[Roger Slater]

Joe, "those" can be used as an object the same way as him, me, them, and her. So Lincoln got it right.

[Joe Crocker]

Interesting. The King James Bible has the grammatically correct “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone”. However it is easy to find many "respectable" examples of the grammatically incorrect “Let he that is without sin cast the first stone”. Wiktionary even cites it as an alternative form. So it would seem the “he” version is both wrong and in common, not necessarily uneducated, usage.

I suspect that precisely because the “Let he who” version is grammatically incorrect it sounds, paradoxically, more biblical and authoritative (ie because it is not like modern day speech). In the same way, if you asked me to mimic Old Testament language I would probably throw in “verily”, “shalt”, "unto",“thee” and “thou” with no clear idea what I was doing or whether it made much grammatical sense.

[Julie Steiner]

I suspect that it's because we're more used to (correct) "He who" statements like "He who hesitates is lost" that "He who" sounds like it might always be correct, regardless of context. It's probably similar to the common feeling that since "and me" is wrong when used as the subject of a sentence, it must always be wrong, and "and I" must always be correct. Not so!

In the Greek of John 8:7, the person being commanded to do the throwing remains in the nominative throughout. Ὁ ἀναμάρτητος ("the sinless [man]") is the subject of the third-person aoristic imperative βαλέτω, from βάλλω, βαλεῖν, "throw." But third-person imperatives don't have a direct equivalent in English, which has only a second-person imperative form. (And if you want to get really technical, even that is a subjunctive rather than a true imperative.)

Commands given to first-person or third-person entities in English generally get converted into a second-person command beginning "let," in order to keep their imperative force. Even what we commonly think of as a first-person command ("Let's go!") is actually a second-person subjunctive: the subject is an implied "you," and the people doing the going are the object of the second-person command "let": "[You] let us go!"

Bottom line: It's "Let's go!", never "Let we go!" And it should be "Let him... throw..." rather than "Let he... throw...", too.

[Roger Slater]

What are some of the "respectable" examples of the grammatically incorrect that you have in mind, Joe?

[Joe Crocker]

Julie. Yes your suspicion sounds more convincing than mine

Roger. Well, not “respectable” in the sense that there are linguists who would defend it (but see here); merely in the sense that if you Google the phrase “Let he who is without sin” you get plenty of hits and they are not all illiterate or uneducated. So the phrase is out there in the real world.

I realise that finding examples on Google of egregious errors is not in itself a strong argument for revising rules. But…it does lead on to an argument comparing what is grammatical with what is actually said and how long it takes for the rules of grammar to adapt to the world as it actually is. I know little about linguistics but I’m sure there are PhDs devoted to the topic.

[Roger Slater]

Not to belabor the point, but I did Google the phrase and found mostly references to the title of a Star Trek episode, along with a host of very small church sites and such, and several sites discussing the grammatical issue. If your point is that there are indeed some people who sometimes say "let he," then of course, your point is well taken. But I see no evidence that it's a solecism that has reached a level that the prescriptivists must admit defeat and surrender to the descriptivists.

[Joe Crocker]

Hi Roger. I agree wholeheartedly with you that we wouldn’t want to abandon the grammatical rule preferring “Let him” to“Let he”, simply because there exists an instance of people using the latter construction. But, curiously, the argument that you use in support of the correct grammatical form, is to point out the large number of Star Trek references citing the incorrect form on Google. Star Trek is clearly not a goto reference for good grammar. But the fact that a Star Trek episode was called “Let he who is without sin” is a also a strong argument for my point that the phrase is very much out there. If the phrase got as far as Star Trek then it’s pretty much everywhere. So although it is not be grammatically correct to say “Let he who is without sin” it is by no means unusual.

[Roger Slater]

I never said it was unusual. I just said that it was not yet so widespread as to rise from solecism to accepted alternative. But certainly it is out there, as is probably every other grammatical error you could think of. The fact that people often use bad grammar doesn't, in and of itself, turn their mistakes into good grammar. ("Between you and I" is everywhere, but is still not good grammar).

[Jack Land]

It don’t matter
whatcha do do

[Kevin Rainbow]

Originally Posted by Roger Slater

Lincoln again: "Good things come to those who wait, but only the things left by those who hustle."

Lincoln didn't say that. Don't you research quotes before using them, to make sure their attributions are valid?

https://checkyourfact.com/2019/09/17...t-left-hustle/

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/...ed-abe-lincoln