What is a clause?

[GoesStation]

Some cases require whoever. For example, Whoever chose that color should have thought harder.

 

[PaulMatthews]

Is it correct to change 'whoever' (which I'm uncomfortable with, frankly speaking, because I've never used it myself ) to 'who'?
Who took them remains a mystery.
If so, in the following question, is 'who' a subject?
Who took them?

The fact that you're uncomfortable with it has no bearing on the grammar. In fact "whoever" is perfectly natural and very common and, as it happens, is not replaceable with "who":

[1] Whoever who took them remains a mystery.

[2] *Who took them remains a mystery.

"Whoever" and "who" are not interchangeable. [1] is fine, where the underlined element is (as I have already explained) a noun phrase in a fused relative construction. But [2] is ungrammatical, since "who" is not permitted here. There are severe restrictions on the use of "who" in fused relative constructions. It is virtually restricted to the free choice construction, for example in You can invite whoever/who you like, where it is an acceptable alternant of "whoever".

[3] Who took them.

This is different altogether -- it's an interrogative main clause with "who" as subject.

 

[PaulMatthews]

Then, in the following sentence, the underlined part is a clause, right? (Taking into consideration that, in the question 'Who took them', the word 'who' is a subject.)
Who took them remains a mystery.

No, it's ungrammatical. See my last reply.

 

[jutfrank]

Just as a little exercise in pedantry, for those like me who are interested in this kind of thing, let me put the grammar aside for a moment and focus on the sense of the sentence.

If we understand the word a mystery in its normal sense, defined loosely as 'something that is unknown', then

(The person) who took them remains a mystery.

is not right as it doesn't make sense. The point is it's the identity of the person that is unknown, not the person himself. It makes a little more sense with whoever, if we paraphrase whoever as

The person who fits the description x in "x took them" remains a mystery.

This is slightly better in that the subject is at least hinting at some sense of identity. As I said, it's the identity that's unknown, not the person.

Another way of understanding it could be to pose the subject as an unanswered question:

'Who took them?' remains a mystery.

But that's not right either, since it is the answer that is unknown, not the question itself. However, if we take our working definition of a mystery as 'an unanswered question', then it does make sense.

Finally, we can avoid all this if, in the first place, by a mystery, we mean 'something that is unidentified'. Now

(The person) who took them remains a mystery.

is correct and makes sense.

(Okay, it's Sunday and I don't have anything better to do!)

 

[GeneD]

If you replace "whoever" with "who", you change the construction altogether.

In "Whoever took them remains a mystery", the underlined bit is a noun phrase (as I have already explained), whereas in "Who took them remains a mystery", it's a subordinate interrogative complement clause whose meaning is "The answer to the question 'who took them?' remains a mystery."

"Who took them" is different altogether -- it's an interrogative main clause with "who" as subject.

I've read your explanation, of course. The reason why I asked is that it looks as if there isn't only one way to rephrase the sentence ('Whoever took them'). Having made a question from it, it became obvious to me that 'Whoever took them' is a clause. Moreover, in the grammar book I mentioned in the first post, the author called it a clause. And it was exactly with 'whoever' (not 'who'). So it also looks as if there isn't only one opinion about this sentence and the underlined part in it. I remember Piscean also called it a clause in post 2.

Secondly, I don't see any cardinal difference between the two sentences ("Who took them" and "Whoever took them"). There might be a slight change in meaning, but not that big, as I see it. (Historically 'whoever' could have been two separate words. Just a guess.) I wonder if Piscean saying that the sentence with 'whoever' could be rephrased with just 'who' instead (in post 25) sees a big difference in meaning.

 

[GeneD]

'Who took them?' remains a mystery...

(The person) who took them remains a mystery.

is correct and makes sense.

But 'who' can function also "as a relative pronoun (referring back to a person and starting a relative clause)" (I'm quoting from the dictionary.)

I want to speak to the person who deals with my account.

So replacing the 'person' with 'who' may not be that incorrect. What do you think?

(Okay, it's Sunday and I don't have anything better to do!)

You are definitely not the only one who has nothing to do on Sunday. :-D

 

[jutfrank]

But 'who' can function also "as a relative pronoun (referring back to a person and starting a relative clause)" (I'm quoting from the dictionary.)

I want to speak to the person who deals with my account.

Sure.

So replacing the 'person' with 'who' may not be that incorrect. What do you think?

My point was that it doesn't matter if you replace the person with who because it still doesn't make sense, with that particular use of the word mystery.

By the way, regarding your other point about whoever:

Who took them? This is a clause and an acceptable sentence.
Whoever took them? This is not generally accepted as an equivalent sentence as it's not a clause. It's just a noun phrase.

Interestingly, though, it is acceptable when used in a different way, more rhetorically, as a way of expressing surprise at the action:

Whoever took them?! This means something like 'Who on Earth took them?!'

 

[PaulMatthews]

I've read your explanation, of course. The reason why I asked is that it looks as if there isn't only one way to rephrase the sentence ('Whoever took them'). Having made a question from it, it became obvious to me that 'Whoever took them' is a clause. Moreover, in the grammar book I mentioned in the first post, the author called it a clause. And it was exactly with 'whoever' (not 'who'). So it also looks as if there isn't only one opinion about this sentence and the underlined part in it. I remember Piscean also called it a clause in post 2.

Secondly, I don't see any cardinal difference between the two sentences ("Who took them" and "Whoever took them"). There might be a slight change in meaning, but not that big, as I see it. (Historically 'whoever' could have been two separate words. Just a guess.) I wonder if Piscean saying that the sentence with 'whoever' could be rephrased with just 'who' instead (in post 25) sees a big difference in meaning.

No! "Whoever took them" is not a clause, but a noun phrase. I've already told you this twice. Please try to understand this.

The author who called it a clause is wrong. It's as simple as that.

There is a difference between "who took them" and "whoever took them" when used in subordinate clauses, since the former is ungrammatical. You'll just have to accept what we are telling you.

Again, as I've already told you, "who" and "whoever" are not interchangeable in fused relative constructions like the ones we've been discussing.