# Who/whom: ... relationship with Mr Roh, <?> current and former White House aides say Mr Bush believes ...



## sus4

Hello,

I have a question about the use of *whom* in the following excerpt from "U.S. to Roll Out Tepid Welcome for President of South Korea" in _the New York Times_.

"Mr. Bush has a polite but distant relationship with Mr. Roh, *whom* current and former White House aides say Mr. Bush believes is wedded to a doomed policy of appeasement toward a country that runs prison camps and regularly threatens its neighbors by expanding both its nuclear capacity and the range of its missiles." [ref]

The antecedent of whom is Mr. Roh, and this is the subject of "is wedded to...." Therefore, I think this whom should be who.  What is your opinion?

Thank you.


----------



## rsweet

You're right.  It should be "who" because it's the subject of the clause, "who . . . is wedded to a doomed policy . . . ."


----------



## sus4

Thank you, rsweet!  That's what I thought. I wasn't 100% sure, because the article is from the NYT Web site.


----------



## Mike

sus4 said:


> Hello,
> 
> I have a question about the use of *whom* in the following excerpt from "U.S. to Roll Out Tepid Welcome for President of South Korea" in _the New York Times_.
> 
> "Mr. Bush has a polite but distant relationship with Mr. Roh, *whom* current and former White House aides say Mr. Bush believes is wedded to a doomed policy of appeasement toward a country that runs prison camps and regularly threatens its neighbors by expanding both its nuclear capacity and the range of its missiles." [ref]
> 
> The antecedent of whom is Mr. Roh, and this is the subject of "is wedded to...." Therefore, I think this whom should be who. What is your opinion?
> 
> Thank you.


 
Nope, it's correct. Relative pronouns/clauses and all that.

Took me a while to get it though.

Check it out:

_with Mr. Roh, whom *current and former White House aides say* Mr. Bush believes is wedded to a doomed policy of appeasement..._

If you drop the section I put in bold, you'll see Mr Bush is clearly the subject and believes is the verb.

Cheers

Mike


----------



## Old Novice

Mike said:


> _with Mr. Roh, whom *current and former White House aides say* Mr. Bush believes is wedded to a doomed policy of appeasement..._
> 
> If you drop the section I put in bold, you'll see Mr Bush is clearly the subject and believes is the verb.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Mike



Sorry, I'm not with you.    I'd say "Mr. Bush believes he is wedded ...", not "Mr. Bush believes him is wedded...".  So doesn't it have to be "who ... Mr. Bush believes is wedded ..."?

I think sus4 caught the venerable NYT in an error, fair and square.


----------



## dwipper

This is a poorly written sentence which essentially has two indirect quotations.  Rewriting the sentence, you get "White House aides say Mr. Bush believes _he_ is wedded..."

*He* is word changed to the relative pronoun, and since it is nominative, it needs to be *who*.  That said, I think the entire sentence should have been rewritten.


----------



## Mike

I hate to be so blatant, but you (both) are flat-out wrong.

Let's start from the beginning. Who is the subject of a verb-- _who here can change my spark plug?_

Whom is the object _whom did you get to change my spark plug_?

So, that's clear, now let's look at relative pronouns and clauses:

My mate, Dave, who likes chocolate, is a doctor. So _who_ here is clearly the subject.

My mate, Dave, whom I think should really stop eating chocolate, changed my spark plug.

*I* is the subject in this clause, same as Mr Bush, which means the only other option for the relative pronoun is to be the object.

Cheers

Mike


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

sus4 said:


> Hello,
> 
> I have a question about the use of *whom* in the following excerpt from "U.S. to Roll Out Tepid Welcome for President of South Korea" in _the New York Times_.
> 
> "Mr. Bush has a polite but distant relationship with Mr. Roh, *whom* current and former White House aides say Mr. Bush believes is wedded to a doomed policy of appeasement toward a country that runs prison camps and regularly threatens its neighbors by expanding both its nuclear capacity and the range of its missiles." [ref]
> 
> The antecedent of whom is Mr. Roh, and this is the subject of "is wedded to...." Therefore, I think this whom should be who.  What is your opinion?
> 
> Thank you.



Strictly speaking, 'whom' is wrong because it can't be the subject of 'is wedded to a doomed policy', which it appears to be. On the other hand it appears to be the object of the verb 'believe' (and at first glance even 'say'!), but actually 'Mr Bush believes' is a kind of parenthetic adverbial. Put in a comma after 'who(m)', and one after 'believes', and the structure becomes clearer.

By an alternative analysis (Mike's, I think), the sentence is underlyingly 'whom Mr Bush (supposedly) believes to be wedded...', in which case whom would seem correct. But the fact that the original says '...is wedded...' makes the first analysis more appropriate, I think.


----------



## Porteño

I go with Mike on this one, even though nowadays the tendency is to use 'who' in all circumstances, 'whom' being considerd to be a bit pedantic.


----------



## Old Novice

gwrthgymdeithasol said:


> Strictly speaking, 'whom' is wrong because it can't be the subject of 'is wedded to a doomed policy', which it appears to be. On the other hand it appears to be the object of the verb 'believe' (and at first glance even 'say'!), but actually 'Mr Bush believes' is a kind of parenthetic adverbial. Put in a comma after 'who(m)', and one after 'believes', and the structure becomes clearer.
> 
> By an alternative analysis (Mike's, I think), the sentence is underlyingly 'whom Mr Bush (supposedly) believes to be wedded...', in which case whom would seem correct. But the fact that the original says '...is wedded...' makes the first analysis more appropriate, I think.


 
Sorry, isn't the whole phrase the object of "believes"? Suppose we try it this way:

1. White house aides say Mr. Bush believes Mr. Roh is wedded to a bad policy. Red = object of believes.

2. Mr. Roh, who White house aids say Mr. Bush believes is wedded to a bad policy ... Red = object of believes. Who = subject of the sentence that is the object of believes.

Sorry, but I still think "who" is right and the NYT wrong.


----------



## Mike

Old Novice said:


> Sorry, isn't the whole phrase the object of "believes"? Suppose we try it this way:
> 
> 1. White house aides say Mr. Bush believes Mr. Roh is wedded to a bad policy. Red = object of believes.
> 
> 2. Mr. Roh, who White house aids say Mr. Bush believes is wedded to a bad policy ... Red = object of believes. Who = subject of the sentence that is the object of believes.
> 
> Sorry, but I still think "who" is right and the NYT wrong.


 
You've just proved my point for me. If Mr Roh is the object of believes and Mr Bush doing the action of believing, then the relative pronoun whom should be used to describe him.

Mr Roh is the object of the relative clause, not the subject. Hes not doing anything, but he is being described.

Cheers

Mike


----------



## Mike

The onlz waz who could be correctlz used here is if it were put into parenthesis.

Weird kezboard thing happening here. Sorrz.

Cheers

Mike


----------



## konungursvia

It's correct as is, and should be whom, because in that clause, it is the aides who are doing the saying, making Mr. Roh their direct object.


----------



## majlo

I second Mike's, Porteno's and konungursvia's opinion.

Porteno is also correct about the usage of _whom_. 

I believe it's used more frequently in BrE than in AmE.


----------



## Old Novice

Mike said:


> You've just proved my point for me. If Mr Roh is the object of believes and Mr Bush doing the action of believing, then the relative pronoun whom should be used to describe him.
> 
> Mr Roh is the object of the relative clause, not the subject. Hes not doing anything, but he is being described.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Mike


 
Well, this may be turning into a he said/she said debate, but I must not have been clear. I did not say that "Mr. Roh" is the object of believes. I said that the entire sentence, "Mr. Roh is wedded to a bad policy" is the object of believes. I said "Mr. Roh" is the subject of that sentence, as "who" should have been had the NY Times written it properly in the first place. I still maintain the Times got it wrong.

It's fine if you don't agree, of course, but you should disagree with what I really say, not with a mistaken impression of what I said.


----------



## rsweet

Okay, this is how I read the sentence:

I'm reading "current and former White House aides say Mr. Bush believes" as a parenthetical element, which could be enclosed by commas and grammatically dropped out. Therefore, the skeleton of the sentence would be "Mr. Bush has a polite but distant relationship with Mr. Roh, whom current and former White House aides say Mr. Bush believes is wedded to a doomed policy of appeasement toward a country that runs prison camps and regularly threatens its neighbors by expanding both its nuclear capacity and the range of its missiles."


----------



## Dimcl

rsweet said:


> Okay, this is how I read the sentence:
> 
> I'm reading "current and former White House aides say Mr. Bush believes" as a parenthetical element, which could be enclosed by commas and grammatically dropped out. Therefore, the skeleton of the sentence would be "Mr. Bush has a polite but distant relationship with Mr. Roh, whom current and former White House aides say Mr. Bush believes is wedded to a doomed policy of appeasement toward a country that runs prison camps and regularly threatens its neighbors by expanding both its nuclear capacity and the range of its missiles."


 
I don't think you can drop the word "believes" because you're now making it a statement of fact as opposed to what Mr. Bush "believes" and are changing the context of the sentence.

But if you drop "current and former White house aides say" then you're left with:

"Mr. Bush has a polite but distant relationship with Mr. Roh, *whom* Mr. Bush/he believes is wedded to a doomed policy of appeasement ..."


----------



## Mike

Old Novice said:


> Well, this may be turning into a he said/she said debate, but I must not have been clear. I did not say that "Mr. Roh" is the object of believes. I said that the entire sentence, "Mr. Roh is wedded to a bad policy" is the object of believes. I said "Mr. Roh" is the subject of that sentence, as "who" should have been had the NY Times written it properly in the first place. I still maintain the Times got it wrong.
> 
> It's fine if you don't agree, of course, but you should disagree with what I really say, not with a mistaken impression of what I said.



Old Novice, I didn't mistake you, but to have  is wedded to a bad policy as the object of a verb is grammatically impossible. However, in the sentence Mr Bush believes Mr Roh is wedded to etc, Mr Roh is clearly the object, hence to use a relative clause to describe him, we whould have to use whom.

rsweet, if you were to drop that statement, then that would mean that it were a fact, and not an opinion of Mr Bush, which is essential to the meaning of the sentence.

Cheers

Mike


----------



## Mike

Does this sentence make any sense?

"Mr. Bush has a polite but distant relationship with Mr. Roh, *who *is wedded to a doomed policy of appeasement toward a country that runs prison camps and regularly threatens its neighbors by expanding both its nuclear capacity and the range of its missiles."

Yes it does, but whose opinion is noted in the relative clause?

Now look at this sentence:

"Mr. Bush has a polite but distant relationship with Mr. Roh, *whom* current and former White House aides say Mr. Bush believes is wedded to a doomed policy of appeasement toward a country that runs prison camps and regularly threatens its neighbors by expanding both its nuclear capacity and the range of its missiles."

If we're simply describing Mr Roh, then it's fine. Who is correct, but if it's someone else's opinion, they are saying something about Mr Roh, in which case he is the object of the verb and we (or someone else) are describing him, therfore whom is correct.

Cheers

Mike


----------



## Mike

2. Mr. Roh, who White house aids say Mr. Bush believes is wedded to a bad policy ... Red = object of believes. Who = subject of the sentence that is the object of believes.

Who is not the subject here of believes.

The subject of a verb is the person or thing that does the action.

That's why I said you were proving my point.

Cheers

Mike


----------



## Old Novice

Mike said:


> Old Novice, I didn't mistake you, but to have is wedded to a bad policy as the object of a verb is grammatically impossible.  [Why??] However, in the sentence Mr Bush believes Mr Roh is wedded to etc, Mr Roh is clearly the object, hence to use a relative clause to describe him, we whould have to use whom.


Thanks for the clarification, Mike. This focuses us on the real disagreement between us: can "who is wedded to a bad policy" be the object of the verb "believes"? My instruction in grammar is decades old, but I was taught that a clause can be an object of a verb, and wiki agrees.

Try my first sentence:

1. White house aides say Mr. Bush believes _that_ Mr. Roh is wedded to a bad policy. Red = a clause that is the object of believes. Within that clause, "Mr. Roh" is the _subject_ of the verb "is".

With the addition of "that", this seems to me to be a match with the case described in the Wikipedia entry. I would further suggest that the "that" is implicit in sentence 1. whether written down or not.

All I am proposing is that the same sentence structure carries over to my second sentence, below, even though it isn't of a form written with a "that". This makes the entire part in red below the object of believes, and in that case "who" is the _subject_ of the verb "is" in the clause that is, in its entirety, the object of believes (just as "Mr. Roh" was in sentence 1).

2. Mr. Roh, who White house aids say Mr. Bush believes is wedded to a bad policy ... Red = object of believes. Who = subject of the verb "is" in the clause that is the object of believes.

Now, if you can cite a source that explains that this particular construction cannot serve as the type of clause that can be the object of a verb, then I've learned something. But if it is to persuade me, the source will have to address the use of _clauses_ as objects, or possibly the definition of a clause, and not individual words within clauses (such as, "who" or "Mr. Roh"). 

Edit: I was taught that it sometimes helps to turn a sentence around to make the parts of speech clear, even if the resulting sentence is awkward. What I'm saying is that my sentence 2. is grammatically equivalent to:

"White House aids say that Mr. Bush believes that who is wedded to a bad policy."

In fact, this could be a real sentence if you said it as a question: "White House aids say that Mr. Bush believes that _who_ is wedded to a bad policy???!!" (Imagine the person in question were the Vice President, for example.  )


----------



## Lee Sing

I agree with Old Novice.

I think the original author could have made the whole sentence a hell of a lot clearer by re-writing it.

I think it has to be either of the following slightly different phrases.

Mr. Bush has a polite but distant relationship with Mr. Roh, *whom* current and former White House aides say Mr. Bush believes *to be* wedded to a doomed policy....etc - because Mr Bush believes *him to be* wedded....(ie object)

Or,

Mr. Bush has a polite but distant relationship with Mr. Roh, *who* current and former White House aides say Mr. Bush believes *is* wedded to a doomed policy ....etc - because Mr Bush believes *he is* wedded (ie subject)


----------



## ireney

I also agree it should be "who". One simple way to find the object of one-object transitive verbs (and I've asked some English professors of mine just to make sure I'm not mistakenly using a "trick" that works only in Greek) is to ask "What subject +verb". In this case "What does Mr Bush believe?. Answer "that mr Roh is wedded [...]", therefore the whole sentence is the object.

Anyway,if the sentence, rid of all the "paraphernalia" was "Bush believes Roh"  its meaning would be very different.


----------



## Mike

Nope, still not convinced (but thanks, Old Novice, for the info regarding objects).

Here are some various examples on the use of relative pronouns/clauses which have the same construction as the sentence in debate.

Non-defining clause (the same as the debated statement):

This is the approach taken by journalists, *whom* some consider to be objective. WHOM relates back to the noun JOURNALISTS and is the object of the verb CONSIDER. The subject of the dependent clause is SOME.

From here

Defining clause:

In a time of crisis, the manager asks the workers *whom* she believes to be the most efficient to arrive an hour earlier than usual. In this sentence "whom" is the direct object of the verb "believes" and introduces the subordinate clause "whom she believes to be the most efficient".  This subordinate clause modifies the noun "workers."

Or I could switch that to a non-defining clause

In a time of crisis, the manager asks the workers, *whom* she believes to be the most efficient, to arrive an hour earlier than usual.
 

From here


Now, the text we have is this:

 "Mr. Bush has a polite but distant relationship with Mr. Roh, *whom* current and former White House aides say Mr. Bush believes is wedded to a doomed policy of appeasement toward a country that runs prison camps and regularly threatens its neighbors by expanding both its nuclear capacity and the range of its missiles."

So, here we have a non-defining relative clause. Were we to drop the section regarding aides and Bush, we would have a statement (the author's, not Mr Bush's), perhaps fact, perhaps not, but regardless, it would be additional information about Mr Roh which is not essential to the meaning of the sentence. But, because we introduce a new subject, the agent who is doing the action of believing, there really is no ther option but to conclude that Mr Bush is the subject of the dependent clause. The non-defining clause without the subject of Mr Bush makes it either a fact, or a personal opinion of the writer/author, but because the opinion belongs to Mr Bush, he is the only person/subject in the clause which can have that opinion, hence the pronoun whom.

I hope this clears the situation up.

I've taught relative clauses to the death, and I'm telling you, the sentence is correct. Disprove me if you will.

Cheers

Mike


----------



## Old Novice

Mike said:


> Nope, still not convinced (but thanks, Old Novice, for the info regarding objects).
> 
> Here are some various examples on the use of relative pronouns/clauses which have the same construction as the sentence in debate.
> 
> Non-defining clause (the same as the debated statement):
> 
> This is the approach taken by journalists, *whom* some consider to be objective. WHOM relates back to the noun JOURNALISTS and is the object of the verb CONSIDER. The subject of the dependent clause is SOME.
> *O.N.: We don't disagree here. Some [subject] consider whom [object].*
> From here
> 
> Defining clause:
> 
> In a time of crisis, the manager asks the workers *whom* she believes to be the most efficient to arrive an hour earlier than usual. In this sentence "whom" is the direct object of the verb "believes" and introduces the subordinate clause "whom she believes to be the most efficient". This subordinate clause modifies the noun "workers."
> *O.N.: We don't disagree here, either. She [subject] believes whom [object] to be most efficient. But note the use of "to be", not "is". I'd say, "the manager asks the workers who are most efficient to arrive..." I wouldn't say "the managers ask the workers whom  are most efficient to arrive ..."*
> 
> Or I could switch that to a non-defining clause
> 
> In a time of crisis, the manager asks the workers, *whom* she believes to be the most efficient, to arrive an hour earlier than usual. *[Same comment]*
> 
> 
> From here
> 
> 
> Now, the text we have is this:
> 
> "Mr. Bush has a polite but distant relationship with Mr. Roh, *whom* current and former White House aides say Mr. Bush believes is wedded to a doomed policy of appeasement toward a country that runs prison camps and regularly threatens its neighbors by expanding both its nuclear capacity and the range of its missiles."
> 
> So, here we have a non-defining relative clause. Were we to drop the section regarding aides and Bush, we would have a statement (the author's, not Mr Bush's), perhaps fact, perhaps not, but regardless, it would be additional information about Mr Roh which is not essential to the meaning of the sentence. But, because we introduce a new subject, the agent who is doing the action of believing, there really is no ther option but to conclude that Mr Bush is the subject of the dependent clause. The non-defining clause without the subject of Mr Bush makes it either a fact, or a personal opinion of the writer/author, but because the opinion belongs to Mr Bush, he is the only person/subject in the clause which can have that opinion, hence the pronoun whom.
> 
> I hope this clears the situation up. *O.N.: **Sorry, I'm still not persuaded by these examples. The clause that I believe to be an object in the original sentence uses "is", and I continue to think that "who" is correct in that case.*
> 
> I've taught relative clauses to the death, and I'm telling you, the sentence is correct. Disprove me if you will. *O.N.: I've never taught them, and I don't know how I'd disprove you other than by what I've just said. But neither, to my eye, have you disproved my interpretation. This may just be something on which we cannot agree.   *


----------



## tantan

Compliments to Old Novice for the clear and succinct explanation, 100 % agreed with him.
Just wanted to remind what Lee Sing has pointed out:
 Mr. Bush has a polite but distant relationship with Mr. Roh, *whom* current and former White House aides say Mr. Bush believes *to be* wedded to a doomed policy....etc - because Mr Bush believes *him to be* wedded....
This may be the key for Mike to understand.
I do not have an entourage of references and/or examples to argue further, but this discussion has thought me a lot. So Mike, I may disagree almost entirely with you, but you are still a good teacher


----------



## Mike

Interesting response regarding "to be" as opposed to "are/is". Are you saying if the debated sentence were to replace is with to be you wouldn't consider it incorrect?

This is starting to piss me off (not in a bad way, I just like to know as a teacher what I'm talking about and you're giving me second thoughts), but you've given me food for thought. I'm going to have a think on this one. Perhaps I may come to the conclusion you are right, perhaps not.

Cheers

Mike


----------



## Mike

And thanks for the compliment, tantan.

Cheers

Mike


----------



## timpeac

Ouch! What a horrible sentence to start with. I have long been aware of the fact that a (relatively) simple sentence such as "the boy who they say is French" should be "who" on the basis that the "they say" can be viewed as parenthesis "the boy who (they say) is French". It seems clear to me that we have the same situation here with this much more complicated sentence

Mr. Bush has a polite but distant relationship with Mr. Roh who (current and former White House aides say (Mr. Bush believes)) is wedded...

we simply have a double parenthesis of the first type of sentence. Ultimately the "is wedded" has "who" as its subject and so this could not be "whom" (and you could remove either parenthesis leaving the underlying structure in tact).


----------



## Old Novice

timpeac said:


> Ouch! What a horrible sentence to start with. I have long been aware of the fact that a (relatively) simple sentence such as "the boy who they say is French" should be "who" on the basis that the "they say" can be viewed as parenthesis "the boy who (they say) is French)". It seems clear to me that we have the same situation here with this much more complicated sentence
> 
> Mr. Bush has a polite but distant relationship with Mr. Roh who (current and former White House aides say (Mr. Bush believes)) is wedded...
> 
> we simply have a double parenthesis of the first type of sentence. Ultimately the "is wedded" has "who" as its subject and so this could not be "whom".


 
Wow!

1.  Great explanation.
2.  Great analysis technique.

My thanks to tantan for his kind words earlier, but I think timpeac has just won the prize for best explanation.


----------



## Porteño

At last! Well done, timpeac!


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

Old Novice said:


> Sorry, isn't the whole phrase the object of "believes"? Suppose we try it this way:
> 
> 1. White house aides say Mr. Bush believes Mr. Roh is wedded to a bad policy. Red = object of believes.
> 
> 2. Mr. Roh, who White house aids say Mr. Bush believes is wedded to a bad policy ... Red = object of believes. Who = subject of the sentence that is the object of believes.
> 
> Sorry, but I still think "who" is right and the NYT wrong.



Er...that's what I think...and what my example was meant to show :-/


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

Old Novice said:


> Wow!
> 
> 1.  Great explanation.
> 2.  Great analysis technique.
> 
> My thanks to tantan for his kind words earlier, but I think timpeac has just won the prize for best explanation.



Except I said it first!


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

Mike said:


> Old Novice, I didn't mistake you, but to have  is wedded to a bad policy as the object of a verb is grammatically impossible. However, in the sentence Mr Bush believes Mr Roh is wedded to etc, Mr Roh is clearly the object, hence to use a relative clause to describe him, we whould have to use whom.




Great argument, but you're whoppingly wrong! "Mr Roh" is not the object of 'believes', but "Mr Roh is wedded to a bad policy". Clauses can be objects of verbs too. I can't believe you've "taught relative clauses to death", unless you mean you had a heart attack whilst teaching grammar ;-)


----------



## Mike

gwrthgymdeithasol said:


> Great argument, but you're whoppingly wrong! "Mr Roh" is not the object of 'believes', but "Mr Roh is wedded to a bad policy". Clauses can be objects of verbs too. I can't believe you've "taught relative clauses to death", unless you mean you had a heart attack whilst teaching grammar ;-)



Wow. That's quite humorous. I'm glad that it was you who stepped in with such determination behind an idea!

Hats off to you!

Cheers

Mike


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

Mike said:


> Hats off to you!
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Mike



Cheer's too youse two


----------



## Old Novice

gwrthgymdeithasol said:


> Except I said it first!



Sorry, I hate not to give credit where it's due.  I will say that I've reread your post, and it just wasn't clear to me that you were saying what timpeac said.  I apologize for not getting it, but timpeac still deserves the prize for clarity.


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

Old Novice said:


> Sorry, I hate not to give credit where it's due.  I will say that I've reread your post, and it just wasn't clear to me that you were saying what timpeac said.



I can't say I blame you, but I was on your side all along, because you were right


----------



## tantan

No idea how come I see this continuation just now, but cant' help congratulating Timpeac! Congratulations on this straight-foreword explanation!


----------



## WaltfromPeru

It should be _whom _because Mr' Bush believes _him_ to be wedded.  Bottom line: poorly-constructed sentence.


----------



## caballoschica

What if I re-arranged it this way:

Current and former white house aides say, "Mr. Bush believes he is wedded to a bad policy" about Mr. Roh.  

I think he's more the object of "say".

I don't know my who and whom rules so well, but wouldn't it be whom, if the sentence is trying to say this?

I read all your arguments and they're all great and make sense to me.  So I'm not sure at all.


----------

