From Newsgroup: sci.lang


Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> posted:

Le 07/09/2026 |a-a|e-a|a-e|e-a 07:33, athel.cb@gmail.com a |a-a|e-a|a-e|e--crit :

Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> posted:

On 07/09/26 02:56, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:

Yes. If even Jesus got it wrong ("Whom say men that I am?") why worry.

Gosh, you're right. In the KJV, the error occurs twice, in Matthew 16.13
and Mark 8.27.

The website www.biblegateway.com has 64 different English translations.
KJV, Wycliffe, Geneva and Douay-Rhrims all have "Whom" but several
others show "Who." (CEV has "What do people say about me?|a-a|e-o|a-e|e-C|a-e|e-Y)

Is there a corresponding error in Aramaic?

There IS evidence that parts of Mark, as well as Q (Matthew/Luke) were translated from much older Aramaic Gospels, but AFAIK there isn't a single shred or scrap of any such Aramaic text.

Here is Mark 8:27 in Greek:

[I'm afraid Newsgrouper may mangle this UTC-8. :-( )

|a-A|e-U|a-A|e-#|a-i|e-+|e-| |a-i|e-+|e-E|a-A|e-+|a-i|e-+|e-a|a-A|e-+|a-A|e-+|a-A|e-||a-A|e-+ |a-i|e-+|e-U |a-i|e-+|e-+|a-A|e-+|a-A|e-a|a-A|e-+|a-i|e-+|e-a|a-A|e-e |a-A|e-||a-A|e-#|a-i|e-+|e-| |a-A|e-+|a-i|e-+|e-# |a-A|e-+|a-A|e-#|a-A|e-+|a-A|e-+|a-A|e-a|a-A|e-#|a-i|e-+|e-| |a-A|e-#|a-i|e-+|e-E|a-A|e-a|a-A|e-+|a-i|e-+|e-a |a-A|e-||a-i|e-+|e-#|a-A|e-e |a-A|e-a|a-i|e-+|e-#|a-A|e-e |a-A|e-||a-A|e-A|a-A|e-+|a-A|e-#|a-A|e-e |a-A|e-U|a-A|e-#|a-A|e-||a-A|e-a|a-A|e-#|a-A|e-U|a-A|e-||a-A|e->|a-A|e-#|a-A|e-e
|a-A|e-a|a-i|e-+|e-a|a-A|e-e |a-A|e-a|a-A|e-||a-A|e-+|a-A|e->|a-A|e-C|a-A|e-C|a-A|e-+|a-A|e-a|a-e|e-+ |a-A|e-||a-A|e-#|a-i|e-+|e-| |a-i|e-+|e-E|a-A|e-+ |a-A|e-a|a-i|e-+|e-c |a-i|e-+|e-U|a-A|e-||a-i|e-+|e-+ |a-i|e-+|e-E|a-A|e-C|a-A|e-+|a-A|e-U|a-A|e-A|a-A|e-a|a-A|e-# |a-A|e-a|a-A|e-+|a-i|e-+|e-||a-A|e-e |a-A|e-+|a-A|e-#|a-A|e-+|a-A|e-+|a-A|e-a|a-i|e-+|e-#|a-A|e-e |a-A|e-#|a-i|e-+|e-E|a-A|e-a|a-A|e-+|a-i|e-+|e-a |a-A|e-+|a-A|e-!|a-A|e-||a-A|e-e|a-A|e-+ |a-A|e-#|a-i|e-+|e-E|a-A|e-a|a-A|e-+|a-i|e-+|e-u|a-A|e-e,
|a-A|e-n|a-A|e->|a-A|e-+|a-A|e-# |a-A|e-+|a-A|e-| |a-A|e-+|a-A|e-!|a-A|e-||a-A|e-+|a-A|e-a|a-A|e-a|a-A|e-||a-A|e-+ |a-A|e-+|a-i|e-+|e-# |a-i|e-+|e-a|a-A|e-+|a-A|e-+|a-A|e-U|a-A|e-e|a-A|e-C|a-A|e-+|a-A|e-| |a-A|e-||a-i|e-+|e-||a-A|e-+|a-A|e-#|a-A|e-|;

Google Translate puts "Whom" in the final clause, but I'll guess it
trained on KJV or such! If I erase all but the final clause
Google Translate produces "What do people say I am?" -- much like
CEV (Contemporary English Version).

www.abarim-publications.com/Interlinear-New-Testament/Mark/Mark-8-parsed.html offers word-by-word translation from Greek and produces
"What? / me / they say / the / men / to be"

I'll cross-post to sci.ling in case they want to shed light.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.lang


Ar an seacht|| l|i de m|! M|-an F||mhair, scr|!obh James Dow Allen:

[...] [I'm afraid Newsgrouper may mangle this UTC-8. :-( )

I include below a version of your entire post with the UTF-8 corrected. (It was some
fairly enthusiastic mangling!)

Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> posted:

Le 07/09/2026 |a 07:33, athel.cb@gmail.com a |-crit :

Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> posted:

On 07/09/26 02:56, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:

Yes. If even Jesus got it wrong ("Whom say men that I am?") why worry.

Gosh, you're right. In the KJV, the error occurs twice, in Matthew 16.13
and Mark 8.27.

The website www.biblegateway.com has 64 different English translations.
KJV, Wycliffe, Geneva and Douay-Rhrims all have "Whom" but several
others show "Who." (CEV has "What do people say about me?rCY)

Is there a corresponding error in Aramaic?

There IS evidence that parts of Mark, as well as Q (Matthew/Luke) were translated from much older Aramaic Gospels, but AFAIK there isn't a single shred or scrap of any such Aramaic text.

Here is Mark 8:27 in Greek:

[I'm afraid Newsgrouper may mangle this UTC-8. :-( )

+U+#b+| b+E++b+a+++++|++ b+U b++++-a++b+a-e +|+#b+| ++b+# +++#++++-a+#b+| +#b+E-a++b+a +|b+#-e -ab+#-e +|-A+++#-e +U+#+|-a+#-U+|+>+#-e
-ab+a-e +a+|+++>-C-C++-a-+ +|+#b+| b+E++ -ab+c b+U+|b++ b+E-C++-U-A-a+# -a++b+|-e +++#++++-ab+#-e +#b+E-a++b+a +++!+|-e++ +#b+E-a++b+u-e,

+++# +++| +++!+|++-a-a+|++ ++b+# b+a++++-U-e-C+++| +|b+|+++#+|;

Google Translate puts "Whom" in the final clause, but I'll guess it
trained on KJV or such! If I erase all but the final clause
Google Translate produces "What do people say I am?" -- much like
CEV (Contemporary English Version).

www.abarim-publications.com/Interlinear-New-Testament/Mark/Mark-8-parsed.html offers word-by-word translation from Greek and produces
"What? / me / they say / the / men / to be"

I'll cross-post to sci.ling in case they want to shed light.
--
rCyAs I sat looking up at the Guinness ad, I could never figure out /
How your man stayed up on the surfboard after fourteen pints of stoutrCO
(C. Moore)
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.lang

James Dow Allen <user4353@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote or quoted:

"What? / me / they say / the / men / to be"
I'll cross-post to sci.ling in case they want to shed light.

There is one rule which says that verbs have certain
slots which require certain forms. For example,

I told him.

. "Told" has two slots:
1. The slot for the person telling ("I") and
2. The slot for the person being told ("him").

Rule "told":
"The first slot of 'told' requires the subjective case.
The second slot of 'told' requires the objective case."

These rules may vary with the verb, so there is one rule
per verb.

But there is another rule:

Rule "order":
"The subjective case is used before the verb;
the objective case is used after it."

In the case of the verb form "am", rule A says,

Rule "am":
"The first slot of 'am' requires the subjective case.
The second slot of 'am' requires the subjective case."

According to rule "am", we say:

I am I.
I am who?

But according to rule "order", we say:

I am me.
I am whom?

The most famous example of this distinction is
"It is I." versus "It is me.", existings since
about 1500. Before, there was, "It am I.".


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.lang

Op 7/09/2026 om 22:22 schreef Stefan Ram:

James Dow Allen <user4353@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote or quoted:

"What? / me / they say / the / men / to be"
I'll cross-post to sci.ling in case they want to shed light.

There is one rule which says that verbs have certain
slots which require certain forms. For example,

I told him.

. "Told" has two slots:
1. The slot for the person telling ("I") and
2. The slot for the person being told ("him").

Rule "told":
"The first slot of 'told' requires the subjective case.
The second slot of 'told' requires the objective case."

These rules may vary with the verb, so there is one rule
per verb.

But there is another rule:

Rule "order":
"The subjective case is used before the verb;
the objective case is used after it."

In the case of the verb form "am", rule A says,

Rule "am":
"The first slot of 'am' requires the subjective case.
The second slot of 'am' requires the subjective case."

According to rule "am", we say:

I am I.
I am who?

But according to rule "order", we say:

I am me.
I am whom?

I am Who am/is?
NL. Ik ben Die ben.

The most famous example of this distinction is
"It is I." versus "It is me.", existings since
about 1500. Before, there was, "It am I.".

Like in Dutch (FL: Het ben ik.-a NL: Ik ben het.)

Also confusing in English et al:

It *is* persons like *him*/he who...
Het zijn lieden zoals hij die...
Ce sont des personnes comme lui qui...

It *is* us.
Het zijn wij. Wij zijn het.
C'*est* nous.

...
--
guido wugi

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.lang

On 2026-09-07, Aidan Kehoe <kehoea@parhasard.net> wrote:

I include below a version of your entire post with the UTF-8 corrected. (It was some
fairly enthusiastic mangling!)

I don't have access to alt.english.usage and the context there.
I assume "correct" use of _whom_ refers to the prescriptivist rule
that _who_ is to be used for subject and predicative, _whom_ for
objects and after prepositions. (Never mind that this doesn't reflect
actual usage.)

Yes. If even Jesus got it wrong ("Whom say men that I am?") why worry.

This does not strike me as simple. The subject of the main clause
is "men", the verb is "say", which is transitive, which makes
"who(m)" ... what exactly?

The "who(m)" is extracted from the subordinate clause where it would
be a predicative => "who". But "say" would like an object => "whom".

+U+#b+| b+E++b+a+++++|++ b+U b++++-a++b+a-e +|+#b+| ++b+# +++#++++-a+#b+| +#b+E-a++b+a +|b+#-e -ab+#-e +|-A+++#-e +U+#+|-a+#-U+|+>+#-e
-ab+a-e +a+|+++>-C-C++-a-+ +|+#b+| b+E++ -ab+c b+U+|b++ b+E-C++-U-A-a+# -a++b+|-e +++#++++-ab+#-e +#b+E-a++b+a +++!+|-e++ +#b+E-a++b+u-e,

+++# +++| +++!+|++-a-a+|++ ++b+# b+a++++-U-e-C+++| +|b+|+++#+|;

www.abarim-publications.com/Interlinear-New-Testament/Mark/Mark-8-parsed.html
offers word-by-word translation from Greek and produces
"What? / me / they say / the / men / to be"

I can't really comment on the Koine Greek, except that Wiktionary
informs me that -a+>+++# is accusative case.

The Vulgate text says:
Quem me dicunt esse homines? https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Vulgata_Clementina/Evangelium_Secundum_Marcum

"Quem" is the accusative singular of the interrogative pronoun
"qui", so it corresponds to "whom". However, the Latin phrasing
doesn't use a subordinate clause.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.lang


Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> posted:

On 2026-09-07, Aidan Kehoe <kehoea@parhasard.net> wrote:

I include below a version of your entire post with the UTF-8 corrected. (It was some
fairly enthusiastic mangling!)

I don't have access to alt.english.usage and the context there.
I assume "correct" use of _whom_ refers to the prescriptivist rule
that _who_ is to be used for subject and predicative, _whom_ for
objects and after prepositions. (Never mind that this doesn't reflect
actual usage.)

Yes. If even Jesus got it wrong ("Whom say men that I am?") why worry.

This does not strike me as simple. The subject of the main clause
is "men", the verb is "say", which is transitive, which makes
"who(m)" ... what exactly?

The "who(m)" is extracted from the subordinate clause where it would
be a predicative => "who". But "say" would like an object => "whom".

If he were still alive you could take it up with H. W. Fowler, who
mentioned this exact example (p. 724 in the 1st edition).

|A-U|A-#|i-+-| |i-+-E|A-+|i-+-a|A-+|A-+|A-||A-+ |i-+-U |i-+-+|A-+|A-a|A-+|i-+-a|A-e |A-||A-#|i-+-| |A-+|i-+-# |A-+|A-#|A-+|A-+|A-a|A-#|i-+-| |A-#|i-+-E|A-a|A-+|i-+-a |A-||i-+-#|A-e |A-a|i-+-#|A-e |A-||A-A|A-+|A-#|A-e |A-U|A-#|A-||A-a|A-#|A-U|A-||A->|A-#|A-e
|A-a|i-+-a|A-e |A-a|A-||A-+|A->|A-C|A-C|A-+|A-a|e-+ |A-||A-#|i-+-| |i-+-E|A-+ |A-a|i-+-c |i-+-U|A-||i-+-+ |i-+-E|A-C|A-+|A-U|A-A|A-a|A-# |A-a|A-+|i-+-||A-e |A-+|A-#|A-+|A-+|A-a|i-+-#|A-e |A-#|i-+-E|A-a|A-+|i-+-a |A-+|A-!|A-||A-e|A-+ |A-#|i-+-E|A-a|A-+|i-+-u|A-e,
|A-n|A->|A-+|A-# |A-+|A-| |A-+|A-!|A-||A-+|A-a|A-a|A-||A-+ |A-+|i-+-# |i-+-a|A-+|A-+|A-U|A-e|A-C|A-+|A-| |A-||i-+-||A-+|A-#|A-|;

www.abarim-publications.com/Interlinear-New-Testament/Mark/Mark-8-parsed.html
offers word-by-word translation from Greek and produces
"What? / me / they say / the / men / to be"

I can't really comment on the Koine Greek, except that Wiktionary
informs me that |A-a|A->|A-+|A-# is accusative case.

The Vulgate text says:
Quem me dicunt esse homines? https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Vulgata_Clementina/Evangelium_Secundum_Marcum

"Quem" is the accusative singular of the interrogative pronoun
"qui", so it corresponds to "whom". However, the Latin phrasing
doesn't use a subordinate clause.

--
athel

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.lang

Op 9/09/2026 om 18:24 schreef Christian Weisgerber:

On 2026-09-07, Aidan Kehoe <kehoea@parhasard.net> wrote:

I include below a version of your entire post with the UTF-8 corrected. (It was some
fairly enthusiastic mangling!)

I don't have access to alt.english.usage and the context there.
I assume "correct" use of _whom_ refers to the prescriptivist rule
that _who_ is to be used for subject and predicative, _whom_ for
objects and after prepositions. (Never mind that this doesn't reflect
actual usage.)

Yes. If even Jesus got it wrong ("Whom say men that I am?") why worry.

This does not strike me as simple. The subject of the main clause
is "men", the verb is "say", which is transitive, which makes
"who(m)" ... what exactly?

The "who(m)" is extracted from the subordinate clause where it would
be a predicative => "who". But "say" would like an object => "whom".

+U+#b+| b+E++b+a+++++|++ b+U b++++-a++b+a-e +|+#b+| ++b+# +++#++++-a+#b+| +#b+E-a++b+a +|b+#-e -ab+#-e +|-A+++#-e +U+#+|-a+#-U+|+>+#-e
-ab+a-e +a+|+++>-C-C++-a-+ +|+#b+| b+E++ -ab+c b+U+|b++ b+E-C++-U-A-a+# -a++b+|-e +++#++++-ab+#-e +#b+E-a++b+a +++!+|-e++ +#b+E-a++b+u-e,

+++# +++| +++!+|++-a-a+|++ ++b+# b+a++++-U-e-C+++| +|b+|+++#+|;

www.abarim-publications.com/Interlinear-New-Testament/Mark/Mark-8-parsed.html
offers word-by-word translation from Greek and produces
"What? / me / they say / the / men / to be"

I can't really comment on the Koine Greek, except that Wiktionary
informs me that -a+>+++# is accusative case.

The Vulgate text says:
Quem me dicunt esse homines? https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Vulgata_Clementina/Evangelium_Secundum_Marcum

"Quem" is the accusative singular of the interrogative pronoun
"qui", so it corresponds to "whom". However, the Latin phrasing
doesn't use a subordinate clause.

They are classical infinitive subclauses taking the subject in the
accusative (and its complements as well).-#
Dutch 'latinate' (?) saying:
Elk meent zijn uil een valk te zijn.
Everybody thinks their owl to be a falcon.

Same here:
~ Homines dicunt me aliquem esse.
... Hominus dicunt me quem esse?

++b+# b+a++++-U-e-C+++| +++!+|++-a-a+|++ +++| +n+>+++# +|b+|+++#+|(;)
The men say me to be somebody/whom? *** -# In modern parlance: infinitive clauses have no subject but have the object of the main clause as
predicand. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicand comp. (4) -- guido wugi

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.lang

On 2026-09-09, athel.cb gmail.com <user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:

Yes. If even Jesus got it wrong ("Whom say men that I am?") why worry. >>

This does not strike me as simple. The subject of the main clause
is "men", the verb is "say", which is transitive, which makes
"who(m)" ... what exactly?

The "who(m)" is extracted from the subordinate clause where it would
be a predicative => "who". But "say" would like an object => "whom".

If he were still alive you could take it up with H. W. Fowler, who
mentioned this exact example (p. 724 in the 1st edition).

Well, don't leave us hanging, what did he have to say about it?
Did he provide a grammatical sketch to justify his choice?

I'm certain I've seen at least one previous discussion about "who(m)"
that pointed at examples where there were conflicting syntactical
roles. Probably in CGEL, or the other CGEL, or on Language Log,
but I don't recall any specifics.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.lang

On 2026-09-09, guido wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> wrote:

Yes. If even Jesus got it wrong ("Whom say men that I am?") why worry. >>>

+++# +++| +++!+|++-a-a+|++ ++b+# b+a++++-U-e-C+++| +|b+|+++#+|;

"What? / me / they say / the / men / to be"

The Vulgate text says:
Quem me dicunt esse homines?

They are classical infinitive subclauses taking the subject in the accusative (and its complements as well).-#

N... Yes, that's right. I misinterpreted the Latin. How embarrassing.
(What can I say, I don't know Latin.)

It doesn't work with "say", but I think this captures the structure
in English:
Who(m) do the men claim me to be?

Dutch 'latinate' (?) saying:
Elk meent zijn uil een valk te zijn.
Everybody thinks their owl to be a falcon.

I can't think of a German equivalent.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.lang

Op 10/09/2026 om 1:17 schreef Christian Weisgerber:

On 2026-09-09, guido wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> wrote:

Yes. If even Jesus got it wrong ("Whom say men that I am?") why worry. >>>> +n+>+++# +++| +++!+|++-a-a+|++ ++b+# b+a++++-U-e-C+++| +|b+|+++#+|;

"What? / me / they say / the / men / to be"

The Vulgate text says:
Quem me dicunt esse homines?

They are classical infinitive subclauses taking the subject in the
accusative (and its complements as well).-#

N... Yes, that's right. I misinterpreted the Latin. How embarrassing.
(What can I say, I don't know Latin.)

It doesn't work with "say", but I think this captures the structure
in English:
Who(m) do the men claim me to be?

Yes, though perhaps Englishspeakers will rather revert to Who do they claim/say/think I am?

Dutch 'latinate' (?) saying:
Elk meent zijn uil een valk te zijn.
Everybody thinks their owl to be a falcon.

I can't think of a German equivalent.

Latin infinitive clauses are a step onward of still rather common
clauses in Dutch:

Ik leer/zie/hoor hem (liederen) zingen. I teach/see/hear him singing
(songs).
Ik weet het [niet] zijn. I [don't] know where it is.
Ik weet haar wonen. I know where she lives.
Hij doet me eraan twijfelen. He makes me hesitate about that.
Ik raad haar aan (om) te gaan. I advise her to go.
Etc...
--
guido wugi
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2