I’m not sure I’m buying your explanation, either, but I can’t find a definite ruling. My gripe is the difference between a restrictive and non-restrictive clause. This is a restrictive clause and shoud be parsed:
Let [he who is without sin] cast the first stone.
NOT
Let him [who is without sin] cast the first stone.
“He who is without sin” is a noun clause, and a single syntactic unit. “Him who is without sin” sounds jarring and incorrect to my ears.
See, it looks to me like:
[You]: implied subject of main clause
let: predicate of main clause
him: indirect object of main clause
who is without sin: adjectival clause modifying “him”; “who” is a pronoun referring to “him”
cast: direct object of main clause
the first stone: direct object of cast
I could easily be wrong on this, though.
Daniel
I agree that the ‘who is without sin’ is bound to the ‘he’ to make a full phrase. Try this: ‘Let [he who is without sin] cast the first stone <=> Let [him] cast the first stone <=> Let [Bob] cast the first stone.’
He-who-is-without-sin fills the same role as him when satisfying case. Since the ‘he’ is simply an atom in that phrase rather than a discrete part, it’s not required to change.
Change it to a non-restrictive clause and the meaning changes entirely. ‘Let [him], who is without sin, cast the first stone <=> Let [Bob], who is without sin, cast the first stone.’ There, you’re talking about a specific person while making a parenthetical comment about what kind of guy he is. ‘He who is without sin’ is a descriptor that doesn’t have a particular person in mind, only anyone that fits the description. Taking out ‘who is without sin’ and changing it to ‘him’ makes no sense in the context that 'he who is without sin is used:
[To the crowd] “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone!”
raises a hand “…Um, I don’t think I’ve ever sinned.”
“Great! What’s your name?”
“Um, Bob.”
“Bob! Let Bob, who is without sin, cast the first stone!” or “Let Bob cast the first stone!”
Bob’s got a mean fastball, too
I don’t think that the restrictive-vs.-nonrestrictive difference comes into play. “Let him in the Hawaiian shirt cast the first stone” is correct; in this, “him” is modified by a restrictive phrase, just as in “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.” Would you say, “Let he in the Hawaiian shirt cast the first stone”?
Daniel
I dunno, still sounds odd. The original quote sounds perfectly fine to me, and I’m sure there’s a linguistic explanation. Unfortunately, I don’t have the time or the resources to pursue it further right now, so I’ll just leave you with another example of this: In Wheel of Time, which I have no idea if you’re familiar with or not, one of the characters has the title “He Who Comes With The Dawn”. It’s a syntactic atom such that it’s logical to say “I spoke to He Who Comes With The Dawn” rather than “I spoke to Him Who Comes With The Dawn.” I’m betting it’s the same rule in place, that the entire thing fulfills the case requirement rather than the individual pronoun. Really, though, I’m thinking it’s all just archaic prose meant to sound high and mighty.
First, I’m not sure I’d let Robert Jordan clean my toilet, much less dictate my grammar choices ;).
Second, titles are in a different category. If my title is “Him With the Funny Nose,” then it’s correct to say “Him With the Funny Nose won’t shut up about his new puppy.” It would not, of course, be correct to say, “Him with the funny nose won’t shut up about his new puppy”: in that case, you’d say, "He with the funny nose won’t shut up about his new puppy.
Daniel
Oops.
Tut, tut.
What do “most grammar errors” don’t bother about?
The way I hear it: Let he-who-is-without-sin cast the first stone. The entire phrase is acting as the direct object. You could replace the entire phrase with “him” - or “Bob”, if you prefer.
The problem is that “he-who-is-without-sin” isn’t a clause. “Who is without sin” is a clause that modifies “he.” “He” is the object (I believe the indirect object" of “let.”
Think of it this way. Is “He who is without sin” a sentence? Nope. It’s a fragment.
Is “Who is without sin” a sentence? It could be: the answer would be, “An infant.” So we have an independent clause there, if it’s a question. If it’s not a question, then it’s a dependent clause, since “Who is without sin.” is not a proper sentence.
When you’ve got an independent clause, and you’ve added enough words to make it a fragment, that usually means you’ve added a bit of another clause. In this case, you’ve added a subject–“he”–without adding a predicate. You need to add a predicate for which “he” is the subject: “He who is without sin is a freakin baby, dude.”
However, in our example, “he” isn’t a subject of another clause: it’s the object of the predicate in another clause. Objects take the objective case. It should be “him.”
Daniel
Well, here’s an argument for the “Let he” side of the debate. To be honest, even though I am defending the “let he” usage, I don’t buy his explanation.
It seems the weight of grammars I’ve found support the “Let him” usage over “Let he.” Personally, I prefer “he without sin” if used as a restrictive clause, but my opinion is outweighed.
Do you have a subscription to this site? They’re trying to charge me to view the article. Could you summarize the position?
Daniel
Weird. If I google it, I can link to it from the Google result. If I C&P the link, I only get the first paragraph…
Like I said, I don’t like his explanation because he ventures into Latin and Greek grammar. That said, to my ears, at least “Let he who is without sin” sounds better to my ears than “Let him who is without sin,” and the reason for this, I think, is because I strongly hear it as a restrictive clause and my brain wants to treat “he who is without sin” as a single unit.
This thread is yet another example of why I love this place.
Ah, thanks. And I agree that his explanation is bogus.
“May he throw” is correct, because “may” is an auxiliary verb. “Let he throw” is incorrect because “let” is not an auxiliary verb. For further explanation:
If there’s still doubt, consider this: “Let us leave, you villainous rascal!” Compare to:
“May us leave, you villainous rascal?”
“Let we leave, you villainous rascal!”
You can see that “May,” in the same construction, cannot take an object; nor can “Let” take a subject. That’s because, in
“May we leave?” the subject is “we”; in
“Let us leave!” the subject is “[You].” It’s implied.
His comparison to “may” is therefore bogus.
Daniel
Heh: with your username, I’m not surprised!
I should add that, despite my pedantry here, I’m all about the “Let he who is without sin” construction. Sounding right is worth a helluva lot in my book, and all my meandering about cases and auxiliary verbs isn’t worth tuppence compared to mellifluity. I’m only arguing on this one because prescriptive grammar can be fun, and because it’s a thread specifically about prescriptive grammar. I can play by the rules of the game when I want to.
Daniel
Since we’re just having a bit of fun and not picking at anyone, have a go at this one:
Do you mind me looking into the family records?
Do you mind my looking into the family records?
I think him walking the dogs in the afternoon has helped.
I think his walking the dogs in the afternoon has helped.
Which is correct in each set and why? I have my answer, but I hear this misused so often that I wonder if the rule has changed.
As one of the poor spellers on the board, I end up using Word a lot to correct my spelling and help out on my grammar.
I actually feel posting here is improving both. Please feel free to correct my mistakes, especially in GD & GQ where a higher standard should be kept.
Please, just try not to be nasty about it.
I will personally only correct others if they make a mistake while being snarky about my spelling. I have no room to complain about others.
I like the rules that are being put together.
“Let we who are about to die leave!”
“Let us who are about to die leave!”
I don’t know. There’s something about that construction that lets the nominative case sound just fine to my ears. I think it’s just got something to do with archaic prose, just as certain sentences can take an OSV order and still be perfectly comprehensible (“Such a tangled web we weave!”).
My understanding is the a gerund (looking, walking) is a noun (or in this case, a noun phrase (looking into the family records, walking the dogs in the afternoon), and therefore takes a possessive.
Anyone care to argue and explain why I’m wrong?
Possibly because you meant to type “that a gerund”? 
(Actually, this is an example of a typo really obfuscating meaning: I had to read your post several times before I could figure out what you may have meant). Other than that, I agree with you.
What about “Let I who am about to die leave”? Does that sound all right to you? It really grates on my ear. Would “Let we leave” be acceptable?
I agree that “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” sounds fine, and I would never dream of correcting it in informal speech or even in rhetorical speech. However, if I were proofreading a grant proposal, I would change this construction: it looks technically nonstandard to me, and in a situation where someone might be reading for grammar and making an important decision, I’d rather play it safe.
Daniel