Translation:Who knows who will have been given the prize.
Based on information from the sources listed below I think DL has a point in trying to teach us to (most times) use the following translations for Italian relative pronouns:
a chi = to who
a cui = to whom
I also looked up whether to use who or whom:
'Who' should be used to refer to the subject of a sentence,
and 'whom' to the object of a verb or preposition. When in doubt, try this simple trick:
- If you can replace the word with “he”' or “'she,” use who.
- If you can replace it with “him” or “her,” use whom.
Quick test 1: He knows /
Quick test 2: he will have been given /
him will have been given
Chissà = who knows
a chi = to who
sarà stato dato = will have been given
il premio = the prize
~ Who knows who will have been given the prize.
But then Zimtladen has a different view on this
Agreed. Who Knows to whom the prize will have been given. In correct English we do not end a sentence with a preposition. I reported too, but just like the protest over Crowns, we seem to have little impact on DL. However, once and only once, I did actually get an email from DL to say my objection was upheld and my answer included in the correct responses going forward.
Interestingly, it is one of the few constructions in which 'whom' is still commonly used.
'Who knows who will have been given the prize' is much more common than 'Who knows whom will have been given the prize' but 'Who knows to whom the prize will have been given' is probably more often heard than, ''Who knows to who the prize will have been given'. .
I think this part is a place to enable us users to communicate and help each other and it is rarely checked by any of the volunteer admins.
And I am sorry but for the moment I think you are mistaken: https://forum.duolingo.com/comment/10323367?comment_id=48825088
"Who knows to whom the prize will have been given." is the CORRECT translation for this native speaker. One is not supposed to end an English sentence with a preposition, e.g. "to". But exceptions do make the rule. The famous British Winston Churchill when corrected for such an error, replied "This is something up with which I shall not put .", (a very bizarre English sentence which follows the rule) to illustrate his point. In spoken English you will often hear "Who knows who the prize will have been given to."
I find the use of 'who' or 'whom' very confusing and had to look this up,
- this is what I found:
As 'whom' is the object form of 'who' it should be used when the person referred to is the object of the verb. An often recommended quick test is to check if it can be replaced with 'he' or 'him'. If it can be replaced by 'he' we should use 'who' and if it can be replaced with 'him' we should use 'whom'.
I order to simplify a check we can break the sentence discussed into two parts (with all the verbs in orange).
Who knows (Quick test: he knows)
who will have been given the prize. (Quick test: he will have been given the prize)
And in neither part is 'who' the object of any of the verbs . . . (As both items are objects of the person’s thoughts, I think the tendency is to want to use whom for the second thinking it is the object of the first, - but this is misleading.)
A native English speaker writes:
English is often very sloppy and slapdash about grammatical form. The sentence "Who will have been given the prize?" is a (grammatically very misleading) simplification of "To whom will the prize have been given?" In both cases "the prize" is the subject and "who/whom" is the indirect object (explicitly signalled by the "to" in the second case). The replacement of "to whom" by "who" is a syntactic nonsense, but it is what many people say.
The 'quick test' you refer to is usually reliable, but not here precisely because the first sentence is so grammatically deranged. Clearly the person referred to by "who" cannot be the subject of "will have been given" (unless the sentence is, say, referring to the transfer of slaves from one owner to another). The subject - what "will have been given" - is the prize.
Enclosing the sentence within the scope of "Who knows..." does not change any of this.
I do not want to disagree, - only to understand better . .
I Think in this case, we do not have to assume sloppy or slapdash English, - as the reference is the Italian sentence we are asked to translate.
Chissà a chi sarà stato dato il premio
I am only a student, I am not native nor do I have a linguistic degree in either of these languages, - but based on information from the sources listed below I think DL has a point in trying to teach us to use the following translations for Italian relative pronouns:
a chi = to who
a cui = to whom
Historically the English "whom" was used for objects - both direct and indirect ("Whom did she marry?", "To whom did you give the book?") - while "who" was reserved for the subject of a verb.
In the last hundred years or so, use of "whom" has gradually come to seem fussy and outdated, and many people never use it at all, always preferring "who". It is therefore now misguided to suppose that "who" must signify a grammatical subject; as often as not, it is an object.
As for "a chi"/"a cui", isn't the difference here between the interrogative "chi?", and the relative pronoun "che" (shifted to "cui" because preceded by a preposition "a")? In the present case "Chissa..?" contains the implicit question "a chi sara' stato dato...?", which is why it is "a chi", not "a cui". But in English "who"/"whom" is used in the role of BOTH "chi" AND "che"/"cui" (in the case that "che"/"cui" refers to a person).
What I am saying is that the who <-> whom distinction (insofar as it still exists in English) is a different distinction from the chi <-> che/cui one in Italian - it is so to speak independent of (orthogonal to) it. So it is mistaken to suppose that in all cases who = chi, whom = che, to whom = a cui. These will be the right translations in certain contexts, but not necessarily.
Does that help? Does it make sense?