Why not in whom

Consider rearranging the clause to be the parenthetical, (the group was named for him). This may emphasize the correct preposition for you. The purpose of the particular name chosen is to identify the individual who started the group, and "for" is often used in that way. ("Braces were added for stability", etc.) "After him" would work, but "after" does not imply purpose in other instances and is more ambiguous to me since it could suggest the group was named later in time than he was. We often use it, however. "In him" has no meaning here. You can trust him or believe him, which applies to an instance, but to believe in, or trust in him, describes your assessment of his character. To trust in him means he has (contains) your trust. That's how I look at it.

It should be "for whom," which means it was founded in his name. With the exception of how I used "in" in that last sentence, "in" refers to being inside something.

English has fixed prepositions for various verbs, nouns, and adjectives. (Sometimes, more than one preposition will fit; but often, only one is correct.) One example is "to be named for." Another is "to believe in." * Sally Smith, the person *for whom* I was named, was a famous inventor. It's just something you have to memorize and use.

[deleted]

Related question: would "after whom" also work ?

Why would it be "in"? If you name something *for* somebody then you give it a name becasue of that person. If you name something *in* somebody... that doesn't mean anything? You can name something "in somebody's honour" or do something "in somebody's name" - but you cannot hame something "in somebody".

I'm not sure whether the question was about the construction "to be named for someone", or the correct preposition to use before the pronoun "whom". For the latter, I would rewrite the relative as "the group was named for Jacob(=whom)". Anyway, for me, I'd rather write "the group was named after Jacob"... But I'm not an English speaker...

For whom the bell tolls

Cuz that would sound really weird. It sounds like they held a conference inside his stomach or something, and that’s where they came up with the name.

The only appropriate answer to this question is: who gives a shit? Answering this question accurately will not help you be fluent in the English language. Waste of time.

"in whom" doesn't work bcuz you can't name something "in" someone. that doesn't make sense. if you put it in a regular sentence without a relative clause: **the group was named in Jacob Amman** its obviously incorrect. now you can say **the group was named for Jacob Amman** but that sounds less natural to me. i'd say **the group was named after Jacob Amman** and subsequently **... after whom the group was named** now, you can say things were named **in** someone's memory, honor, etc.

'In whom' would be inside someone. I guess 'for whom' makes the most sense out of these, but I would say 'after whom'.

In American English, you wouldn't say *in* whom. You'd either say "for whom", as it is here, or "after whom". You might say you did something "in his name", but that's just not the way American English uses "in whom". (I'm specifying "American" every time because the rules are slightly different for British English.

For whom and after whom work. But in whom does not make sense.

cause question

It’s is the object of a verb. Therefore who. Whom is used when it is not the object of a verb or plural.

the group was named for (whom=Jacob Amman). **"name for"** is used to give someone or something a name to honor a person. For example, "*They* ***named*** *the school* ***for*** *the famous writer."* (They used the writer's name to honor them.) **"in whom"** would work if the sentence had a verb like "believe", "trust" or another verb that is used with "in". For example, "*I* ***believe in*** *him." \~ "He is the person* ***in*** *whom I* ***believe***." or *"He is the person I* ***believe in***."

Because it makes no sense. I don't know of any language in which 'in' would be used in that situation.

The key difference between the phrase “in whom” and “in whose honor” is the noun used with the preposition. “In whom” has “whom” which refers directly to a person as the noun. “In whose honor” (or name) has “honor” as the noun. It’s understood that something done “in honor” is using the preposition “in” metaphorically because honor (and name) is something intangible, but that’s not the case when the noun (“whom”) is a person. Generally, tangible nouns (such as “whom” which is referring to a person) are not understood to be used metaphorically with prepositions, so this sentence would be saying that the conference to pick the name was held at a venue which is located inside of the person. Ick. “For” as a preposition doesn’t have this issue because it isn’t used to describe locations.

I would have said "after whom"

For, means something along the lines of, something owed or belonging to a specific person/event or other, while that thing is in movement towards said specific person/event "This is for Me/the picnic/the car" "For more options", press 5" In, is flexible as well, "in the honor of person/event/ or other" but it also means very strongly "inside of" "In a meeting/cave/pool/traffic jam/pickle or other. "The large object called Jkegdy, in whom it was named was recently dislodged following accusations of or other" "

I really can't understand what grammar you are using to get "in whom". After whom, from context about the group, is the clear choice, I suppose because "in" is not the correct preposition to connect the person and the group, since the action of naming is the verb, so the action is done "for the group" and the whom refers back to the founder.

Tam bir dilkoyayincilik sorusuna benziyor

These days I would avoid writing a sentence like this. I would probably say "The Amish are a Christian sect founded by, and named after, Jacob Ammer." Then continue with the rest as another sentence. Edit for spelling

the group wasn't named IN him, just in his name. which is not an option

Don’t worry, he just ate the talking fish whole.

In whom's name would work After whom From whom the group is named

native speaker ☝️☝️ to me saying “in” implies that this naming took place inside of Jacob, which doesn’t really make any sense. saying “for” implies it was named in Jacob’s honor, which is much more fitting :P

after which for which, is it ok?

'name for' or 'name after' means something specific

My first name is my maternal grandmother's first name, and my middle name is my paternal grandmother's first name. I'm more likely to say that I was "named after my grandmothers " then I am to say "I was named for my grandmothers". We have a wonderful babysitter, for whom we are very grateful. Our babysitter is someone in home we trust. "For whom the bell tolls…" For whom did you order the cashmere scarf? My turn on stage is quickly approaching. After whom will I perform? In standard American English, for whom and after whom both work in the example given. Something to remember about "for"is that the thing being done, or the object in question often benefits for someone. I bought the scarf for him. I offered to write a recommendation for her. FWIW: I find myself wondering whether I say I was named "after" my grandmothers because both died well before I was born, so never knew that I had been given their names. Presumably, each of the women would've felt some pleasure if she had known that my parents/her son or daughter, had named their baby girl "for" her. (to give her the feeling she was being honored).