*When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life: Samuel Johnson

 

I have recently returned from one of my sporadic forays to the Metropolis.  My trips to London are usually stimulating and enervating in almost equal measure. (I think that must be possible although clearly it is some sort of contradiction in terms.) I have a magnificent host, who is also munificent, and almost, but not quite, impeccable.

I love the word  ‘impeccable’  because it always reminds me of the clever telegram sent by a British General from the campaign in ?? Ethiopia/Sudan??.

(Searching for a link to ‘the clever telegram’  I  discover that it was in fact the brainchild of an early feminist, who submitted it in 1844 to the then new humorous magazine, Punch.  And that the military campaign was in India, not Ethiopia! So, I am conscious of the fact that I have so far quickly succeeded in demonstrating my ignorance of History, Geography and perhaps, too, common sense. The latter, at least, is I suppose forgivable for those of us charitably classed as academics.)

The history of  Charles Napier, the British General in question, was well worth reading. He seems to have had a remarkable life and played an important part in the history of India.  This extract from  the Wikipedia entry

‘When revolt broke out in 1857, Napier’s Defects was hailed as a prophetic work which correctly identified many of the seething tensions in the sub-continent. The problem was as one of his contemporaries observed “Had he made his representations with sober moderation, eschewing all offensive exaggeration, his warnings and suggestions would have commanded attention. Instead they were pooh-poohed as the emanations of a distempered mind.”

seems to be very helpful in illustrating the importance of tone, which is classed as a literary ‘device’ by this prominent website.

Device often tends to have negative connotations, and  – as a literature lover – I ever so slightly object to its usage here; but in this context I suppose it does little harm.

As usual, I see I have drifted far from my intended topic, which – also as usual – will have to wait for another time. One of the reasons for my delay has been our upcoming Library Trustees’ meeting and confusion about its date. Thankfully, this was fairly quickly resolved but the confusion and consequential correspondence at least had a small educational upside from my pov.

To explain, I had been asked by email to confirm the date of the meeting. I replied, but I was not 100% confident that I was correct about the date, so I added:

“I am also copying in Chris whom I would expect to know…”

Having sent the message, I began to have worrying doubts about my use of ‘whom’. I turned to AI for assistance and our ‘chat’ is set out below.

Me : Hi – is the use of ‘whom’ correct in this phrase

I am also copying in Chris whom I would expect to know..

Thks

Claude : Yes, “whom” is correct there.

The quick test: swap in “he” or “him” for the pronoun and see which sounds right. Here the sense is “I would expect him to know” (not “I would expect he to know”), so the objective case is called for — and “whom” is the objective form of “who.”

So your sentence works: “Chris, whom I would expect to know…” ✓

One small note: you’d typically want a comma before “whom” since it’s introducing a non-restrictive clause (extra info about Chris, not identifying which Chris) — “I am also copying in Chris, whom I would expect to know…”

Me : Can you tell me a bit more about restrictive clauses please

Claude: Sure — it’s about whether the clause is essential to identifying what you’re talking about, or just adding extra information.

Restrictive clause: essential. It narrows down or identifies which specific person/thing you mean. Remove it, and the sentence loses important meaning or becomes ambiguous. No commas.

Back to your sentence:

“I am also copying in Chris, whom I would expect to know…”

“Chris” is already a specific, identified person — the clause “whom I would expect to know” isn’t distinguishing him from other Chrises, it’s just adding a comment about him. That makes it non-restrictive, hence the comma.

A quick way to test it: try reading the clause as if it were in parentheses, or ask “does removing this clause change who/what I’m talking about?” If no — non-restrictive, use commas. If yes — restrictive, no commas.

One more wrinkle: restrictive clauses often use “that” instead of “who/which” (e.g., “the employees that arrived late”), while non-restrictive clauses almost always use “who/which/whom,” never “that.”

So my next stop is to further investigate restrictive clauses which seem to be a subset of relative clauses. By now, you will be beginning to understand, why this Blog is a Sisyphean task but one that somehow, so far, remains tolerable. (To me, if not perhaps to its readers!)

Later in the day I managed to dip into a Library Building and Finance Group meeting  where we were able to celebrate again the Pride in Place grant that we have received from Newcastle Council and discuss how we were going to use it appropriately.

It is a very welcome and useful addition to our coffers – but they are never full – so if you would like to make a small or even better a stupendously munificent contribution to them, you should be able to do so here.

Arrivederci,

Peter