Whom did you see Jennifer and?

[Khemehekis]

Kankonian

Ar emen Jennifer mui il?
2sg see-PST Jennifer and who

(It's much easier to make it sound grammatical in Kankonian, because Kankonian doesn't have WH-fronting.)

Can other languages handle this one?

[ol bofosh]

On hesirk ol jenifer savot uxu jix?
2SG see-PST PR Jennifer person INT.ADJ with
/oɳ ˈhe.siɾk oɭ dʐe.ˈni.feɾ ˈsa.vot ˈu.xu dʐix/

[Plusquamperfekt]

Miwonša?

Miwonša has a very simple solution for this problem. You simple use the preposition "aži" (except)

Čwoi žayaniš aži Jennifer? / Čwoi aži Jennifer žayaniš?

(who-ACC see<PAST>-2SG.PFV except Jennifer?)

[Click]

The English sentence sounds very weird.

Tumetıęk

Rıtıu Gıenıperu tınu/kıabı?
[ˈritɪ̯ʊ ˈɟ(i̯)ɛnɪˌpɛrʊ ˈtʰinʊ/ˈcʰ(i̯)æβɪ]
2SG›3.PST-see jennifer-ACC and Q-ACC/INT-ACC
Whom did you see Jennifer and?

[Dormouse559]

That's because English isn't always wh-fronting. Try this on for size: "You saw Jennifer and who(m)?" In my dialect, the sentence is pronounced mostly like a declarative statement, with rising intonation on "who".

[Serena]

This is easily resolved in most languages by using a comitative case or a preposition instead of the conjunction "and". For example,
"Whom did you see Jennifer and?" sounds very unnatural to me, I'd say "Who(m) did you see Jennifer with?".

[Dormouse559]

I thought about that, but the comitative removes an ambiguity in the original sentence. It implies that you saw Jennifer and this other person together, while "and" leaves open the possibility that you saw them separately.

[Serena]

I thought about that, but the comitative removes an ambiguity in the original sentence. It implies that you saw Jennifer and this other person together, while "and" leaves open the possibility that you saw them separately.

What about "Who else did you see besides Jennifer?"

[Dormouse559]

What about "Who else did you see beside Jennifer?"

"Besides", but yes, I like that.

[Sangfroidish]

Tzyenyfyräs äf cyo se ölläs?
[ˈdʒenəˌfəɾæs æf co se ølːæs]
Jennifer-ACC.MASC and Q.ACC 2s see-2s
You saw Jennifer and who/what?

Cis (accusative cyo) is a catch-all interrogative, covering the meanings of who, what, (in the locative) when, where, (in the dative) why, whither, (in the ablative) whence, (in the instrumental) how, and (as a determiner) which (thereby why (for which reason, to which end)).

[Khemehekis]

The English sentence sounds very weird.

That's why I chose it. It's often used as an example of a sentence that would be incorrect according to the subtle norms of English syntax.

[Ithisa]

This is easily resolved in most languages by using a comitative case or a preposition instead of the conjunction "and". For example,
"Whom did you see Jennifer and?" sounds very unnatural to me, I'd say "Who(m) did you see Jennifer with?".

Whom is wrong since "Jennifer with N" is not a noun phrase (instead "with N" is an adverbial phrase), so N shouldn't be functionally an accusative, so the relative pronoun shouldn't take -m to indicate an accusative referent. So it's "who".

Yet this introduces two other ridiculous ambiguities:

Who did you see Jennifer with?
I saw Jennifer with the spy.

1. Using the spy as a tool, I saw Jennifer. 2. Accompanied by the spy, I saw Jennifer. 3. I saw Jennifer, who was accompanied by the spy.

[Dormouse559]

"With N" may be an adverbial phrase, but it is formed using a preposition, which makes the following noun an object. For example, it's wrong to say "I saw Jennifer with he". Nor could you substitute "the spy" for "he" in any of the numbered sentences you wrote. "Whom" is correct in my opinion, and so is "who", just not for the reason you gave.

[Andlat]

Kwëpta

Hua kútönenan sína Jennifer lë?
hwɑ kuː.toʊ.nɛ.nɑŋ siː.nɑ Jennifer leɪ?
Who see.PAST 2S Jennifer and?
Who saw you Jennifer and?

More naturally, one might say:
Hua kútönenan sína Jennifer avúla?
hwɑ kuː.toʊ.nɛ.nɑŋ siː.nɑ Jennifer ɑ.vuː.lɑ
Who see.PAST 2S Jennifer with?
Who saw you Jennifer with?

[Lao Kou]

Géarthnuns:

Öçek lé Jenifersaut zhö chethset hötel?
2SG-NOM AUX.PAST Jennifer-ACC and who-ACC see-INTERR
Jennifer and whom did you see?

Left to its own devices and bereft of context, intonation, and/or other marking, this sentence has the pragmatic potential of being interpreted as: "You saw Jennifer and who?!"

If you wanted to dial it back a notch and make clear that you were just asking for information ("So, at the party, you saw Jennifer and who?"), you could, as has been suggested above, simply add "else":

Öçek lé Jenifersaut zhö chethset sföthet hötel?
2SG-NOM AUX.PAST Jennifer-ACC and who-ACC else-ACC see-INTERR
Jennifer and whom else did you see?

Since "sföb" is "else" in the sense of "additional", the notion of "besides" is implicit.

[Ithisa]

"With N" may be an adverbial phrase, but it is formed using a preposition, which makes the following noun an object. For example, it's wrong to say "I saw Jennifer with he". Nor could you substitute "the spy" for "he" in any of the numbered sentences you wrote. "Whom" is correct in my opinion, and so is "who", just not for the reason you gave.

Ah. Forgot about Indo-European-ish preposition-noun agreement. Yeah, "with" makes its argument take a semantically "useless" accusative...I remember Ancient Greek had so many rules about which case goes with which preposition!

[DanH34]

Zidhgebzhail - Pleasingly, the Zidhgebzhailicised form of Jennifer - 'Zhenfa' becomes the almost-English 'Zhenefa' in the accusative case (the penultimate /f/ mutates to an /m/ due to its proximity to the /f/ in the case ending, then elides because it follows another nasal). It is possible that some dialects may render it 'Zhemefa' or even 'Zhenmefa', however.

Elements in [square brackets] could be omitted in the vernacular.

[kwy]gAin dil Zhenefa kwoziedzh[ef] [hyn]?
[kwy]-g-Ai-n d-il Zhenf-ef-a kw-oz-iedzh-[ef] [hyn]?
[Q]-PST-see-SIMPLE.TOP 2-ERG.SG.M Jennifer-ACC-SG.F Q-man-CONJ.and-[ACC.SG.M].FOC [DUMMY-VERB]
Seeing, you did it to Jennifer and whom?

Or

Zhenefa dil kwoziedzhef [kwy]gAin?
Zhenf-ef-a dil kw-oz-iedzh-ef [kwy]-g-Ai-n?
Jennifer-ACC-SG.F.TOP 2-ERG.SG.M Q-man-CONJ.and-ACC.SG.M.FOC [Q]-PST-see-SIMPLE?
Jennifer, you saw her and whom?

[Systemzwang]

"With N" may be an adverbial phrase, but it is formed using a preposition, which makes the following noun an object. For example, it's wrong to say "I saw Jennifer with he". Nor could you substitute "the spy" for "he" in any of the numbered sentences you wrote. "Whom" is correct in my opinion, and so is "who", just not for the reason you gave.

Ah. Forgot about Indo-European-ish preposition-noun agreement. Yeah, "with" makes its argument take a semantically "useless" accusative...I remember Ancient Greek had so many rules about which case goes with which preposition!

That kind of thing is common enough cross-linguistically that there's even a suggested universal along the lines that 'in languages with cases and nom-acc alignment, very few adpositions take a case otherwise restricted to subjects'. Also, although it may be semantically useless, it does help tell us something about the particular phrase the noun is in, in case noise has obscured part of the utterance.

[Chagen]

Heocg is optionally wh-fronting and wouldn't do it here.

Also that English sentence is literally at the bare edge of "ungrammatical" and "grammatical but extremely marked" for me.

Dah Gcenifura bam ðrusa kruyur?
2SG.NOM Jennifer-ACC and who-ACC see-PST

[ol bofosh]

To make it grammatical there'd have to be a comma: Whom did you see, Jennifer and...?

Still marked. I'd say it "You saw Jennifer and...?/You saw Jennifer and who?"