Whom shall I say [ ___ is calling ]? (2022)

Whom shall I say [ ___ is calling ]?

Commenting that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing", Gene Buckleyoffered me thefollowing example from the NewYork Times of 1/15/07:

(1) The answer, shaped in the NationalSecurity Council, is for the American military to make targets ofIranians whom they believe are fueling attacks, a decision that Mr.Bush made months ago that was disclosed only last week.

It's been a while since we looked at the who/whom thing here at Language LogPlaza, and Buckley's example happens to be #25 on a list I've beenadding to over the years, so this might be a good time to dip onceagain into the murky waters of whoand whom.


Here's a version of what I've said to my senior seminar at Stanford (oninnovation and spread in the lexicon and syntax) this quarter.(That's "senior" in the sense of 'fourth-year undergraduate', not inthe sense of 'senior citizen'.)

1. We're interested here in interrogative and relative WHO,with non-possessive forms who andwhom; and similarly with WHOEVER,with forms whoever and whomever (references to the formershould be taken as covering the second).

2. I'll call the two forms Form1 and Form2, respectively. The ordinary personalpronouns have two corresponding (and roughly comparable) forms: I/me, she/her, he/him, we/us, they/them. (For YOUand IT, Form1 and Form2 are identical.)

3. The languages of the world have several strategies forconstituent interrogative clauses and for relative clauses (sometimesmore than one strategy in the same language). Two really commonones involve special interrogative and relative pro-elements, either(a) "extracted" from the usual locations of their phrase types (inEnglish, they appear at the beginning of their clauses, and nothingappears in the usual location; sometimes the missing constituent isreferred to as a "gap"), or (b) left "in situ", in their usuallocations.

English uses extraction almost entirely (extracted material is in boldface; the position of the gap is indicated by an underline; and squarebrackets set off embedded clauses):

main question: What did you see ___?
embedded question:

object of V: I wonder [ what they saw ___ ].
object of P: I wondered about [ whatthey saw ___ ].
subject in pseudocleft: [ Whatthey saw ___ ] was a rhinoceros.

ordinary (headed) restrictive relative:

WH relative: Therhinoceros [ which they saw___ ] was angry.
(gap without extraction: thatrelative: The rhinoceros [ that they saw ___ ] was angry.)
(gap without extraction: zero relative: The rhinoceros [ they saw ___ ]was angry.)

non-restrictive relative: The rhinoceros, [ which they'd just noticed ___ ],charged them.
"free relative" (headless):

object of V: I noticed [ what(ever) she had ___ in her hand ].
object of P: I looked at [ what(ever)she had ___ in her hand ].
subject: [ What(ever) she had___ in her hand ] sparkled.

But English also has a few special types of in-situ interrogativeclauses, notably in "reclamatory" and "incredulity" questions, whereyou're asking about the words someone just used (because you didn'tquite hear them) or the substance of what they just said (because youcan't believe it):

You saw WHAT?!

4. For interrogative and relative WHO, there is aspecial relationship between Form2 and the syntactic function of object(the object of a "governor", V or P); for most speakers, Form2 rarely,or never, occurs as the (complete) subject of a finite clause. Onthe other hand, for the ordinary personal pronouns, there is a specialrelationship between Form1 and the syntactic function of subject (of afinite clause); for most speakers, Form 1 rarely, or never, occurs asthe (complete) object of V or P.

This asymmetry shows up in another place. For WHO,Form1 is the all-purpose form, used when the conditions for Form2 arenot satisfied. So if someone says

I saw someone interesting yesterday.

you can ask

Who?

(Video) A Day To Remember - All I Want (Official Video)

but even if you regularly say

Whom did you see?

you can't respond to the other person's assertion with

*Whom?

But for the ordinary personal pronouns, it goes the other way; you getForm2 all over the place. So, for instance, if someone asks

Who did it, Brad or Janet?

you can reply with

Him.

but not with

*He.

even though you'd never say

*Him did it.

(There are many more intriguing facts like this.)

This is just a fact of life. Though they are to some degreeparallel, WHO and the ordinary personal pronouns differin the way Form1 and Form2 are distributed.

5. Languages that use extraction in interrogatives and relativescan differ in the details. In particular, they can carry overcase-marking from the gap to the extracted position -- the WHpronoun "inherits" the case appropriate to the gap -- or, sincequestioned and relativized constituents bear a kind of focus, the WHpronouns can bear a case appropriate to this focussing -- either aspecial case, or a defaulting to an all-purpose case.

English has (had) both systems. Pure inheritance produces thePrescriptive System:

extracted subj: Form1

Whodid you say [ ___ stole the tarts ]?

A extracted obj of V: Form2

Whomdid you say [ they saw ___ ]?

(Video) Dimitri Vegas & Like Mike, David Guetta, Daddy Yankee, Afro Bros & Natti Natasha - Instagram

B extracted obj of P, P stranded: Form2

Whomdid you say [ they went to ___ ]?

C extracted obj of P, P fronted with obj: of course, Form2

To whomdid you say [ they went ___ ]?

And defaulting to the all-purpose Form1 produces the Standard System:

extracted subj: Form1

Whodid you say [ ___ stole the tarts ]?

A extracted obj of V: Form1

Whodid you say [ they saw ___ ]?

B extracted obj of P, P stranded: Form1

Whodid you say [ they went to ___ ]?

C extracted obj of P, P fronted with obj: Form2 (it's the whole PP thatgets focus)

To whomdid you say [ they went ___ ]?

6. Assuming that the Prescriptive System was predominant for sometime, what would move people to innovate the (now) Standard System?

Speculative answer: it has to do with the much greater frequency ofmain-clause subject questions (and relatives), versus all othertypes. That would lead people to see Form1 as the one appropriatefor questions and relatives and so to (mistakenly) extend Form1 tocases A and B (but not C).

7. Two consequences:

First, once the Standard System had spread some, the PrescriptiveSystem would increasingly be seen by many speakers as old-fashioned,formal, even pretentious -- and on the positive side, as serious andemphatic.

Second, in the Standard System, whomnow occurs with any frequency only with fronted Ps -- a constructionthat is itself associated with a high level of formality.

Put these two together and you get whomitself seen as old-fashioned, very formal, serious, and emphatic.And so available for situations in which you want those connotations.

(Note again the contrast between WHO and the ordinarypersonal pronouns. For the ordinary personal pronouns, Form1 has,for many speakers, come to be seen as formal, serious, and emphatic --a development that leads some of these speakers to prefer "between youand I" and the like in serious contexts.)

When you add in prescriptive injunctions against who in cases A and B(which began in the 18th century), which instructed writers andspeakers to replace (some occurrences of) who by whom, the way was open forhypercorrection, which would produce whomin contexts not available for it in the Prescriptive System.

(Video) A Call to Repentance for Calvary Gospel (UPC) Church, Madison, WI

And so it has come to be. See Mark Liberman's Language Log pieceon

(2) [ Whomever controls language ]controls politics.

Mark refers there to a tongue-in-cheek piece by James Thurber on whom, in which Thurber recommends:"'Whom' should be used in the nominative case [i.e., for a subject --AMZ] only when a note of dignity or austerity is desired."

Earlier, and more stunningly, Geoff Pullum displayeda photo of an American flag with this protestors' legend printed onit:

(3) Cheats Murderers Rapists ThiefsTerrorists [ Whom Captured Killed Enslaved Millions Of Africans ] [Whom Killed More Natives Than Nazis Did Jews ] ...

Meanwhile, in e-mail from John Singler, 11/1/05, this item from aBrooklyn neighborhood website (punctuation as in the original; Iforbear to indicate embedded clauses):

(4) Can anyone help me with informationabout Lillian Krum whom may have married a "Cunningham" ,whom had a sonnamed Albert James Cunningham that married a Lillian Smith ,with whomthey had 4 children and moved to Florida . . .

Finally, one I collected myself:

(5) Key theorists, [ whom are almostall white men ], control...
(Stanford Humanities Center fellow, in lunchtime conversation,10/31/05 -- possibly reaching for more formality and seriousness, inconversation with Lani Guinier).

8. These involve straightforward subjects with no obvious factorsfavoring whom. Fromthem we shade into some cases involving predicatives, a case not in thelists above:

(6) Thank you so much [ whomever you are ___ ].
(letter to Palo Alto DailyNews, 9/17/03, p. 10, thanking a good samaritan)

(7) Who I am today is [ whomI've always wanted to be ___ ].
(cited by Wilson Gray on ADS-L, 6/8/06)

(8) I REALLY DON'T CARE [ WHOM YOUCLAIM [ YOUR ANCESTOR WAS ___ ] ].
(cartoon cited by Geoff Pullum here)

For predicatives, the Prescriptive System insists on Form1 for ordinarypersonal pronouns ("It was I"), on analogy with the system of Latin,while the Standard System is very strongly in favor of Form2 ("It wasme"), as the default form, and that might influence the choice of formsfor WHO.

9. Now we come to two cases where the appearance of whom for a subject has somestructural motivation. People have been noticing examples likethese for a hundred years at least (there is some discussion in MWDEU of these precedents), andit's fairly easy to find new ones.

There are two main cases.

9.1. In the first, we have an object clause (usually the objectof a P) with WHO as its subject. The pronoun thenimmediately follows the governor, and could easily be mistaken for itsobject (even though it's the whole clause that's the object). Infact, I believe there are languages in which a WHpronoun in this position regularly (or optionally) has its casedetermined by the governor.

I'll call this case "in-situ subject of an object clause (ISOC)".Examples:

(9) This is not a picture of apolitical tide running in one direction. It is a picture of votersventing their frustration on [ whomever [sic] happens to be in power ].
(Wall Street Journalquoting USA Today, reportedby Ron Hardin in sci.lang, 11/6/03; that's the WSJ's "[sic]", by the way)


(10) ... and works to ascertain God'sleading as to [ whom should fill certain positions within ourcongregation ], the full congregation radifies these appointments in ...
(here,cited in eggcorn database, 8/29/05, for "radify")


(11) This month's social has an AcademyAwards theme and two prizes will be given away. One prize will beawarded to [ whomever successfully predicts the most winners for thisyear ].
(e-mail to the QUEST (Queer University Employees at Stanford)mailing list, 2/22/06)

(Video) Who You Say I Am - Hillsong Worship


(12) ATHENS, Ga. - Authorities aresearching for [ whomever posted a long list and description of supposedsexual encounters between dozens of high school students on the onlinenetworking site MySpace.com ].
(AP story reported by Ron Hardin on sci.lang, 10/2/06; the Washington Post version had whoever)

9.2. The second case is a bit subtler. Again there's anobject clause, but this time its subject has been extracted and nowappears at the front of a higher clause. Still, the gap ofextraction immediately follows the governor (most often, a V), so it'sin a position where some languages (I believe) allow the governor todetermine the case on this element; if this case is inherited by theextracted element, whom wouldbe predicted.

I'll call this case "extracted subject of an object clause(ESOC)". Examples, beginning with the Buckley example, repeatedhere:

Restrictive relative:
(1) The answer, shaped in the National Security Council, is for theAmerican military to make targets of Iranians [ whom they believe [ ___ are fuelingattacks ] ], a decision that Mr. Bush made months ago that wasdisclosed only last week.
(from the New York Timesof 1/15/07, here)


Main question:
(13) [Robert Coren:] Well, I think what works best forSteph is what works best, but, much as I'd dearly love to have Simthere, I think cons work best in pleasant outdoor weather.
[Sim Aberson, ameteorologist:] And whom doyou think [ ___ would be responsible for the POW ]? I herebydeclare that if I can't go, only UOW will occur.
(exchange on soc.motss, 1/18/05)


Non-restrictive relative (twice):
(14) Now there's antiwar Connecticut Senate candidate Ned Lamont, [ whom Moulitsas predicts [ ___ willdefeat Joe Lieberman in the party primary ] ]. He'll lose. And there'sMontana's senatorial candidate Jon Tester, [ whom Moulitsas predicts [ ___ willbeat incumbent Senator Conrad Burns in November ] ].
(Ben Shapiro column, reported by Ron Hardin on sci.lang,6/14/06; see here)


Restrictive relative:
(15) Bobby Hodges, a former Texas Air National Guard general [ whom "60 Minutes" claimed [___had authenticated the memos ] ], says that when he was read them overthe phone he assumed they were handwritten and wasn't told that CBSdidn't have the originals.
(Wall Street Journal,reported by Paul Kriha in sci.lang, 9/13/06; see here)


Non-restrictive relative:
(16) The 77-year-old Chomsky, [ whomChavez mistakenly thought [ ___ was dead ] ], is famous as a linguistand as an opponent of U.S. foreign policy.
("Chomsky still best seller", MercuryNews "Celebrities" section, from Chris Waigl in e-mail 9/27/06;see here)

(MWDEU has similar examplesfrom Shakespeare -- note, from well before the age of the prescriptivegrammarians.)

10. Still more subtle (and much less frequent) examples involvesubjects that are understood as denoting affected participants in someevent -- that is, subjects that have some of the semantics ofobjects. I have one case with the verb GET takingrecipient subjects, and one with the subject in a passive:

(17) ... Hillary, or [ whomever getsthe nomination ], gets a shot.
(John Meacham, senior editor of Newsweek, on the Imus radio show,reported by Ron Hardin in sci.lang on 6/13/03)


(18) The employee, [ whom has beenfired ], did not have the authority to take the equipment or the datahome.
(News editor on the Imus show, reported by Ron Hardin onsci.lang, 7/1/06)

11. Finally, combinations of these factors.

First, an affected subject (subject in a passive) in combination withESOC:

(19) Currently I am reading BarryStrauss's The Trojan War.Strauss is the type of classicist [ whomin Who Killed Homer? we oncethought [ ___ were desperately needed for a dying profession ] ].
(Victor Davis Hanson, quoted by Ron Hardin in sci.lang, 12/3/06;see here.The wonky number agreement is a bonus.)

Then, a predicative counterpart to ISOC -- a predicative fronted in anembedded clause, where it immediately follows a governor (in this case,P):

(20) ... the courage to be open about [whom I was ___ ].
(James McGreevey, cited by Mark Liberman here)

12. Some lessons.

12.1. People struggle to discern system and meaning, on veryimperfect evidence. Yes, they thrash about and make mistakes, butmostly what we see is an attempt to find a system in what they'reconfronted with. People come up with systems that are possible aslanguages -- they are attested in other languages -- but are not, infact, necessarily the predominant systems of other speakers around them.

Then those systems can spread.

12.2. The "same" grammatical category in different word classesmight have quite different principles of distribution.

12.3. "Nominative" and "accusative" (or "subject case" and "objectcase") aren't bad names, but the labels aren't definitions, and theyaren't descriptions. We choose the labels because of the ways theforms are frequently used, not the other way around. That's why Iinsisted on making the case names arbitrary and strange -- "Form1" and"Form2" -- so that you wouldn't import expectations about what"nominative" and "accusative" forms SHOULD do.

(Video) Wonda Why They Call U Bytch

We inventory the distinct forms and list the ways they're used.Then we pick names. But the names are just expository icing, notanything of significance in the description.

zwicky at-sign csli period stanford period edu

Posted by Arnold Zwicky at January 23, 2007 10:31 AM

FAQs

Who shall I say is calling or whom? ›

Thus you ask, "Who should I say is calling?" "To whom should I say is calling?" would be incorrect grammar. The person calling is the subject, so it should be the subjective case, "who". And you're asking who is calling, not who they want to speak to.

What answers the question to whom or for whom? ›

If you can answer the question with he/she, then use who. Example: A suitable answer to the question, "To [who or whom] did the prize go?" is, "It went to him/her." (It is improper to say "It went to he/she.") The correct pronoun for the question is whom.

How do you use whom correctly in a sentence? ›

Introducing a Dependent Clause:

Within the clause alone (not the whole sentence), if the pronoun is a subject, then who is correct; if the pronoun is an object, then whom is proper. For example: Many people dislike the new chairman whom we have elected.

Who or whom may I ask is this? ›

Is it “Who to Ask” or “Whom to Ask”? The grammatically correct way to phrase this is whom to ask. The phrase to ask really means should I ask. Whenever we need a pronoun that refers to the subject, we use who.

Who's calling Meaning? ›

Used by a phone-call receiver to ask the identity of the caller.

Who or whom after a name? ›

The commonly repeated advice for remembering whether to use who or whom is this: If you can replace the word with he or she or another subject pronoun, use who. If you can replace it with him or her (or another object pronoun), use whom.

How do you question with whom? ›

When do you use the word whom in questions? - Easy Learning...
  1. Whom did you talk to? Whom would you rather have as a boss?
  2. Who did you talk to? Who would you rather have as a boss?
  3. To whom did you speak? With whom did she go?
  4. Who did you speak to? Who did she go with?

Who should I or Whom should I? ›

In modern colloquial English, "who" is always okay. In your example, you have correctly applied the rule for old-fashioned and formal English -- it would be "Whom should I give the job to?", or perhaps better (in that style): "To whom should I give the job?" (But "To who should I give the job?" sounds wrong.)

Who said to whom in English? ›

The title 'Who said what to whom?' really sums it up: who takes subject position and whom takes object position. But don't get too carried away. Whom, although elegant sounding, is not always appropriate even when used correctly in the grammatical sense.

Did I use whom correctly? ›

When in doubt, try this simple trick: If you can replace the word with “he”' or “'she,” use who. If you can replace it with “him” or “her,” use whom. Who should be used to refer to the subject of a sentence. Whom should be used to refer to the object of a verb or preposition.

Who whom practice sentences? ›

I am going to the party with ( whoever whomever ) asks me. 4. ( Who Whom ) do you think will win first prize?

Who did you meet or whom? ›

when we ask about 'someone' in a question we can use 'who/whom' which functions as object of verb. so 'whom/who did you meet' is correct.

Who or whom am I speaking with? ›

Rule: Use whom when you could replace it with him. Example: To who/whom am I speaking? Let's turn the question into a sentence to make it easier: I am speaking to who/whom. We would say, “I am speaking to him.” Therefore, whom is correct.

Do you use whom for they? ›

The trick works even when the who or whom refers to a group of people; simply use they and them instead of he and him. The m words still go together: them, him, whom, and whomever.

What is whose used for? ›

Whose is a possessive adjective meaning “of or relating to whom or which.” Grammatically speaking, we use the term possessive to refer to relationships beyond simple ownership.

Who is it mean? ›

contraction of who had or who would.

Who I assume or whom I assume? ›

If in doubt, it is usually safer to use 'who' rather than 'whom'. The test is to split off the sub-clause into its own sentence, replacing 'who' or 'whom' with 'him' or 'her' (singular) or 'them' (plural) and moving it to follow the verb as in a normal simple sentence structure.

Who vs whom vs that? ›

“Who” is a pronoun used as a subject to refer to people. “That” is a pronoun used for things or groups. When used as an object, “who” becomes “whom.” These are the kolaches that John brought.

Who I respect or whom I respect? ›

The Quick Answer: When to Use Who and Whom

If a question can be answered with him, the pronoun whom is correct—just remember that both words end with an -m!

Who is whom? ›

There are a few rules when you should use who and whom. “Who” is a subjective pronoun. “Whom” is an objective pronoun. That simply means that “who” is always subject to a verb, and that “whom” is always working as an object in a sentence.

Who said to whom example? ›

For example, “Who is the best in class?” If you rewrote that question as a statement, “He is the best in class.” makes sense. Use whom when a sentence needs an object pronoun like him or her. For example, “This is for whom?” Again, if you rewrote that question as a statement, “This is for him.” sounds correct.

Who is training who or whom? ›

Use “who” when the word is serving as the subject in the sentence and “whom” when the word is being used as an object. This rule also works for “whoever” and “whomever.”

Who whom exercises with answers? ›

Choose the correct answer (who or whom?)
  • To. who. whom. have you offered the flowers?
  • Who. Whom. wrote that beautiful love poem?
  • I just want to know. who. whom. made this delicious dish.
  • Do you know the man. who. whom. ...
  • My parents will accept. whoever. whomever. ...
  • For. who. whom. ...
  • He is a kind of person for. who. whom. ...
  • Tell me, who. whom.

Who's Whose whom? ›

While “who's” comes from “who”, “whose” is related to “whom.” Whose is a possessive pronoun that you used in questions where you're asking about who owns something. For instance, “Whose puppy is this?” is another way of saying, “To whom does this puppy belong?”

Who whom whose rules? ›

Who Whom Whose
  • The subject does the action: He likes football. ...
  • The object receives the action: ...
  • Possessives tell us the person something belongs to: ...
  • 'Who' is a subject pronoun like 'he', 'she' and 'they'. ...
  • 'Whom' is an object pronoun like 'him', 'her' and 'us'. ...
  • 'Whose' is a possessive pronoun like 'his', and 'our'.
Dec 6, 2013

How do you use who and whom in a sentence? ›

“Who,” the subjective pronoun, is the doer of an action. For example, “That's the girl who scored the goal.” It is the subject of “scored” because the girl was doing the scoring. Then, “whom,” as the objective pronoun, receives the action. For instance, “Whom do you like best?” It is the object of “like”.

In what situations do you use who and in which do you use whom? ›

"Who" is always used as the subject of a sentence or clause, and "whom" is always used as an object.

Which of the following is correct neither students nor their teacher is participating in this play neither students nor their teacher are participating in this play? ›

Compound Subjects
Incorrect:Neither students nor their teacher are participating in this play.
Correct:Neither students nor their teacher is participating in this play.

Did I use whom correctly? ›

When in doubt, try this simple trick: If you can replace the word with “he”' or “'she,” use who. If you can replace it with “him” or “her,” use whom. Who should be used to refer to the subject of a sentence. Whom should be used to refer to the object of a verb or preposition.

How do you make whom questions? ›

When do you use the word whom in questions? - Easy Learning...
  1. Whom did you talk to? Whom would you rather have as a boss?
  2. Who did you talk to? Who would you rather have as a boss?
  3. To whom did you speak? With whom did she go?
  4. Who did you speak to? Who did she go with?

Who whom practice sentences? ›

I am going to the party with ( whoever whomever ) asks me. 4. ( Who Whom ) do you think will win first prize?

Who is teaching whom? ›

Sure, tradition may say that the teacher is the one who does the instructing and the student is the one who learns.

What type of pronoun is whom? ›

Other Types of Pronoun
Pronoun TypeMembers of the Subclass
Relativethat, which, who, whose, whom, where, when
Demonstrativethis, that, these, those
Interrogativewho, what, why, where, when, whatever
Indefiniteanything, anybody, anyone, something, somebody, someone, nothing, nobody, none, no one
3 more rows

Which of the following is correct * Neither of the players in the last game was injured Neither of the players in the last game were injured? ›

Correct: Neither of the best players in the last game was injured.

What is student engagement PDF? ›

Student engagement is a term used to describe an individual's interest and enthusiasm. for school, which impacts their academic performance and behavior (Gallup, 2013). Student. engagement is a complex term, making it all the more difficult to understand.

Which is correct neither is or neither are? ›

Most grammatical authorities and style manuals (like the Chicago Manual of Style) recommend treating neither as singular. In formal writing, use “neither is” instead of “neither are.”

A few days ago a good friend of mine told me of his growing concern about Sarah Young’s incredibly popular devotional, Jesus Calling .. Summary : Critics have raised questions, but I find Jesus Calling to be scripturally sound, Christ-focused, and reverent.. Lewis referred to as “mere Christianity.” If you were to use this devotional every day for a year you would not come away with a higher view of yourself or of author Sarah Young.. So when we criticize works by other Christians we need to ask ourselves if we are truly guarding the Word of God against heretical distortion, or if we might be criticizing something of redeeming value that we don’t personally like or understand.. In the introduction to Jesus Calling , author Sarah Young gives us some personal background on herself.. And I think that’s reflected in the introduction where she talks about her journaling changing from a monologue to a dialog, saying, “Of course, I knew my writings were not inspired—as only Scripture is—but they were helping me grow closer to God.” She later adds, “The Bible is the only infallible, inerrant Word of God, and I endeavor to keep my writings consistent with that unchanging standard.. Rather she is acknowledging the authority of Scripture and has simply chosen a literary device—that of phrasing her devotions from the perspective of Jesus speaking—as a way to present the truths of Scripture to the reader in a new way.. I don’t see this as necessarily heretical or inappropriate, as long as the reader understands that the words they are reading are Sarah Young’s and as long as those words align with what Scripture teaches.. In the older version Young states, “The practice of being still in God’s presence has increased my intimacy with Him more than any other spiritual discipline, so I want to share some of the messages I have received.” But in the newer edition, that sentence has been edited to instead end with “…so I wanted to share some of the writings I have gleaned from these quiet moments.” Changing “messages I have received” to “writings I have gleaned” could have been in response to some of the controversy that has been raised.. I think this devotional presents itself clearly as Sarah Young’s writings about her time spent seeking God, not teachings on par with Scripture itself.. The literary device Young has chosen could be a bit dangerous in that it makes it easy for some readers to mistake Young’s words as coming directly from the mouth of Jesus.. So it’s incumbent upon the reader of Jesus Calling to bear in mind that while what they are reading may contain a lot of truth, it does not carry the authority of Holy Scripture.. Exert your will to trust Me in all circumstances (Ps 9:10, Ps 20:7, Ps 31:14, Ps 37:5-6, 2 Cor 5:7, James 1:6).. So while critics have raised questions, I personally find Jesus Calling to be scripturally sound, Christ-focused, and reverent.. ” If one were to use this devotional every day for a year, they would not come away with a higher view of themselves or of author Sarah Young.

It is simple in that it is simply the objective case of who , which means that it's the form of who that is in the object position in a sentence.. An object, in grammatical terms, is a noun or noun equivalent (such as a pronoun, gerund, or clause) that receives the action of a verb or that completes the meaning of a preposition—so, for example, sandwich in "They bought a sandwich"; it in "My dog ate it"; apologizing in "an appropriate time for apologizing"; and that it was true in "I was afraid that it was true.". "X" is the object of the preposition to , so who should technically be whom : "Whom should my dog apologize to?". In the sentences above, the subordinate clauses are "who told my dog about the sandwich" and "who my dog apologized to.". To determine whether whom is the preferred pronoun, we need to figure out if the noun or noun phrase that who refers to is in the object position or not.. In "The sandwich's owner, who my dog apologized to, requires a replacement sandwich," the subject of the verb apologized is "my dog"; who is actually the object of the preposition to , which means that whom is the preferred pronoun here:. Yes: because who , while referring to "my cat," is the subject of the predicate "was among those witness to the sandwich consumption.". In this case, who refers again to "my cat," but is the object of the verb believe : "I was eager to believe my cat.". Note, though, that the subject is itself a clause with its own subject and predicate: "Who is on the cat's good side.". This means that our original sentence is indeed technically correct, despite the fact that who appears in what look like an object position, after the verb know :

A few days ago a good friend of mine told me of his growing concern about Sarah Young’s incredibly popular devotional, Jesus Calling .. Summary : Critics have raised questions, but I find Jesus Calling to be scripturally sound, Christ-focused, and reverent.. Lewis referred to as “mere Christianity.” If you were to use this devotional every day for a year you would not come away with a higher view of yourself or of author Sarah Young.. So when we criticize works by other Christians we need to ask ourselves if we are truly guarding the Word of God against heretical distortion, or if we might be criticizing something of redeeming value that we don’t personally like or understand.. In the introduction to Jesus Calling , author Sarah Young gives us some personal background on herself.. And I think that’s reflected in the introduction where she talks about her journaling changing from a monologue to a dialog, saying, “Of course, I knew my writings were not inspired—as only Scripture is—but they were helping me grow closer to God.” She later adds, “The Bible is the only infallible, inerrant Word of God, and I endeavor to keep my writings consistent with that unchanging standard.. Rather she is acknowledging the authority of Scripture and has simply chosen a literary device—that of phrasing her devotions from the perspective of Jesus speaking—as a way to present the truths of Scripture to the reader in a new way.. I don’t see this as necessarily heretical or inappropriate, as long as the reader understands that the words they are reading are Sarah Young’s and as long as those words align with what Scripture teaches.. In the older version Young states, “The practice of being still in God’s presence has increased my intimacy with Him more than any other spiritual discipline, so I want to share some of the messages I have received.” But in the newer edition, that sentence has been edited to instead end with “…so I wanted to share some of the writings I have gleaned from these quiet moments.” Changing “messages I have received” to “writings I have gleaned” could have been in response to some of the controversy that has been raised.. I think this devotional presents itself clearly as Sarah Young’s writings about her time spent seeking God, not teachings on par with Scripture itself.. The literary device Young has chosen could be a bit dangerous in that it makes it easy for some readers to mistake Young’s words as coming directly from the mouth of Jesus.. So it’s incumbent upon the reader of Jesus Calling to bear in mind that while what they are reading may contain a lot of truth, it does not carry the authority of Holy Scripture.. Exert your will to trust Me in all circumstances (Ps 9:10, Ps 20:7, Ps 31:14, Ps 37:5-6, 2 Cor 5:7, James 1:6).. So while critics have raised questions, I personally find Jesus Calling to be scripturally sound, Christ-focused, and reverent.. ” If one were to use this devotional every day for a year, they would not come away with a higher view of themselves or of author Sarah Young.

Before we review the four-step trick for getting who and whom right every time, let’s look at the grammatical difference between these words.. In normal order, the clause reads “we are calling whom.” It should read, “Whom are you calling?” Sentence 7 correctly employs whomever as the object of its own clause, “Whomever we elect for president.” The subject is we , the verb is elect , and the direct object is whomever .. The object of to in sentence 6 is the whole clause “whoever knocks on our door for help,” and in that clause , whoever is the subject of knocks .. Those with incomplete knowledge about prepositions, objects, and noun clauses have, of course, a 50/50 chance of choosing the right word anyway.. For example, in the sentence “I will give the book to whoever wants to read it,” the correct word is whoever , the subject of wants in its own clause.. Let’s try it on sentence 7:. The m words still go together: them , him , whom , and whomever .. The subject of the verb “will be in office” is the entire clause “whomever we elect for president,” not any one word in that clause.. As we said above, fewer and fewer people are using the word whom ; most people choose the less formal who over whom even when the context calls for an object pronoun.

Chagall’s corpus mainly focused on contemporary Jewish. life, particularly in the shtetl; Cohen drew his influences from biblical,. exegetical, and liturgical tradition.. The classical Paytan was not only a poet, but a scholar.. The Psalm calls to mind the. celebratory joy of worship — “Praise God for God’s exceeding greatness.. So,. too, does Cohen’s “Who By Fire” function as a countertext of the Unetaneh. Tokef liturgy; whereas the somber traditional text places us as. submissive and subject to God’s judgement, Cohen introduces a sarcastic. response to God’s call: “And who shall I say is calling?” Cohen challenges us. to think beyond what God’s judgement is to focus on who is handing down the. decrees.. While I would argue that, like “Hallelujah,” the song is inappropriate. in a liturgical context, it can serve as an excellent study question and prompt. for personal thought (in fact, the text can be found as a “Study Text” before Unetaneh. Tokef on page 207 of the Yom Kippur volume of Mishkan. HaNefesh).. This. is what it means to be called Yisrael , to not. only struggle with God, but to follow that struggle with affirmation.. In this. way, Leonard Cohen’s work essentially represents the embodiment of the Jewish. experience.

www.vatican.va Ich wende mich nun an euch, meine geliebten Landsleute, an die Pilger aus Polen, die Brüder im Bischofsamt unter der Leitung eures hervorragenden Primas, die Priester, Schwestern und Brüder, der polnischen Ordensgemeinschaften – euch, Vertreter Polens aus der ganzen Welt.. Da ich seit einiger Zeit täglich im Chat daran erinnert werde (ja ich brauche da ab und zu mal einen Arschtritt ), hab ich gestern mal wieder geübt.. eipcp.net Ich fühle mich sehr geehrt, dass dieser kurze Text, den ich 1997 in Paris geschrieben habe, um meine Solidarität mit der Bewegung der „ Sans-Papiers von Saint-Bernard “ auszudrücken und ihre Bedeutung zu unterstreichen, heute im Rahmen der Unterstützungskampagne für die Refugees im Sigmund-Freud-Park und in der Votivkirche in Wien übersetzt wird und Verbreitung findet.. Ohne mir die Rolle eines Protagonisten zuzuschreiben – die ich damals nicht hatte und die ich auch heute nicht habe –, kann ich dennoch sagen, dass sich in diesem Umstand auch die Kontinuität der Kämpfe von Migrant_innen in Europa manifestiert und die Dringlichkeit der Solidarität, nach der sie ruft.. Aber als sie hineinkam und zu den Betten trat, waren die Kinder alle beide fort: da wurde ihr grausam angst, und sie sprach vor sich 'was willich nun sagen, wenn der Förster heim kommt und sieht, dass die Kinder weg sind?. Es ist schwer zu sagen, welche Bands mit veranlasst haben, Schlagzeug in einer Kombo zu spielen, aber sobald ich da rein gekommen bin und den Metal genauso verstanden habe wie Punk und Hardcore, wusste ich, dass ich ein Teil davon bin!. faustina.ch Anders gesagt, bedeuten die zwei Strahlen die heiligen Sakramente und auch die aus der durchbohrten Seite Christi geborene Heilige Kirche und die Gaben des Heiligen Geistes, deren biblisches Symbol das Wasser ist.. fashion.onblog.at Ich muss sagen, dass Billy Blanks ein äußerst sympathischer Kerlist, der es wirklich versteht, Menschen zu motivieren und Spaß an sportlicher Fitness zu vermitteln.. Es ist wirklich eine Auszeichnung für uns alle, und ich nehme sie stellvertretend für alle an, die für Menschenrechte und Religionsfreiheit einstehen.

+ 15 Und damit stimmen die Worte der PROPHETEN überein, so wie geschrieben steht: 16 ‚Nach diesen Dingen werde ich zurückkehren und die Hütte* Davids, die verfallen ist , wieder aufbauen; und ich werde ihre Trümmer wieder aufbauen und sie wieder aufrichten,+ 17 damit die, die von den Menschen übrigbleiben, zusammen mit Leuten aus allen Nationen, Leuten, die nach meinem Namen genannt sind,* Jehova* ernstlich suchen, spricht Jehova*, der diese Dinge tut,+ 18 die seit alters bekannt sind .‘. . . zurückkehren und die Hütte Davids, die verfallen ist , wieder aufbauen; und ich werde ihre Trümmer wieder aufbauen und sie wieder aufrichten, damit die, die von den Menschen übrig bleiben, zusammen mit Leuten aus allen Nationen, Leuten , die nach meinem Namen genannt sind, Jehova ernstlich suchen, spricht Jehova.“. Und damit stimmen die Worte der Propheten überein, gleichwie geschrieben steht: ,Nach diesen Dingen werde ich zurückkehren und Davids königlichen Palast, der zerfallen ist , wieder aufbauen, und ich werde seine Trümmer wieder aufbauen und ihn wieder aufrichten, damit der Überrest der Menschen ernstlich Jehova suche, zusammen mit Leuten aus allen Nationen, die nach meinem Namen genannt sind, spricht Jehova.‘ “ — Apg.. 22 Pilatus spricht zu ihnen: Was soll ich denn mit Jesu tun, welcher Christus genannt wird ?. 73 Derjenige, der von Gott berufen ist und von Jesus Christus Vollmacht hat zu taufen, soll mit demjenigen oder derjenigen , der oder die zur Taufe erschienen ist, in das Wasser hinabsteigen und, indem er ihn oder sie beim Namen nennt , sprechen : Beauftragt von Jesus Christus, taufe ich dich im Namen des Vaters und des Sohnes und des Heiligen Geistes.. „ Derjenige, der von Gott berufen ist und von Jesus Christus Vollmacht hat zu taufen, soll mit demjenigen oder derjenigen , der oder die zur Taufe erschienen ist, in das Wasser hinabsteigen und, indem er ihn oder sie beim Namen nennt , sprechen : Beauftragt von Jesus Christus, taufe ich dich im Namen des Vaters und des Sohnes und des Heiligen Geistes.

Seldom is itself an adverb (“We seldom go out on weeknights”), making the -ly form redundant and unnecessary.. Adverbs that are not formed with -ly are called flat adverbs , and are perfectly correct and idiomatic: think of drive safe and sleep tight. It sometimes seems that whom and whomever are now simply used when people want to sound formal—whether correctly deployed or not .. ( ”You” is actually the subject of the sentence, and “whom” is the object of “to” ). ( ”We” is the subject of the sentence, and “whom” is the object of “hire” ). The following hypercorrections substitute whom or whomever where who or whoever is called for:. For objects, me is always correct:. You can check to see if you’re correct by eliminating the compound subject: for “Come to lunch with Mary and I ,” remove “Mary,” and you get “Come to lunch with I ,” which your ear will tell you is wrong.. Compounds ending in '-ly', such as "smartly dressed," are not hyphenated either before or after a noun.. Pronouncing words borrowed from French can be tricky, especially those with a silent letter at the end.. When words that include a \j\ sound look like borrowings from a foreign language (usually because they are), English speakers sometimes substitute \zh\ for the \j\ sound, probably because \zh\ seems somehow to be a more correct foreign sound than \j.

Wen darf ich bitte melden ?. + 15 Und damit stimmen die Worte der PROPHETEN überein, so wie geschrieben steht: 16 ‚Nach diesen Dingen werde ich zurückkehren und die Hütte* Davids, die verfallen ist , wieder aufbauen; und ich werde ihre Trümmer wieder aufbauen und sie wieder aufrichten,+ 17 damit die, die von den Menschen übrigbleiben, zusammen mit Leuten aus allen Nationen, Leuten, die nach meinem Namen genannt sind,* Jehova* ernstlich suchen, spricht Jehova*, der diese Dinge tut,+ 18 die seit alters bekannt sind .‘. . . zurückkehren und die Hütte Davids, die verfallen ist , wieder aufbauen; und ich werde ihre Trümmer wieder aufbauen und sie wieder aufrichten, damit die, die von den Menschen übrig bleiben, zusammen mit Leuten aus allen Nationen, Leuten , die nach meinem Namen genannt sind, Jehova ernstlich suchen, spricht Jehova.“. Und damit stimmen die Worte der Propheten überein, gleichwie geschrieben steht: ,Nach diesen Dingen werde ich zurückkehren und Davids königlichen Palast, der zerfallen ist , wieder aufbauen, und ich werde seine Trümmer wieder aufbauen und ihn wieder aufrichten, damit der Überrest der Menschen ernstlich Jehova suche, zusammen mit Leuten aus allen Nationen, die nach meinem Namen genannt sind, spricht Jehova.‘ “ — Apg.. 22 Pilatus spricht zu ihnen: Was soll ich denn mit Jesu tun, welcher Christus genannt wird ?. 73 Derjenige, der von Gott berufen ist und von Jesus Christus Vollmacht hat zu taufen, soll mit demjenigen oder derjenigen , der oder die zur Taufe erschienen ist, in das Wasser hinabsteigen und, indem er ihn oder sie beim Namen nennt , sprechen : Beauftragt von Jesus Christus, taufe ich dich im Namen des Vaters und des Sohnes und des Heiligen Geistes.. „ Derjenige, der von Gott berufen ist und von Jesus Christus Vollmacht hat zu taufen, soll mit demjenigen oder derjenigen , der oder die zur Taufe erschienen ist, in das Wasser hinabsteigen und, indem er ihn oder sie beim Namen nennt , sprechen : Beauftragt von Jesus Christus, taufe ich dich im Namen des Vaters und des Sohnes und des Heiligen Geistes.

Native English speakers naturally use distinct forms for the subjective and objective case of the personal pronouns I/me, he/him, she/her, and they/them.. It is called " pied-piping " of prepositional phrases: it occurs when a prepositional phrase containing a relative or interrogative pronoun is fronted as a whole.. As thesunneversets mentions in a comment , this sentence with pied-piping sounds pedantic and fairly “stuffy” to many people, although it is considered to be grammatically correct.. Still, it may be true that "who" would sound better than "that" in this sentence.). "With whom am I doing the project" sounds more formal, at least a bit unnatural, but it's OK also.. "Whom am I doing the project with" sounds funny to some people (including me) but OK to others; "With who am I doing the project" sound pretty bad and is never advisable.. In questions of this type, the pronoun who would be used in normal/colloquial speech as the object of with , and whom can be used as a more formal variant.. With, like any other English preposition, takes an object/complement in the objective case.. The pronoun whom is only used as an objective form; it's optional in most contexts.

And with this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written, ‘After these things I shall return and rebuild the booth of David that is fallen down; and I shall rebuild its ruins and erect it again, in order that those who remain of the men may earnestly seek Jehovah, together with people of all the nations, people who are called by my name, says Jehovah, who is doing these things, known from of old.’” —Acts 15:13-18.. A z tym zgadzają się słowa Proroków, tak jak jest napisane: ‚Potem wrócę i odbuduję upadły szałas Dawidowy; i odbuduję jego ruiny, i na nowo go postawię, aby pozostali ludzie pilnie szukali Jehowy wespół z ludźmi ze wszystkich narodów — nazwanymi od mego imienia, mówi Jehowa, który czyni te rzeczy, znane od dawna’” (Dzieje 15:13-18).. This daring teacher proclaimed that man was very closely related to God, saying : “Every one who is called by my name I have created for my glory, and they shall show forth my praise.. 97:7.10 Ten śmiały nauczyciel głosił, że człowiek jest bardzo blisko związany z Bogiem: „Wszystkich, którzy nazwani są moim imieniem, stworzyłem dla swojej sławy i będą zwiastować im moją chwałę.. 97:7.10 This daring teacher proclaimed that man was very closely related to God, saying : "Every one who is called by my name I have created for my glory, and they shall show forth my praise.. (1069.5) 97:7.10 Ten śmiały nauczyciel głosił, że człowiek jest bardzo blisko związany z Bogiem: „Wszystkich, którzy nazwani są moim imieniem, stworzyłem dla swojej sławy i będą zwiastować im moją chwałę.. 97:7.10 (1069-5) This daring teacher proclaimed that man was very closely related to God, saying : “Every one who is called by my name I have created for my glory, and they shall show forth my praise.. (1069.5) 97:7.10 Ten śmiały nauczyciel głosił, że człowiek jest bardzo blisko związany z Bogiem: „Wszystkich, którzy nazwani są moim imieniem, stworzyłem dla swojej sławy i będą zwiastować im moją chwałę.. 97:7.9 (1069.4) śmiały nauczyciel głosił, że człowiek jest bardzo blisko związany z Bogiem: „Wszystkich, którzy nazwani są moim imieniem, stworzyłem dla swojej sławy i będą zwiastować im moją chwałę.. He declared that “God would not forget, would not This daring teacher proclaimed that man was very closely related to God, saying : “Every one who is called by my name I have created for my glory, and they shall show forth my praise.. (1069.5) 97:7.10 Ten śmiały nauczyciel głosił, że człowiek jest bardzo blisko związany z Bogiem: „Wszystkich, którzy nazwani są moim imieniem, stworzyłem dla swojej sławy i będą zwiastować im moją chwałę.

www.vatican.va Ich wende mich nun an euch, meine geliebten Landsleute, an die Pilger aus Polen, die Brüder im Bischofsamt unter der Leitung eures hervorragenden Primas, die Priester, Schwestern und Brüder, der polnischen Ordensgemeinschaften – euch, Vertreter Polens aus der ganzen Welt.. eipcp.net Ich fühle mich sehr geehrt, dass dieser kurze Text, den ich 1997 in Paris geschrieben habe, um meine Solidarität mit der Bewegung der „ Sans-Papiers von Saint-Bernard “ auszudrücken und ihre Bedeutung zu unterstreichen, heute im Rahmen der Unterstützungskampagne für die Refugees im Sigmund-Freud-Park und in der Votivkirche in Wien übersetzt wird und Verbreitung findet.. Ohne mir die Rolle eines Protagonisten zuzuschreiben – die ich damals nicht hatte und die ich auch heute nicht habe –, kann ich dennoch sagen, dass sich in diesem Umstand auch die Kontinuität der Kämpfe von Migrant_innen in Europa manifestiert und die Dringlichkeit der Solidarität, nach der sie ruft.. Aber als sie hineinkam und zu den Betten trat, waren die Kinder alle beide fort: da wurde ihr grausam angst, und sie sprach vor sich 'was willich nun sagen, wenn der Förster heim kommt und sieht, dass die Kinder weg sind?. Es ist schwer zu sagen, welche Bands mit veranlasst haben, Schlagzeug in einer Kombo zu spielen, aber sobald ich da rein gekommen bin und den Metal genauso verstanden habe wie Punk und Hardcore, wusste ich, dass ich ein Teil davon bin!

Videos

1. Ada Ehi - Congratulations ft Buchi | The Official Video
(Ada Ehi)
2. Tracy Chapman - Give Me One Reason (Official Music Video)
(Tracy Chapman)
3. The Weeknd - Blinding Lights (Lyrics)
(7clouds)
4. 2WEI, Joznez, Kataem - Ready For War (Official Lyric Video & Audio)
(2WEI)
5. Alma leave the family & a man is missing on our island! VLOG
(THE SWEDISH FAMILY)
6. Arctic Monkeys - Why'd You Only Call Me When You're High? (Official Video)
(Official Arctic Monkeys)

You might also like

Latest Posts

Article information

Author: Rueben Jacobs

Last Updated: 09/22/2022

Views: 5539

Rating: 4.7 / 5 (77 voted)

Reviews: 92% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Rueben Jacobs

Birthday: 1999-03-14

Address: 951 Caterina Walk, Schambergerside, CA 67667-0896

Phone: +6881806848632

Job: Internal Education Planner

Hobby: Candle making, Cabaret, Poi, Gambling, Rock climbing, Wood carving, Computer programming

Introduction: My name is Rueben Jacobs, I am a cooperative, beautiful, kind, comfortable, glamorous, open, magnificent person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.