/lit/ - Literature

>>20784176
My intuition says whoever

>>20784176
I'd say whoever. But why "descend"? I feel "belong" or "be inherited by whoever" would be smoother.

>>20784176
Is this an actual quote of his or did you make this up?

>Let the crown descend to the nigga strong enough to seize it.

>>20784176
I think whomever is technically correct -- whom is used in prepositional phrases. Here, the preposition phrase is *to whomever*.

Right?

Another example, without the 'ever' -- There is a person *to whom* this belongs.

But it not like anyone would really say anything about the use of whomever or whoever, because not a lot of people now the technicalities of English grammar and also they're suspicious of people who use correct grammar -- they'll call you a pretentious asshole and hate on you.

>>20784231
>Let the crown descend to whom is strong enough to seize it
>to whom is
Wrong.

>>20784200
Made it up

the "target" of the crown is not the object of the verb. The verb phrase is intransitive: let the crown descend. put it this way, if the crown descended "in a hall", "hall" would not be the object, would it?

>Let the crown descend to him | [he] that is strong enough to seize it
Which could be
>Let the crown descend to him | [he] who is strong enough to seize it
Which turns to
>Let the crown descend to him | [he] whoever is strong enough to seize it
you are saying two phrases there, it is 'whoever'

>>20785327
use they if you don't know the gender

>>20786058

>>20784176

Whoever.

The difficulty with a sentence like this is that the person who deserves the crown could be considered both an indirect *object* in the main clause ("let the crown descend to him") and a *subject* in the subsidiary clause ("he is strong enough to seize it").

The general rule in these situations is that you make it obey the "innermost" part. So here, you think of the deserving person as being more an active agent (he's out there, being strong enough) and not a mere inactive target upon which the crown descends.


To be honest, you could probably use either, and it's mostly a matter of ear, although I suspect saying "whoever sounds better" is just another way of saying you've internalized the above rule.

>>20784176
>>20784180
I feel like this would be more poetic:
>Let the crown select Whomever/Whoever is strong enough to recieve it.

>>20786788
>Let the crown select Whomever/Whoever is strong enough to recieve it.
Scratch that, this would be more epic:
>Let the crown favour whomever/whoever is strong enough to recieve it

Some divine authority shit

>>20786800
But that changes the meaning, no? The crown is no longer something the person takes for their own, it's now a thing they are given.

>>20786568
idk bro sounds right to me

>>20786813
Now it is both. To the average man it looks like he takes it through his strength and will. But the worl chooses him for the same reason.

>>20784205
Based

>>20784176
Why not
>Let the crown descend upon whomever is strong enough to seize it
?

t. ESL

>>20788485
>Let the crown descend upon him who is the strongest among my companions.

>>20784176
>Let the bodies hit the floor

>Let the bodies hit the floor

>Let the bodied hit the

>>20784176
If your using whomever would'nt it be

Let the crown descend to whomever can seize it

>>20784176
>Whomsoever

>>20788485
to descend upon implies ease, the sentence is going for force

>>20786058
I HATE THE ANTICHRIST I HATE THE ANTICHRIST I HATE THE ANTICHRIST I HATE

>>20789499
That's literally the same thing. Before both "can seize it" and "to seize it" is the subject.

>>20784176
>Let the crown descend to whoever is strong enough to seize it
the only correct answer is
Let the crown descend to who is strong enough to seize it

you really shouldnt put ever in it, it's tacky

>>20789763
>Let the crown descend to who is strong enough to seize it.
You can't say this, obviously, because "to who", the keystone of the whole arch, is far too weak and awkward. However, you can fix it very easily by adding a single word:


"Let the crown descend to him who is strong enough to seize it."


This construction works just great, which is why it's been used many times.

>>20790367
It's better not to assume the gender, so use them.

>>20784176
It's 'whomever'.