[Ads-l] that:who::whom:which?

[Laurence Horn]

> On Apr 18, 2016, at 12:32 PM, Joel Berson <berson at ATT.NET> wrote:
> 
> Larry, I think you answered a question I didn't ask.  I am interested in the "whom" of "its parent to whom it is genetically identical".  Shouldn't the "whom" be "which", to parallel the earlier "that"?  (And one can't use "that" in "to that it is genetically identical".)

Good point.  But for me, "which" isn't parallel to "that", in that the former is <-animate> just as "who(m)" is <+animate>, so whatever decision is made when you "pied-pipe" the preposition (Ross's term for prepositions that accompany a fronted wh- word) involves marking ("to whom" or "to which") what in the non-fronted case is unmarked ("An animal or (theoretically) a person that is..."), or leaving it unmarked and producing ungrammaticality, as you note ("to that").  No good solution here, which we might be tempted to invoke as an argument against cloning except for the fact that it would extend to cute little Fido and Tabby.  Maybe it's just an argument against pied-piping, since recourse could always be had to "that it is genetically identical to".  

LH
> 
> 
> From: Laurence Horn <laurence.horn at yale.edu>
> To: Joel Berson <berson at att.net> 
> Cc: American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 12:03 PM
> Subject: Re: that:who::whom:which?
> 
> I would think that here, as in many other contexts, "that" is used precisely to avoid the decision between "who" and "which", such as cases in which animals are the antecedents (especially pets):  a dog {that/?who/?which} had just been hit by a car...  Similarly for clones, I'd expect.  It's sort of like "that" is the "they" of relative pronouns.
> 
> LH
> 
> 
> > On Apr 18, 2016, at 11:53 AM, Joel Berson <berson at ATT.NET> wrote:
> > 
> > While looking in the OED for anything under "clone", n., that might relate to Wilson's question, I noticed sense 1.c.  "An animal or (theoretically) a person that is developed asexually from its parent to whom it is genetically identical."
> > 
> > If one has used "that" in the first clause rather than "who" (because cloned persons are only theoretical?), then instead of "whom" in the second clause shouldn't one use "which"?
> > 
> > Joel
> > 
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > The American Dialect Society -
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.americandialect.org&d=AwIFaQ&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=wFp3X4Mu39hB2bf13gtz0ZpW1TsSxPIWYiZRsMFFaLQ&m=mALTGrx-LxyYc02nmza8h0S227nubqb1um8KNMtvKXs&s=VWrx2aCbGuzaxE3xf86T8wvEoRK6fCKjoeYd5v4L0VQ&e=
> 
> 
> 

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org