is: "Who is it? It's me." The "me" is, of course, used as an emphatic, just like "moi" in French. Even our German cousins (who use exactly the same construction in the question) do not say: "It is I."  They say: "I am it"  (don't say that in English! ) - because it is the emphatic identification of the person that is important. 

So, I think the rules for *spoken* English that you have stated and with which Jann and I agree, as a general matter, are: 

(1) Almost everyone actually says "who" when it is an interrogative pronoun at the beginning of the sentence and the preposition which might have preceded it has been moved to the end of the sentence ("Who is that letter for?")
(1a) There is an exception for many speakers when the question is a repetition of what the other speaker has said and is not a full sentence and the preposition becomes important as a distinguishing part of the question: "I spoke to someone about it." "To whom?" "She says she left it for somebody at his office." "For whom?"
(2) Even when there is no preposition in post-position, many people don't inflect "who" as an interrogative at the beginning of the sentence: "Who did you see?" However, a substantial minority (including me) still do inflect it in speech and many more do so in writing.
(3) Most careful speakers do inflect when "who" is merely a relative pronoun: "The people whom he identified were all very tall." - or they omit the pronoun entirely or use "that" instead of "who". In formal writing, there is absolutely no question that the word must be inflected.

There is often a way to avoid the dilemma (for those among us for whom it is a dilemma). For the questions given as examples here, I would usually say:
"Who came with you?" rather than "Who did you come with?" and
"Who is getting that gift?" rather than "Who is that gift for?"
But, if I am surprised, astonished, or otherwise emotive: "WHO did you go there with?" "WHO did you see?" are definitely what I would say.


----------



## jann

Moon Palace said:
			
		

> He visited 40 people among whom were a journalist and a florist.
> My question is: would it rather be more literary and maybe more appropriate for writing than conversation?


Short answer: yes 

Long answer: In conversation, I would say "... 40 people, including a journalist and a florist." I would be likely to prefer this structure in writing as well, because it is lighter. However, there is nothing wrong with "...among whom were..." (note that the verb _were _is present!).

I think you may perhaps have misunderstood ChiMike. When I read his post, I don't think he is advocating using the object pronoun "whom" as the first word of the question ("Whom did you see?")... indeed, he characterizes this sort of speech as "overly correct." But he can best speak for himself. 

Note that no one would ever say, "Whom are you going to play with?" because using "whom" is ultra-correct, yet placing the preposition at the end of the sentence is not. Someone who uses "whom" in this sentence will not leave a dangling preposition. Instead they will say, "With whom are you going to play?" (And everyone will wonder why they are speaking to a child like a character from a 19th century British novel!!  )

EDIT : I did not see ChiMike's reply before I posted this...


----------



## Moon Palace

Hello Jann and ChiMike, 
Thank you so much for the very substantial answers , I believe I now know all I wanted to know, and we eventually seem to agree as regards the use of deflection of pronouns after prepositions. I now have another question on the use of prepositions, but I invite you to read it in another thread I am going to start right after this grateful post.


----------

