who are you

Hi, Navi,

@navi posted:

A says: I want you to promote Jack.
B replies:
1) Who is Jack for me to promote?
2) Who is Jack to promote?

B could have also said: Who the hell is Jack ...

The idea is that Jack doesn't deserve a promotion at all. Why (the hell) would I promote Jack?

Do '1' and '2' work in this context?

I think '1' works. I find '2' a bit strange, but I think it works.

I heard this sentence:

Who the ... are you to apologize to?

I don't think (2) works. I think it should be changed to:

2a) Who is Jack to be promoted?

(2) sounds like a question in the future, with "Jack" as subject: Who is Jack going to promote?

The point is that the verb in (1) more clearly points to "who" as the object because of "for me."

I think the question from The Irishman you quoted (which I will number as (3) for ease of reference) is ambiguous. Unlike "promote," I think it is the prepositional nature of "apologize to" that renders its passive interpretation more plausible:

3a. Who are you going to apologize to?
3b. Who are you to deserve my apologies?

@navi posted:

A says: I want you to promote Jack.
B replies:
1) Who is Jack for me to promote?
2) Who is Jack to promote?

. . . The idea is that Jack doesn't deserve a promotion at all. Why (the hell) would I promote Jack? . . .

I heard this sentence:

Who the ... are you to apologize to?

Hello, Navi—I agree with Gustavo that "Who is Jack to be promoted?" works much better than (1), and I think it works better than (1), as well, which, to me, doesn't work at all. I think the object of "promote" needs to be added:

1a) Who is Jack for me to promote him?
2a) Who is Jack to be promoted (by me)?

3a) Who is Jack, that I should promote him?
3b) Who is Jack, that he should be promoted (by me)?

I'm not a fan of the Al Pacino line, either, though I am a fan of Al Pacino. Notice that in (3a) and (3b) I have used a special "that"-clause construction, in keeping with earlier discussions we have had about this (here and here).

4a) Who the **** are you for me to apologize to you?
4b) Who the **** are you to be apologized to (by me)?

5a) Who the **** are you, that I should apologize to you?
5b) Who the **** are you, that you should be apologized to (by me)?

@David, Moderator posted:

I think the object of "promote" needs to be added:

1a) Who is Jack for me to promote him?

[...]

4a) Who the **** are you for me to apologize to you?

Yes, those sound better. I think it is the question that renders the object necessary. With the subject complement (i.e. Who) being so detached in that initial position, the infinitive cannot remain objectless. In statements, we would omit the object:

- Jack is the right person for me to promote.
- You are the right person for me to apologize to.