Owen—Hybrid Paris of Speech. 161 
nominative, as argued on page 158), there exists a vague sup¬ 
posing that somehow, as in the previous cases, what is now re¬ 
garded as the single “him” is also object of “desired” and in 
that function properly accusative. That is, the form which 
has answered in other cases is uncritically accepted in a case 
for which it is strictly unavailable. 
In 
(4) “I wanted him to employ Italians” 
desire is no longer conceived as told, and “him” entirely ceases 
to be regarded as an object (the direct object of “wanted”); 
for in no proper sense did I want “him,” but only his employ¬ 
ment of Italians, a phenomenon of which “him” is but a single 
factor, no more worthy of preeminence than “Italians” (com¬ 
pare “I wanted Italians,” further conceived as employed by 
him). “Him” accordingly is felt to be merely the subject of 
“to employ.” Nevertheless, the almost synonomy of (3) and 
(4) may be assumed to blind the mental eye to the perception 
of the really fundamental structural difference in thoughts ex¬ 
pressed. “Him” accordingly continues to be used, though 
“he” is strictly the required form. 36 
36 To make this last more obvious, I paraphrase (3) by “I desired 
(=told my desire to, or requested) him (that) he should employ Ital¬ 
ians.” If now expression is to restrict itself to a single use of the 
pronoun, it is obvious that, as happens with the indefinite “whosoever” 
(e. g. “Be polite to whomsoever—whosoever—meets you”) that pro¬ 
noun might by its form exhibit either its fellowship with “I desired” 
or its fellowship with “should employ Italians.” Accordingly there is 
precedent for either of the following linguistic expressions: 
“I desired him (-) should employ Italians,” or 
“I desired (-) he should employ Italians.” 
And, if the finite form be displaced by the infinitive, either of the 
following has its precedent: 
“I desired him (-—) to employ Italians,” or 
“I desired (-) he to employ Italians.” 
But in (4), and still more certainly in examples yet to be offered, 
there is no “him” thought of in immediate association with “wanted”. 
That is, I must not paraphrase (4) by 
“I wanted him (that) he should employ Italians,” but only by 
“I wanted (that) he should employ Italians.” 
Now in this expression the pronoun has only one function—that of 
subject to “should employ.” There is no opportunity for it therefore 
to take an accusative form for the sake of a function with “wanted”. 
The like is moreover true when the finite verb is replaced by the in¬ 
finitive. That is, there is linguistic reason only for the form “I 
wanted he to employ Italians.” 
