[Grammar] it was they whom

[DANAU]

Hi.

On the use of pronouns, the general rule says that "they" & "who" will always go together under subjective case, while "them" & "whom" will
always go together under objective case.

There is however one part, mentioned in "The Little, Brown Handbook" by Fowler & Aaron, which I am confused with.

The section quoted below is extracted from the book:

"After a linking verb, such as a form of to be, a pronoun renaming the subject (a subject complement) should be in the subjective case:
It was they whom the mayor appointed"

I would have thought the correct construction would be "It was them whom the mayor appointed" or "It was they who the mayor appointed"
In the example given, it is clear that the 3rd person pronoun is under objective case, so I do not understand why the book says that
subjective case "they" should be used instead.

 

[GoesStation]

This is not a sentence you should worry about as few if any native speakers would ever say it. We'd say something like "They were the ones the mayor appointed."

 

[DANAU]

Hi GoesStation.

I think you are right because the author went on to say "If this construction sounds stilted to you, the more natural order: The mayor appointed them"

So the author is probably constructing that sentence for illustration purpose, and such construction is rare.

 

[Rover_KE]

I would have thought the correct construction would be "It was them whom the mayor appointed"

Strictly speaking, the verb to be takes subjective pronouns:

It is I who needed help.
It was she who passed wind.
It's he who gets drunk every night.

(Though a lot of native English-speakers ignore it.)

 

[TheParser]

NOT A TEACHER

Danau, there is also a social reason why people may break the traditional rule.

Let's say that a big tough muscular guy knocks on a friend's door, and the friend inside asks, "Who is it?" The big tough guy would certainly answer "It is me." Even if he knew the rule, he would never reply "It is I." If he did, some people might wonder why he was speaking like that.

 

[Phaedrus]

On the use of pronouns, the general rule says that "they" & "who" will always go together under subjective case, while "them" & "whom" will
always go together under objective case. . . .

"After a linking verb, such as a form of to be, a pronoun renaming the subject (a subject complement) should be in the subjective case:
It was they whom the mayor appointed"

I would have thought the correct construction would be "It was them whom the mayor appointed" or "It was they who the mayor appointed"

The question whether to use they or them in that sentence should be considered independently of the question whether to use who or whom. Each pronoun is part of a different clause and has a syntactic role distinct from that of the other.

In the matrix clause, It was [pronoun], the pronoun functions as a subject complement. Subject complements take subjective case (It was they) in traditional grammar. Few are those who would say It was they in modern American English.

In the relative clause, [pronoun] the mayor appointed, the relative pronoun functions as the direct object of the verb of that clause (appointed). In traditional grammar, relative pronouns functioning as objects take objective case (whom).

It was they whom the mayor appointed.
It was they. The mayor appointed them.
It was they. *[strike]The mayor appointed they.[/strike]

To see the importance of considering the pronoun in the context of its clause, consider that traditional grammar would require subjective case (who, not whom, in the relative clause) if that clause were in the passive voice:

It was they who were appointed by the mayor.
It was they.They were appointed by the mayor.
It was they. *[strike]Them were appointed by the mayor.[/strike]

I saw this thread a couple of days ago. This post was inspired by a very old poem I just came across, by the Duke d'Orleans (1394-1464):

"Is she not passing fair,
She whom I love so well?"

- Charles d'Orleans (here)

The spelling of that couplet has been modernized from the Middle English spelling, which, fortunately for this forum, I have not yet been able to find.