Who do you WANT to see win Footlocker?

HardLoper wrote:

p.n. wrote:

Any kid who knows how and when to use "whom."

Not in this case. The OP used it correctly. "Who" is the subject of a dependent clause.

OK, I appreciate the so-called grammar nazis around here. I'm always trying to learn.

Now, a former grammar nazi said something like the following on a thread some time back (and I have been using this rule since then).

To know whether to use 'who' or 'whom' just substitute 'he' or 'him' and see which fits (one may have to change the sentence around a bit or turn a question into an answer in order to do so). 'he' => 'who' 'him' => 'whom'

So, in this case I would have looked at the sentence "Who/m do you want to see win Footlocker?" and given the answer, "I would want to see him win Footlocker". This suggests that 'whom' is correct.

And yet you say otherwise. Is the rule formerly given by said grammar nazi incorrect? If so, what is the 'easy' way for one to get this right every time?

Thanks in advance.

I honestly think it would be cool if a low seeded " no name " came from behind and won it.

Futsum Zeinasellassie. That poor guy's gotta win something

Also from CT, so naturally I'm rooting for Ostberg

Luigi of XC wrote:

Futsum Zeinasellassie. That poor guy's gotta win something

HAHAHAHAHA

I WANT to see Mikey Brannigan, but he didn't even qualify, so that wish is shot. My next choice would probably be Benito Muniz since he now has super fast cooties since kissing(?) Mary Cain. For the Gals, I want to see N'gnangoran Assinzo to win, though, she too did not qualify, even with that boss name. My real pick for the girls is Ryen Frazier.

Dressler!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Grammar Novice wrote:

Grammar stuff

You're right, I was wrong, it's not a dependent clause after all.

Matthew Maton because I'm an Oregonian

Rootin' for Andrew Hunter because he's from my neck of the woods and he's a charming young feller. Nothin' against the other dudes, but I have to go with Andrew. He's so bright and sweet and frieakin fast.

You changed the original sentence from a question to a statement. Leaving it in question form, one arrives at "he" not "him"

Is he the runner you want to see win at Footlocker?

Is him the runner you want to see win at Footlocker?

I would want to see he win Footlocker.

I would want to see him win Footlocker.

At the very least, I hope you see the flaw in your "rule"

Bill Brasky out of the northeast. Man among boys.

Runcogrun wrote:

You changed the original sentence from a question to a statement. Leaving it in question form, one arrives at "he" not "him"

Is he the runner you want to see win at Footlocker?

Is him the runner you want to see win at Footlocker?

I would want to see he win Footlocker.

I would want to see him win Footlocker.

At the very least, I hope you see the flaw in your "rule"

No, the process that GN used was correct. The problem with your substituted questions is that an implicit pronoun is missing. I'll make it explicit:

Is he [correct] the runner whom [correct] you want to see win at Footlocker?

In the thread title's question, "who" would be appropriate only if the verb (somehow) were "wins," as in: "Hey, turn on the cable feed--don't you want to see who [correct] wins Footlocker?" But the verb in the title is "win" and not "wins," which is a clue.

This all would be easier to explain with sentence diagramming, but a) I don't see how you could do that on this site, and b) almost no one who went to grammar school in the last 40 years was taught diagramming anyway!

John dressel

Ostberg

Kenya!

Jordan Hasay

I'd like to see Dressel, Fisher, Hunter, Maton and Tamagno together on the last big downhill. Dressel takes off wildly, the others stay right with him. Dressel trips in front and all five go down. Whoever (whomever? whichever? whatever!) gets up and charges on to win is who I want to see take it. Then they have a royal rumble WWF style brawl after the finish. Total mayhem. And the news would eat it up. XC would be king for a day.

Yes, one must change the question into the corresponding answer. But this isn't difficult. Nor is it ambiguous.

The corresponding answer to "Who/m do you WANT to see win Footlocker?" is clearly "I want to see him win Footlocker."

Further, "Is he the runner you want to see win at Footlocker?" is VERY clearly NOT the same question as the original. As such it is entirely irrelevant.

Sorry, but your analysis is just completely off. And there is no flaw in the rule that was graciously provided by a previous grammar nazi on these boards but can also be found here: