24

Could anyone explain why this sentence is considered ungrammatical?

You often hear quite literate people saying hideously ungrammatical things such as: "He is the kind of person who, if he had lived in the 19th century, people would not have been able to categorise him."
Source: Melvyn's rules for the conversation game (article from the Independent)
  • 3
    Remark as a German: Although the sentence is a bit complicated, for a German speaker it is obvious that it should be "He is the kind of person whom, if he had lived in the 19th century, people would not have been able to categorise." The "whom" is the object, and in German one would not be allowed to replace it with "who". Maybe the felt need to add an object, as the English "who" is unrecognisable as such, is what led the author of that sentence to add the redundant "him"; since "who" is the kind of word which, if used instead of "whom", people are not easily able to categorise. – Torsten Schoeneberg Jan 10 at 16:10
  • 8
    In speech it's perfectly normal to shift your line of thought and how you're expressing things. "He is the kind of person who, if he had lived in the 19th century [transition] ...people would not have been able to categorise him." It's only the transcription as provided that is rough to parse. Literacy is not speech, speech is not writing, and writing comes from speech, not the other way around. – Jan Kyu Peblik Jan 10 at 18:41
  • 1
    @TorstenSchoeneberg but since case is so very weak in modern English, "whom" sounds somewhat pedantic, and "who" is perfectly normal as an object. Anyone who uses "who" as an object, which is pretty much every native English speaker at least in some registers, will not necessarily feel a need to add an object-case pronoun. In other words, your statement that "who" is "unrecognizable" as an object is not true for a huge proportion of the population. I never understood "whom" until I was 20, when I started learning German. – phoog Jan 11 at 8:24
  • 2
    @phoog As somebody being in a bilingual family I find that Torsten's observation likely touches the underlying reason of the un-grammaticality here. The construction "A person who ..." intuitively implies "who" as the subject in nominative, and that leads to a case (and subject/object) "hybridization" in this case where it is actually an object, if you want. Additionally the person is in quite a central position as the object; the people not recognizing him are just side kicks. – Peter A. Schneider Jan 11 at 10:06
  • 2
    @PeterA.Schneider Ok, but you are in a bilingual family. The vast majority of native speakers of modern English are not, and most of them have no idea about the "correct" use of whom (I certainly hear things like "tell me whom is waiting" with alarming frequency). I suspect that whatever's going on here is something else, and I would be unsurprised, for example, if that phenomenon led someone to say "he is the kind of person who, if he had lived in the 19th century, he would not have been able to categorize people." – phoog Jan 11 at 15:13
43

First, as others have pointed out in the comments, the sentence uses "who" when it should use "whom." Even native speakers fail to correctly distinguish between "who" and "whom". It is common for "who" to be used in all cases, but this is not recommended in formal speech or writing. I have made that correction throughout the rest of the answer. However, there is a larger issue in the sentence, which I believe is the intended focus in the original source.


I think the issue becomes clearer if you omit the nonessential clause "if he had lived in the 19th century".

He is the kind of person whom people would not have been able to categorise him.

One could write "People would not have been able to categorise him." as a complete sentence, or one could write "whom people would not have been able to categorise" as a relative clause describing "person". However, the example sentence combines the two, beginning as a relative clause and ending with another pronoun "him". In this sentence "whom" is already the object of "to categorise".

We can remove "him" and reintroduce the nonessential clause to get the correct sentence:

He is the kind of person whom, if he had lived in the 19th century, people would not have been able to categorise.

The nonessential clause interrupts the flow of the sentence, which can make it more likely to miss mistakes like this one both in reading and in writing. While the sentence is now correct, an even better sentence might be:

He is the kind of person whom people would not have been able to categorise, had he lived in the 19th century.

  • 18
    The odd thing is, on first read, the sentence sounds convoluted but acceptable -- but when you really look at it, it's clear where the error lies. – Andrew Jan 9 at 21:19
  • 9
    @Andrew Which is why "quite literate people" will say things like it. You have to do detailed analysis to see how the frame of reference changed across the parenthetical. I think the categorization as "hideously ungrammatical" is a bit of an exaggeration, too. – Barmar Jan 9 at 23:20
  • 3
    Resumptive pronouns (which is what him is here) are not standard English, but they are used in some other languages and (I think) in some dialects of English. – Colin Fine Jan 9 at 23:44
  • 9
    Removing the "him" would certainly fix the sentence, but I would additionally change the "who" for "whom." – Carlos Arturo Serrano Jan 10 at 1:53
  • 4
    I'm fairly certain that this sentence should also be using "whom," as evidenced by the original sentence using "him." – jpmc26 Jan 10 at 5:58
11

As Tashus says, this breaks the general rule that resumptive pronouns are ungrammatical in English, however, if "You often hear quite literate people saying [this]" (i.e. presumably native speakers who speak a prestige dialect), then this instance is grammatical. The rule needs to adapt to encompass modern usage (I'm reminded of people becrying split infinitives).

Wikipedia goes into more depth about the contexts in which resumptive pronouns are seen as grammatical:

... in English, "relative clauses with resumptive pronouns are officially ungrammatical [...] However, they are in fact not uncommon in speech". However, their grammaticality is influenced by linear distance from the subject, embedded depth, and extractability...

In a relative clause, resumptive pronouns are generally not seen as grammatical, however their level of grammaticality improves as they get farther from the head.

In short sentences without a subordinate clause, they are clearly ungrammatical:

He's the one who people categorised *him.

The exact rules for grammaticality aren't well understood, but broadly, the further the pronoun gets from the subject (e.g. the longer the subordinate clause is), the more acceptable it sounds (at what length is dialect dependent). The following may or may not sound acceptable:

He's the one who, had he lived then, people wouldn't've categorised (*)him.

And at the other end we have the example sentence from our "even quite literate people":

He is the kind of person who, if he had lived in the 19th century, people would not have been able to categorise him.

New contributor
ukemi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering. Check out our Code of Conduct.
  • 6
    +1 I agree that this sentence is not necessarily flat-out ungrammatical. And mostly because of this answer. I think I would say it's nonstandard and would normally be edited to drop the pronoun at the end. But I don't think I'd go so far as to say it's completely unacceptable. – Jason Bassford Jan 10 at 4:18
  • 3
    I would consider it ungrammatical in all these cases; the distance between the pronoun and the subject does not make it less ungrammatical, it just makes it less likely that the ungrammaticality will be noticed. – Michael Kay Jan 10 at 10:50
  • 4
    @MichaelKay this isn't just some written 'trick', this is something native speakers actually say - if native speakers say it, it is grammatical (at least in their dialect). – ukemi Jan 10 at 12:09
  • 3
    @ukemi It's simply wrong to assert that if native speakers say something, it is necessarily grammatical, even in their dialect. The sentence in question is the sort of mistake that I might make (and don't doubt I have made) if I lost the thread of a sentence while speaking. But it's still ungrammatical in my dialect. – Especially Lime Jan 10 at 12:40
  • 4
    @EspeciallyLime true, I was being terse - what I meant was, if native speakers frequently use a construction, and think it well formed, and their audience also think it well formed, that is grammatical. Because it doesn't follow an (often outdated) set of prescriptive rules doesn't mean it's ungrammatical (e.g. who replacing whom in almost all modern dialects). – ukemi Jan 10 at 12:54
7

He is the kind of person who, if he had lived in the 19th century, people would not have been able to categorise him.

This is a rhetorical device known as anacoluthon. The grammatical structure of the sentence shifts as the sentence is spoken — or, you could view it as, two different sentence structures have been smushed together into a single sentence. (Did you notice, I did it there. And (arguably) again!)

The two sentence structures smushed into this one sentence are (with the primary subject/verb in bold):

He is the kind of person who would not have been categorizable by anyone in the 19th century.
If he had lived in the 19th century, people would not have been able to categorize him.

The actual sentence spoken ends up smushing the two grammatical sentences together, typically with a moment of grammatical confusion (indicated by a comma or dash) in the middle.

Wikipedia gives several examples of anacoluthon in English, including Milton's

Had ye been there – for what could that have done?

The two sentence structures smushed up here are

Had ye been there, you could have done something. (Well, actually, no, nothing— never mind.)
It's okay that you weren't there, for what could that have done?

The implication is that the speaker changes his mind halfway through the line.

In your original example, the speaker has not changed his mind about what he wants to say; he's just made a little tweak to how he wants to say it.


For an extreme example — in which the extreme disorder of the words does (well, is implied to) reflect the extreme disorder of ideas behind them — look at Fred Armisen's "Nicholas Fehn" character on Saturday Night Live.

https://twitter.com/sarahcpr/status/760657101404327936

You know, it's— it's the reason... I wake up— I wake up, like, anybody— I was taught... Every— well, most Americans, if you— Education. Any— any border, if Helsinki, if Oslo— I think— any publication, we would— isn't it integral, isn't it the most important— it's the substance, the very idea, that we can unite, that makes me feel, personally—

  • 3
    I was going to say that that last example read a lot like something our current president would say... And then I saw that the tweet you linked said exactly that :P – V2Blast Jan 10 at 20:17

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.