Skip to main content

grammar - Carry we who die in battle


A song by the heavy metal band Manowar includes these lines:



Carry we who die in battle


Over land and sea



The "we" sounds wrong for me. I'd use "us" in this sentence. A quick google search didn't show any similar constructions with "we".


The "we" is a rather long-drawn sound in the song, so my best guess is that this wouldn't have worked with the sharp, short "us". But it is really completely wrong, or is there some way to justify this usage?


Note that all band members are born in the US, so they are native speakers.



Answer



There is no way to justify we there according to conventional rules if it is supposed to be the object of carry. It should be us:



Carry us who die in battle over land and sea.



The reason why this writer mistakenly used we is probably as follows. The relative pronoun who is the subject of the relative clause, and who refers back to we, so a hint of "subjectivity" might cling to we as well, in the subconscious of the writer. But this is not done in conventional English.


What Janus says below could be another reason: there are some well known phrases where both the antecedent and the relative pronoun are the subjects of their respective clauses (main clause and relative clause), in which case we who would be correct.


Comments

Post a Comment

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 ...
Post a Comment
Read more

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.
Post a Comment
Read more