Skip to main content

pronouns - "It is they who lied" or "it is them who lied?"


Which is the correct usage of the third person, plural pronoun?



It is they who lied.
It is them who lied.




Answer



The subordinate clause "who lied" is a red herring in this example. By that, I mean that "who lied" has no effect on the case of the main clause.


In "who lied", who is getting nominative case. That is why, if you make a who/whom distinction, you would say:




  • It is John who lied. (nominative)

  • It is John whom I lied to. (accusative)



So, who is bearing the burden of the case of the subordinate clause, which means your question is actually:



"Which is correct: 'It is they' or 'It is them'?"



or, even more to the point:



"Does English use nominative case on both sides of the copula?"



For this, the answer is not completely straightforward. But here is my (hopefully objective) take:




  1. Usage indicates that a clear majority of people prefer to use the accusative case ("it is them"), and there is other evidence to indicate that the accusative is the default case in English. If you look at speech, you will find that the preference is even clearer; in writing, the preference is not as strong but still quite clearly in favor of "it is them".




  2. There is also clear evidence that a large-enough minority prefers "it is they" that both are legitimate uses. Certainly, both constructions are linguistically sound variants, even if the accusative is the default case. (The default case thing is more of an explanation for why accusative in the copula should ever happen.)




  3. There are some who believe that "it is they" is the objectively correct answer. In an approach similar to this answer about "data is" vs. "data are", I would suggest that it is important to be aware of your audience and your group. Whether a construction's usage is in the minority or not, certain audiences in certain contexts expect certain language. This means that you might be judged for not using "it is they" in these groups. It's not really a matter of objective correctness, but rather, group membership. Just as choosing semantically correct words and pronouncing them correctly are important in your communication, the register and language you choose to use within a group is also important. (You may choose to intentionally label yourself as an outsider, but the important thing is to be aware that you can make that choice with the words you use!)




So, the short answer is: both versions exist, so do what feels natural to you, but consider your audience expectations.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.