True, I said "pronouns" because personal pronouns should constitute a pertinent parallel.

I can't find my CGEL at the moment, I wonder where it is.

@Cerberus Sock drawer?

Hehe.

I don't deny there is morphology in English, but I do think it is thin soup to nourish these kinds of generalisations.

I must admit that I have always assumed this based on others. But no doubt there is research about it.

I will delete this line in a minute, but I am downloading the CGEL at the moment, because I am too impatient.

@Charles, see above.

I am afraid it will take hours... I don't think we'll have an answer any time soon.

@Cerberus This is more than my question deserves. I'd wait until someone else, someone with easier access, takes a look.

I could maybe make a list of examples where who/who/whom deftly navigates between the Scylla of artificial whom vs. the Charybdis of churlish who.

Haha, nicely put.

But have you ever seen someone using it that way without merely being inconsistent, which Shakespeare probably was?

@Cerberus I've only observed it informally. IIRC, Shakespeare use both who and whom in the dative, but only who in the accusative.

Informal observation is, of course, unreliable and incomplete observation.

@Charles: And what about prepositions?

Shakespeare? Both, I think.

OK.

I should be signing off: it's late here.

Thanks for your time. I might put up a few Shakespeare quotes.

To be frank, I just wouldn't consider your system, because we are already have two current systems at either end of the traditional-modern spectrum.

OK, good night!

Now, I'm really off. Good night!

Good one. I also sometimes write "wrong address" on piles of advertisement leaflets and brochures and have them sent back (costs nothing here).

But the banner said twenty people were actively talking!

@Gleno: Never trust banners! Or use Adblock Plus. Seriously, those 20 people were probably in all SE chat rooms together.