[Grammar] new captain whom you must

[Oceanlike]

I cannot decide if I should put 2 commas because when I remove the "non-restrictive" clause, it doesn't make sense, "He is the new baseball captain for the annual magazine.

(a) He is the new baseball captain whom you must take a photograph of for the annual magazine.
(b) He is the new baseball captain, whom you must take a photograph of, for the annual magazine.

I think I should write (a), without the commas.

 

[emsr2d2]

Why do you need to write it so formally? It's very unlikely in everyday English.

He's the new baseball captain. You need to photograph him for the annual magazine.
He's the new baseball captain and you need to photograph him for the annual magazine.
He's the new baseball captain you need to photograph for the annual magazine.

 

[jutfrank]

To answer your question directly: the first comma is necessary, since a non-defining clause follows, but the second comma is wrong, since for the annual magazine belongs to the red part, not the blue part.

He is the new baseball captain, whom you must take a photograph of for the annual magazine.

You should note emsr2d2's point about it being too formal, though.

 

[Oceanlike]

Oh I'm practising the use of the relative pronoun don't mean to be so formal.

The third example: He's the new baseball captain you need to photograph for the annual magazine.

Question: There is no need for a relative pronoun between "captain" and "you"? Why?

 

[jutfrank]

Question: There is no need for a relative pronoun between "captain" and "you"? Why?

When the pronoun is the object of the main verb of the relative clause (in this case, photograph), you can omit it. When it's the subject, you can't.

 

[emsr2d2]

Oh, I'm practising the use of the relative pronoun. I don't mean to be so formal.

The third example: He's the new baseball captain you need to photograph for the annual magazine.

Question: There is no need for a relative pronoun between "captain" and "you". Why?

Note my changes above. Don't try to make your own emoticons. If you really need one, click on the icon in the toolbar and choose one.

 

[Oceanlike]

When the pronoun is the object of the main verb of the relative clause (in this case, photograph), you can omit it. When it's the subject, you can't.

I don't understand your explanation. Can you explain in another way?

 

[PaulMatthews]

The same is true for 3b - you can't omit it, and 4b and 5b - you can.

4a. He is doctor. I gave him (indirect object) a cigar.
4b. He is the doctor who(m) (indirect object) I gave a cigar.

I'd say that, in general, indirect objects cannot be relativised, so 4b is ungrammatical.

Instead, the recipient would occur as object of a preposition, as in

[5a] He is the doctor to whom I gave a cigar

or

[5b] He is the doctor whom I gave a cigar to ____

where "whom" is not indirect object, but object of the preposition "to".

 

[Phaedrus]

I cannot decide if I should put 2 commas because when I remove the "non-restrictive" clause, it doesn't make sense, "He is the new baseball captain for the annual magazine.

(a) He is the new baseball captain whom you must take a photograph of for the annual magazine.
(b) He is the new baseball captain, whom you must take a photograph of, for the annual magazine.

I think I should write (a), without the commas.

The relative clause is worth setting off with a comma if there is only one new baseball captain, because that would mean that the relative clause is nonrestrictive, and nonrestrictive relative clauses are conventionally rendered nonrestrictive in writing by being set off by a comma.

If you do set the relative clause off with a comma, you will have to begin the clause either with who or with whom. Zero relative clauses don't work in nonrestrictive relative clauses: *[strike]He is the new baseball captain, you must take a picture of for the annual magazine[/strike].

And that-relatives aren't an option in nonrestrictive relative clauses in modern English. Nor are which-relatives when the antecedent of the relative pronoun is human. So your hand will be forced to choose between who and whom. Since the syntax calls for accusative case, why not be daring and use whom?

(c) He is the new baseball captain, whom you must take a photograph of for the annual magazine.
(d) He is the new baseball captain, of whom you must take a photograph for the annual magazine.
(e) He is the new baseball captain, whom you must photograph for the annual magazine.

Notice that in none of those examples is there a comma before the for-phrase, which would be incorrect, just as it is in (b).

 

[Tarheel]

Oceanlike, generally speaking, we use commas. We don't put them. However, you might use put if you are talking about a specific instance of usage. So you might say "Put a comma after captain."