神仙打架，我们也起哄一番。

首先，对wh-关系词究竟属于主句还是关系句的争论久已有之，这一方面是分析方法的原因，同时也是语言本身奥繁复杂的结果。比如认为属于主句的The Adjunction Analysis(AA), originally due to Bresnan & Grimshaw (1978), assumes that the wh-phrase itself is in fact an external head, contrary to appearances; the FR-internal gap is the result of some process other than raising.另外一种分析把wh-phrase 归于自由关系从句The competing Raising Analysis（RA）, popularized in Groos & van Riemsdijk 1981 (there called ‘COMP Account’), assumes that some null nominal or determiner takes the FR clause as its complement. The disagreement, in short, is about the FR-internal vs. -external status of the wh-phrase. 这应该是产生张赵二人观点分歧的原因。这么看这个同时性并不是张教授的独家见解。The wh-phrase at the edge of the FR has to match selectional requirements of both matrix and embedded environments: The phrase is “shared”between both predicates, each imposing separate requirements. 如何解释其在主从句中两用共享时格问题和成分问题，就可能有了差异。我们常见的夸克语法和剑桥语法都是认为wh-phrase属于自由关系从句，是融合关系词，这个关系词在从句内也同时担当两个角色，既是NP（这个名词性关系从句实质上就是NP）名词短语中心词，又是从句主语，比如[Whoever said that] was trying to mislead you. 这个句子，Whoever is simultaneously head of the NP and subject of the relative clause that modifies it.这是Rodney Huddleston等人的观点。另外，大家基本都是把整个名词关系句看作一个成分作主语，宾语，表语等，只是对what等（缩合关系词）的语法推导解释，那是各显神通。其实也是偶尔有人把它们直接称作宾语或主语的。比如Andrew Radford的书中有：(vii)[Whomever you elect] will serve a four-year term : Here, the free relative pronoun whomever originates as the complement of (and so is assigned accusative case by) the verb elect, even though it ends up as the subject of will.老点的书《英美语惯用法词典》也有例子：Whoever (=Anyone who) says so is a liar.谁那样说，谁就在说谎。〔whoever 具有双重构造，是says，is两者的主语。也就是说is的主语he被省略，包含在 whoever中)，【个人观点：其实，what就是what，就是一个词，表达一个概念，把它解释成the thing which等也只是个解释而已，（应该有某种我们没发现的合理缺省），并不能把它们和原词等同。很明显，它们起到的作用是不同的，只能说是真值上大致是相等了。用心体会一下，我们会发现，what的意义范围和语气都要比改写the thing which强很多，what让我们有整体的，所有的那种强调的感觉（all），语气上是更贴近更关心的状态。就像我们用it，that，等指代前事，都不如which关系代词心理距离更显得贴近。事实上，this is what I need就是一个强调句】这种一分为二的解释确实带来词性和内容上的问题。所以，跟主流看法不同的观点也有出现，比如把what-就看作个体，而不是融合体。生成分析上它后面可能是零操作词that，或者干脆是它的影子复制。重点看中括号里面从句包括的内容，也就了解了各种假设。

I eat [ NP/DP Ø [ CP what(-ever) i they cook t i ]]   Ø表示空的，不存在

a. I eat [what(-ever food) [ CP they cook _ ]]

b. I eat [the food [ CP (that) they cook _ ]]

I eat [what(-ever) i [ CP they cook it i ]]

I eat [what(-ever) [ CP what(-ever) i they cook t i ]]

那么，到底该怎么理解这个问题呢？很简单，把它们结合起来，语言的多样性需要根据实际情况用两种方法分别予以解释。这是比较新的观点。we argue that both analyses coexist as derivational options: some FRs require a raising derivation, while others are inconsistent with it. We support this conclusion with evidence from reconstruction, by showing that the wh-phrase of an FR can be interpreted both internally (in the FR) and externally (in the main clause), necessitating both types of analyses.

再说那个格的问题。

英语主要是德语方言的变种，幸好远离德国本土后各种性数格变化，强弱动词变化，逐渐消失了，有限的一点也被现代人鄙视，比如，英国基本不用whomever，而美国也只是在正式场合才用。所以基本上用whoever就对了，但准确点还是最好根据其在它本身句中的功用成分来确定。这里简单提一下成分匹配和格问题

a. I drank [ FR whatever there was ]

b. I’ll reread whatever paper John has worked *(on)

c. *I’ll reread on whatever paper John has worked

d. I’ll live wherever you live

e. I’ll live in whatever town you live (in)

If the matrix verb requires an NP/DP, then the FR pronoun has to be of that

category, as we see in (1a-c). The same holds for a PP requirement (1e).

However, English has preposition stranding. Although there is a conflict in

(1b) with respect to the forms required by the verbs – the matrix verb re-

quires a direct object, i.e. an NP/DP, and the embedded verb a PP –, a FR is

possible, if the pronoun moves up alone and strands its preposition (1b).

格问题也列举几个例子，

I will give a bonus to whoever works the hardest.

I will call whomever the doctor recommends.

Whoever said that (S) does not understand the question.

[Whomever you elect] will serve a four-year term

但是有时候也可能碰到不太合乎标准的例子，不足为怪，感觉习惯使然。比如

a man whom I don't think has any friends

主格却用了宾格形式，不符合我们上面的规定，但确实没错，合乎语法，原因恐怕是离think太近，人们产生了错觉。

以剑桥语法为参考做个结尾吧

(5) a. Whoever loves you must be mad.    (Nom – Nom à who)

b. I hate who(m)ever you love.       (Acc – Acc à who(m))

c.?? I hate whomever loves you.      (Acc – Nom à who)

d.?* Whomever loves you must be mad.   (Nom – Nom à who)

As it turns out, however, this constraint is not very strict (cf. Huddleston et al. 2002: 1974): although the constructions in (5c-d) are more likely to be regarded as questionable, they frequently occur (especially in the COCA). Some examples are given in (6):

(6) a. … to investigate, pursue and apprehend whomever started the fire (COCA)

b. In fact, we know that whomever is nominated by our party will be subjected to the same kind of withering attacks. (COCA) 

 砖抛了，等拍！