Oops, in the example (center): (that person)/(she/he/they/etc.).

In subjective complement forms: She is Mary= Mary is She. So by extrapolating that method: So that's who he is looking for = so who he's looking for is that. By taking this nonsensical statement into account, it makes the clause a subject complement and can be changed to:

(So) Whomever he is looking for is that (person/guy)= (the person) (whom he is looking for) is that (person)/[she/he/they/etc.].

This of course is only dealing only with formal settings. So like you (Warsaw Will) said, the whole nominal/noun clause functions as the subject complement because it is a double use, which, when placed in the definitive subject position of the sentence, becomes whomever (the person whom). Again thank you for all your help Warsaw Will.

Thanks Warsaw Will,

I believe that, when in a nominal clause, the case of who/whom is based (when it's an object, preposition, or, in this instance, a subjective complement) on the internal structure of the clause but the opposite so for as subject in nominal clause. Thanks for clearing it up. And also thanks for the link that you provided for my previous question.

Hey, Warsaw Will,

Would you mind helping me this problem:

"So that's (who/whom) he's looking for"?

I got a new book and was searching around for the same thing you got from your book ('I who am') to no avail. But I found this sentence, in Nominal Relative Clauses, off putting because I thought it would be whom; however, it said who acted as a subjective complement.

Thanks.

No one is trying to get rid of singular and plural. I, and some others, just want "their" to have an exception to the rule.

I didn't say that I didn't believe in language families; don't put words in my mouth. I'm not saying that there aren't correlations within language families that allow for translatibility. I don't, however, expect someone to follow the same career as a sibling. There is no doubt distinctions between languages. You can't force languages to conform to one another; it just won't work that way.

"...and English grammar needs to correspond with that of most of these other languages..."

Why? Why must English have to follow the rules of other languages? Is because you don't see English as a language in its own right?

Personally, I think that adding Anglo-Saxon words would be great only if it is not at the expense of already enmeshed vocabulary. Most of word selection is preferential. I think having an alternative word would be nice.

Warsaw Will,

Could you provide a link to your find?

For the first, well, if we add "Is it" to "Not just me who thinks", then, in a formal setting, yes to "I". In an informal setting, "me" is fine.

In the second, which I'm not too sue about, it's not really plurality but the verb that agrees with they different personal pronouns ([singular] I think, you think, he/she/it thinks, [plural] we think, you think, they think). Furthermore, the subject-verb agreement is tricky because who agrees with its antecedent "I"; however, the oddity of the construction makes me vote for "thinks".

The whole sentence is nauseating.