# Who/whom: It turns out that the woman, <?> the police asked not be identified, ...



## Jeromed

Who or _Whom_:  Which one would you use in the following sentence, and why?

_It turns out that the woman, whom/who the police asked not be identified, was a talented pianist and an unpublished writer._


----------



## avaiki

Jeromed,

Whom is fairly archaic now ... as in ... For whom the bell tolls.

It can still sound nice in a sentence if you drop the preceding "the" i.e.

_It turns out that the woman, *whom *police asked not be identified, was a talented pianist and an unpublished writer._

But if you just want a normal, modern sound stick with the "who the police" ...

_It turns out that the woman, *who the* police asked not be identified, was a talented pianist and an unpublished writer._


----------



## Jeromed

> Whom is fairly archaic now ... as in ... For whom the bell tolls.


 
Avaiki,
I understand and agree with you completely. However, I'd like to know which pronoun you would use per the traditional (old-fashioned, if you will) grammar.

In other words: Is the pronoun a subject or an object in that clause?


----------



## avaiki

Jeromed said:


> Avaiki,
> I understand and agree with you completely. However, I'd like to know which pronoun you would use per the traditional (old-fashioned, if you will) grammar.
> 
> In other words: Is the pronoun a subject or an object in that clause?



Not being an English professor, I couldn't answer those two _points _accurately  (!) but I am guessing that out of those two _words _it would be "whom" - whom being an object and woman being the subject?

_cringing in anticipation of public correction, humiliation, etc ..._


----------



## Fenoxielo

I believe it would be "who" in this case, since the police are not actually asking her, they are asking that she not be identified, so "who" is the subject of an indirect statement detailing what the police asked.


----------



## Jeromed

Thanks, avaiki and Fenoxielo.


----------



## Forero

Welcome to the forum, avaiki and Fenoxielo.

Fenoxielo has the right answer.  "Who" replaces "she" in the subordinate clause.  But if they asked her not to be identified, then it would be "It turns out that the woman, whom the police asked not to be identified, was a talented pianist and an unpublished writer."

The form of the relative pronoun helps us find its implied place in the subordinate clause.


----------



## Diddy

The following will help you to better understand the who/whoever - whom/whomever usage:

The general patterns are:

who/whoever + verb
The woman who *sang* yesterday has studied voice for years.
Give the money to whoever *needs* it.

whom/whomever + subject + verb

The woman whom *I *met yesterday is a voice teacher.
Get it to whomever *you *like.


----------



## se16teddy

Jeromed said:


> The woman, whom/who the police asked not be identified, was a talented pianist.


 
If you wish to distinguish between _who _and _whom, _then in this case _whom _should be used.  The sentence is a rather odd one: it means _The police asked the woman (who was a talented pianist) not to be identified.  _It is not clear to me how the woman could take responsibility for whether she is identified or not.

If you mean _The police asked reporters not to identify the woman, a talented pianist_, then say so.


----------



## Loob

I vote with Fenoxielo and Forero.

The underlying sentences are:

_The woman was a talented pianist._
_The police asked that she not be identified._

'She' is the subject of "not be identified"; so when 'she' is converted to a relative, you still need the subject pronoun - 'who'.

Loob

EDIT: I've just noticed teddy's interpolated a 'to' in his comment, making the underlying sentences:
_The woman was a talented pianist._
_The police asked her not to be identified._
I agree that in that case the 'correct' option would be 'whom'.


----------



## Jeromed

Diddy said:


> The following will help you to better understand the who/whoever - whom/whomever usage:
> 
> The general patterns are:
> 
> who/whoever + verb
> The woman who *sang* yesterday has studied voice for years.
> Give the money to whoever *needs* it.
> 
> whom/whomever + subject + verb
> 
> The woman whom *I *met yesterday is a voice teacher.
> Get it to whomever *you *like.




I understand the difference between _who_ and _whom_ perfectly.  Based on what you know, would you please give us your opinion as to which is the right choice in the sentence quoted in post 1?


----------



## Diddy

Jeromed said:


> I understand the difference between _who_ and _whom_ perfectly. Based on what you know, would you please give us your opinion as to which is the right choice in the sentence quoted in post 1?


 
O.K.  According to my English studying, in that sentence the correct answer would be *whom,* because it is followed by the noun "the police"

_It turns out that the woman, *whom *_*the police* _asked not be identified, was a talented pianist and an unpublished writer._

If we change the sentence to read:

It turns out that the woman, *who* *asked* for a second chance....

Here, the correct answer would be *who,* as it is followed by the verb "asked".


----------



## Matching Mole

It's somewhat tricky, no doubt. However, I agree with Loob, because _she_ is the subject of a _passive_ statement (in the subjunctive mood). To give a plainer example of a passive statement, if you say "She was not identified", she is the subject, not object.

I don't think the fact that the verb is preceded by "the police" has any bearing on the woman being either the subject or object, since the police did not ask _her_.


----------



## se16teddy

_The police asked her not to be identified_ means the police put a request to her. 

Everybody seems to assume that the police did not put any request to her, but that they put a request to somebody else - in other words, _The police asked for her not to be identified. _So let's try to make a relative clause out of this: _It turns out that the woman, for whom the police put out a request not to be identified, was a talented pianist... _Rather confusing: best to avoid the relative clause, I think.  I think it gets even more confusing if you try to make a relative clause out of _The police asked that she be not identified.  _


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

Fenoxielo, Forero, Loob, and Mole are all correct here --the woman is the subject of the clause, and so the pronoun referring to the woman must be in the nominative: *who.*


----------



## Forero

I believe we can change "asked" to "said" and insert a "should" without changing the meaning:

_It turns out that the woman, whom/who the police said should not be identified, was a talented pianist and an unpublished writer._

Or, instead of "should not", we can use "was not to":

_It turns out that the woman, whom/who the police said was not to be identified, was a talented pianist and an unpublished writer._

Lest someone think that the police asked the woman, we can use "told witnesses" instead of plain "asked" or "said":

_It turns out that the woman, whom/who the police told witnesses was not to be identified, was a talented pianist and an unpublished writer._

Hopefully, no one would want to use "whom" in any of these versions.

Although Diddy's rule works in most cases, it fails here because of nested subordinate clauses.  For anyone who speaks Spanish, a better rule for "who"/"whom" is that the "m" on "whom" indicates the presence of a preposition (or a personal "a") (at the start of the subordinate clause) in the Spanish translation.  Likewise, if the German translation has a nominative relative pronoun or the French translation has "qui", use "who", not "whom".


----------



## Diddy

Now I got confused, also.  I am sure, based on my studying........ that it should be whom

_It turns out that the woman, *whom *_*the police* _asked not be identified, was a talented pianist and an unpublished writer._

If I change the sentence to read:

It turns out that the woman *to whom* the police asked not be identified was a talented pianist and an unpublished writer.

I see here that *whom *is an object of the preposition *to,* then it should be *whom*.

Now, according with Forero's writing:
Although Diddy's rule works in most cases, it fails here because of nested subordinate clauses. For anyone who speaks Spanish, *a better rule for "who"/"whom" is that the "m" on "whom" indicates the presence of a preposition (or a personal "a") (at the start of the subordinate clause)* in the Spanish translation. Likewise, if the German translation has a nominative relative pronoun or the French translation has "qui", use "who", not "whom". 

If we assume that there would be an "a" as a preposition preceeding the who/whom...........it is still the same case...........who/whom  is acting as an object of a preposition, then *whom *should be the correct answer.

This is a very "tricky" matter.................


----------



## Forero

I didn't mean to confuse the issue more, but I am trying to come at the issue from different sides to show why "who" makes sense to me.

A rule based on whether the next thing is a noun or a verb is a good rule for single level subordination, but for complicated sentences like the one in question, we need to evoke a more accurate rule:

If, after removing the "who" or "whom" from the subordinate clause, an object is missing, use "whom".  If a subject is missing, use "who".

In "the police asked not be identified", there is no preposition, the subject of "asked" is "the police", the direct object of "asked" is "[that she] not be identified", and what is missing is the subject of the subjunctive verb "be".  "Be" does not take a direct object.


----------



## se16teddy

Loob said:


> I've just noticed teddy's interpolated a 'to' in his comment


 
Oops. Thank you, Loob. I have just realized that my brain put the word _to _into this sentence to try to make sense of it. 

To me, 
_- She the police asked not be identified_ is not a valid sentence: therefore _who the police asked not to be identified _is not a valid relative clause.
_- The police asked her not be identified _is not a valid sentence: therefore _whom the police asked not be identified _is not a valid relative clause. 
- It follows that the sentence we are discussing is nonsense. 

As far as I can see, contributors above who are inserting bits such as _that she _(Forero) into the understood sentence that forms the relative clause are making the same mistake that I did: they are seeing things that are not there in an effort to turn the sentence before them into something grammatical.


----------



## nzfauna

So much chat!

Whom is rarely used in contemporary English.  When it is used, it is unnecessary.  Whom has been replaced by who.

Most people don't know how to use it anyway, and even if they do, they sound like dicks.

My advice for a foreigner learning English would be to always use who.  I do.  [except in certain idiomatic phrases]


----------



## panjandrum

nzfauna said:


> So much chat!
> 
> Whom is rarely used in contemporary English.  When it is used, it is unnecessary.  Whom has been replaced by who.
> 
> Most people don't know how to use it anyway, and even if they do, they sound like dicks.
> 
> My advice for a foreigner learning English would be to always use who.  I do.  [except in certain idiomatic phrases]


In that case, here speaks a dick.
Your opinion may be worthwhile, your insulting of those of us who speak differently is not and does you no credit.

My advice to any student of English is to ignore un-informed opinion and find out what is expected of you, especially in exams.  There are still many parts of the world, and many contexts, where failure to distinguish correctly between _who _and _whom _will attract criticism.


----------



## Elwintee

nzfauna said:


> So much chat!
> 
> Whom is rarely used in contemporary English.  When it is used, it is unnecessary.  Whom has been replaced by who.
> 
> Most people don't know how to use it anyway, and even if they do, they sound like dicks.
> 
> My advice for a foreigner learning English would be to always use who.  I do.  [except in certain idiomatic phrases]



_It turns out that the woman, *whom *police asked not be identified, was a talented pianist and an unpublished writer.

_I vote for "who" in the above sentence, as the grammatical situation is the same as in: "The woman who wore a green hat was ...".  The whole 'police' clause just describes the woman (who is the subject of the sentence).

Turning to the use of 'whom', which of us would say "The man to who I gave the key...?"  (I know, I know, you would avoid the issue by saying "The man I gave the key to" - I use the sentence just to make the point that "whom" sometimes sounds essential).  Also, as Nzfauna says, there are certainly idiomatic phrases which still call for 'whom': "God, in whom we trust".  [See Randolph Quirk's A University Grammar of English, para 4.88: 'The personal objective _whom _is often replaced by _who _but never when preceded by a preposition.'] I don't push for the use of whom at all, it's just that I don't want a learner of English to think they can ignore the question completely.


----------



## Loob

I think what se16teddy's posts are highlighting (correct me if I'm wrong, teddy!) is the fact that BrE speakers don't actually use the construction
_The police asked that she not be identified._

Instead, we would say something like: 
_The police asked that she should not be identified_

which as a relative clause would not be
_The woman, who the police asked not be identified, was a talented pianist_

but rather
_The woman, who the police asked should not be identified, was a talented pianist._

Still "who" not "whom" though

Loob


----------



## Diddy

nzfauna said:


> So much chat!
> 
> Whom is rarely used in contemporary English. When it is used, it is unnecessary. Whom has been replaced by who.
> 
> Most people don't know how to use it anyway, and even if they do, they sound like dicks.
> 
> My advice for a foreigner learning English would be to always use who. I do. [except in certain idiomatic phrases]


 
I am a foreign student, but I think: if it is true that "whom" has been replaced by "who" these days, we have to understand whether to use both words, for those "certain idiomatic phrases" that you mentioned, mainly if we are working in formal translations.    As you wrote,  it is not important the "whom" usage when talking, but in writting............I think we have to be sure to use all the words adequately.


----------



## Ynez

Jeromed, the answer according to traditional grammar and all that is whom.

The part of the sentence we care about as to analyze is just this :

*whom/who the police asked not be identified*

which is the relative clause,

there *the police* is the *subject*

and *the relative pronoun* (whom/who) is *the object*.


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

nzfauna said:


> My advice for a foreigner learning English would be to always use who. *I do*.


This does not surprise me in the least.


----------



## nzfauna

I appologise for my "sound like dicks" comment.  It is an acceptable phrase in my culture.  I only meant to say that it sounds/looks "snobbish" or "try-hard", and I did mention that it was a contemporary view.

Diddy, you mentioned needing to know how to translate INTO idioms in English.  I believe that, by and large, the idiomatic expressions would not have a direct counterpart in the other language, so you wouldn't need to translate them into WHOM.  As for formal writing, yes it appears, but I believe that it is disappearing, there is a move to avoid it, when you cannot use who instead, governed by Elwintee's quote "[See Randolph Quirk's A University Grammar of English, para 4.88: 'The personal objective _whom _is often replaced by _who _but never when preceded by a preposition.']"

Panjandrum and GWB, you're just being rude.  I am not uninformed.  I was just trying to make things simple for a non-native English speaker.


----------



## bloomiegirl

nzfauna said:


> So much chat!
> 
> Whom is rarely used in contemporary English.  When it is used, it is unnecessary.  Whom has been replaced by who.



I wonder to whom I am speaking. Indeed, _whom_ is still used by us Yanks, especially by those we call... college-eduated.

In this instance, _who/whom_ depends on context. My reading is that the police did not address their request to the woman, so I would use _who_ - because I believe it's correct, and not because of lax grammar.


----------



## nzfauna

It might be worth noting here that even "college(/university")-educated people may have my opinion on who/whom


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

nzfauna said:


> Panjandrum and GWB, you're just being rude. I am not uninformed.


 
I would say that to think it is an "acceptable phrase" in any English-speaking "culture" to sneer that people who speak grammatically "sound like dicks" is rather grossly _uninformed_.


----------



## se16teddy

Loob said:


> I think what se16teddy's posts are highlighting (correct me if I'm wrong, teddy!)


 
This is not what I am saying. I have no objection to Americans or anyone else using the subjunctive after _ask _if they wish.

What I am saying is this. When you are converting a sentence into a relative clause, no rule of logic or grammar allows you to omit inconvenient essential parts of the sentence. 

Most contributors seem to assume that the sentence _The police asked that she be not identified_ can legitimately be converted into the relative clause _who / whom the police asked not be identified_. It cannot, because you have lost the essential word _that. _

In fact, I think that there is no way of creating a grammatical relative clause from the sentence _The police asked that she be not identified _using _she _as the relative pronoun.  I think that this is because _she _is not the subject or object of the main verb in that sentence.


----------



## Loob

Sorry to have misinterpreted you, teddy.

So what you're saying is that it's correct to translate: 
(1) _the police said that the woman should not be identified _
into 
(2) _the woman, who the police said should not be identified, _
because '_that' _in sentence (1) is optional;

.... but that it's not correct to translate: 
(1a) _the police asked that the woman should not be identified_
into 
(2a) _the woman, who the police asked should not be identified, _
because '_that' _in sentence (1a) is not optional.

Have I got that right?

If so, I need to do some more pondering

It's also just struck me that I would happily leave out the "who" in the defining (without commas) version of (2). Which is intriguing, because you usually only omit 'object' relative pronouns.

Jeromed, you've led us into very deep waters!

Loob


----------



## se16teddy

That's right, Loob. 

Actually, I hadn't thought about _The woman, who police said should not be identified, was a pianist_, but I am happy with this sentence. You could analyse it as _The woman who (police said) should not be identified, s_o the sentence underlying the relevant clause might simply be _She should not be identified. _But if you see the underlying sentence as _Police said she shouldn't be identified_, that's OK under the 'don't omit essential words' principle too.


----------



## tallspringmean

Jeromed said:


> Who or _Whom_: Which one would you use in the following sentence, and why?
> 
> _It turns out that the woman, whom/who the police asked not be identified, was a talented pianist and an unpublished writer._


You can use either "whom" or "who" in your sentence.
_"whom/who the police asked not be identified" _is a relative clause. "who/whom" in this case is an object. So you should use "whom" but "who" is acceptable.
"Whom" is the correct form, though "Who" is sometimes used in conversation.


----------



## Forero

se16teddy said:


> That's right, Loob.
> 
> Actually, I hadn't thought about _The woman, who police said should not be identified, was a pianist_, but I am happy with this sentence. You could analyse it as _The woman who (police said) should not be identified, s_o the sentence underlying the relevant clause might simply be _She should not be identified. _But if you see the underlying sentence as _Police said she shouldn't be identified_, that's OK under the 'don't omit essential words' principle too.



And if the underlying sentence is "Police said that she shouldn't be identified"?


----------



## se16teddy

Forero said:


> And if the underlying sentence is "Police said that she shouldn't be identified"?


 
It appears that English does not allow a relative clause introduced by this subsidiary clause _she. _As far as I am aware, no-one says _the woman, who police say that shouldn't be identified,... _(though, knowing this forum, I'm quite prepared for someone somewhere to say 'Oh, we say that'!)


----------



## Loob

Teddy, I've pondered - truly.

I'm finding it hard to identify constructions, other than 'ask that', where "that" is compulsory:

_The police said [that] she shouldn't be identified..._
_The police demanded [that] she shouldn't be identified..._
_The police insisted [that] she shouldn't be identified..._
_The police requested [that maybe compulsory?] she shouldn't be identified..._

These are "relativised" as 

_The woman, who the police said should not be identified_
_The woman, who the police demanded should not be identified_
_The woman, who the police insisted should not be identified _
_The woman, who the police requested should not be identified..._

You may have identified an anomaly.  But my suspicion is that it is indeed proper to translate

_The police asked that she shouldn't be identified..._
into 
_The woman, who the police asked should not be identified..._

Time for bed, said zebedee...

Loob


----------



## Forero

"The woman, who police say that shouldn't be identified,..."

My point was that I would not say it with "that".  I would just take out "that" and keep the rest of the sentence (this sentence, or the original one).  I don't consider "that" to be essential once the subject which followed has been fronted as "who".

In fact, when changing "Police say that she shouldn't be identified" to "She, police say, shouldn't be identified" (fronting the subject again), I dispense with "that" for the same reason.

By the way, if I wish to subordinate this last quoted sentence, I will keep the offsetting commas: "The woman, who, police say, shouldn't be identified, was a talented pianist."  Still no place for "that" though, but that's OK.


----------



## marquess

I agree with Teddy's second post (#19) that there is a lot of confusion due to different interpretations about the real meaning of a nonsensical phrase. We can't correct it until we know the intended meaning and get the rest of the phrase right first. Did the police ask the woman not to be identified (by herself), ask that they should not identify her, or ask that no one else (the court or the press) should identify her? The existing phrase does not clearly or correctly say any of these. If it is made to do so, it is likely 'who' will be correct, but depending on how it is structured, it might be 'whom'.

I agree with #2 and #20 that 'whom' is a bit archaic, some people don't understand how to use it properly, and just take the easy route of always using 'who' except in quoting well established phrases using 'whom', but 'whom' is still around, and still sounds (more) correct in many cases, and I think it is important to know why. My parents and English teachers thought it was important and always corrected me (and I don't think i'm that posh or formal), and although they never taught me a rule, I think I learned correct usage by experience. It all seemed to come clear to me when I learned German where there is a clear rule, and I think it is a hangover from our Saxon past perpetuated in the 'Queen's English' (after all the last few generations of our Royalty are Hanoverians). In German who is 'wer', but when you use it with the prepositions 'to', 'by', 'with', 'for', 'from', which take the dative in German, it becomes 'wem' (an Wem, mit Wem etc.) and it is exactly in these circumstances that 'whom' sounds correct in English (by whom, to whom, with whom etc.).

- see also thread 26th Sept 'Give it to who told you to' (sic), where I think the same rule gives the correct answers.


----------



## marquess

_It turns out that the woman, whom/who the police asked not be identified, was a talented pianist and an unpublished writer._

_So: _
_It turns out that the woman, who the police asked not to identify herself,_
_It turns out that the woman to whom the police had said not to identify herself,_

_It turns out that the woman, who had asked the police not to identify her,_
_It turns out that the woman by whom the police had been asked not to identify her,_

_It turns out that the woman who the police had asked the press not to identify,_
_It turns out that the woman of whom the press had been asked not to speak,_

_etc.etc. - no preposition 'taking the dative', no 'm' ending._


----------



## se16teddy

I think the interesting grammar point coming out of all this is that not all nouns / pronouns in English may be turned into the relative pronoun of a relative clause; and it is not an easy matter to define which may and which may not, and there are clearly diverging opinions in this area. 

We have had issues above with nouns / pronouns in subsidiary clauses. But (trying to draw out the general principle rather than to drag this thread off track!) there are restrictions on nouns in main clauses too. 

_Help us so to love You that we may fully serve You._ OK _Serving You is perfect freedom._ OK _Help us so to love You that we may fully serve You, whom serving is perfect freedom._ NO, not permissible as far as I know

_Help us so to love You that we may fully serve You._ OK _To serve You is perfect freedom._ OK _Help us so to love You that we may fully serve You, whom to serve is perfect freedom._ OK at least in some formal sorts of English http://www.io.com/~kellywp/LesserFF/Aug/Augustine.html 

It may be worth also mentioning here the well known borderline case _Thou are a being than which nothing greater can be conceived. _http://books.google.com/books?id=C2q...7uiRI8znYOq_jw

Returning to nouns in subsidiary clauses, I suspect that the general rule is that such nouns cannot be turned into a pronoun introducing a relative clause. 
_I think that man is handsome._ OK _I don't know whether he is the right man for me._ OK _I think that man, who I don't know whether is the right man for me, is handsome._ NO, but colloquial English does allow the disapproved _I think that man, who I don't know whether he is the right man for me, is handsome_. 

We have identified a clear exception in the case of omittable _that. I think that man is handsome._ OK _You say (that) that man is reliable._ OK _I think that that man, who you say is reliable, is handsome._ OK 

I don't know any resources that give guidance on this issue.


----------



## Ynez

I once asked something related to _who/whom_, and the answers were all very interesting, but especially the first two answers helped me understand the difference clearly:

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=624270


Marquess, could you find that thread you mentioned? I am not able to


----------



## Forero

se16teddy said:


> I think the interesting grammar point coming out of all this is that not all nouns / pronouns in English may be turned into the relative pronoun of a relative clause; and it is not an easy matter to define which may and which may not, and there are clearly diverging opinions in this area.
> 
> We have had issues above with nouns / pronouns in subsidiary clauses. But (trying to draw out the general principle rather than to drag this thread off track!) there are restrictions on nouns in main clauses too.
> 
> _Help us so to love You that we may fully serve You._ OK _Serving You is perfect freedom._ OK _Help us so to love You that we may fully serve You, whom serving is perfect freedom._ NO, not permissible as far as I know
> 
> _Help us so to love You that we may fully serve You._ OK _To serve You is perfect freedom._ OK _Help us so to love You that we may fully serve You, whom to serve is perfect freedom._ OK at least in some formal sorts of English http://www.io.com/~kellywp/LesserFF/Aug/Augustine.html
> 
> It may be worth also mentioning here the well known borderline case _Thou are a being than which nothing greater can be conceived. _http://books.google.com/books?id=C2q...7uiRI8znYOq_jw
> 
> Returning to nouns in subsidiary clauses, I suspect that the general rule is that such nouns cannot be turned into a pronoun introducing a relative clause.
> _I think that man is handsome._ OK _I don't know whether he is the right man for me._ OK _I think that man, who I don't know whether is the right man for me, is handsome._ NO, but colloquial English does allow the disapproved _I think that man, who I don't know whether he is the right man for me, is handsome_.
> 
> We have identified a clear exception in the case of omittable _that. I think that man is handsome._ OK _You say (that) that man is reliable._ OK _I think that that man, who you say is reliable, is handsome._ OK
> 
> I don't know any resources that give guidance on this issue.



I am afraid the guiding resource is not printed material but the match (or lack of it) between writers/speakers and readers/listeners.

I find "whom serving is perfect freedom" as acceptable as "whom to serve is perfect freedom", but "than which nothing greater can be conceived" is bordering on trouble.  What part of speech is "than" in "Nothing greater than He can be conceived"?  Does this become "than Who nothing greater can be conceived"?

The "whether" sentence works for me if we leave out the extra "he":  "I think that man, who I don't know whether he is the right man for me, is handsome."  Sometimes a complicated relative clause warrants keeping the extra pronoun (even though it has supposedly been "replaced" by "who(m)"), but this one is not really complicated enough for that. 

For me, the relative clause "who the police asked not be identified" falls in the borderline category.  Changing it to "who it is important not be identified" crosses the line I think, crying out to become "whom it is important not to identify".

When sentences get ugly, it is best to rewrite them.  I would opt for:

"It turns out that the woman - the police asked that she not be identified - was a talented pianist and an unpublished writer."

I have to admit that not all sentences can be “relativised”.  Here is what may be a worst case scenario from another thread:

"The most interesting thing about the cloth was that clothes made from it would be completely invisible."

I can force out the "that" only by adding a colon, and I don’t think this sentence lends itself to the subordinating process at all:

“Clothes which the most important thing about the cloth was [that? colon?] made from it would be completely invisible” 

"Clothes which made from the cloth, about which the most interesting thing was this fact, would be completely invisible"?

“Clothes which would be completely invisible made from the cloth about which this property was the most interesting thing”?


----------



## marquess

Ynez said:


> I once asked something related to _who/whom_, and the answers were all very interesting, but especially the first two answers helped me understand the difference clearly:
> 
> http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=624270
> 
> 
> Marquess, could you find that thread you mentioned? I am not able to


 
Sorry for delay, haven't looked back for a while! It was in English/Spanish forum:

Give it who I told you to.

Give it who I told you to.


----------



## Ynez

marquess said:


> Sorry for delay, haven't looked back for a while! It was in English/Spanish forum:
> 
> Give it who I told you to.
> 
> Give it who I told you to.


 

Thank you


----------

