text:
Long live whom!
Over the last 200 years, the pronoun whom has been on a steady decline. Despite its waning use in speech and ongoing speculation about its imminent extinction, whom still holds a spot in the English language, particularly in formal writing. Understanding when and how to use this embattled pronoun can set your writing apart.
Whom is often confused with who. What's the difference between these two pronouns? Who is a subjective-case pronoun, meaning it functions as a subject in a sentence, and whom is an objective-case pronoun, meaning it functions as an object in a sentence. Who, like I, he, she, and they, performs actions, as in Who rescued the dog? (who is doing the rescuing in this sentence). Whom, like me, him, her, and them, is acted on, as in Whom did you see? (whom is being seen here, not doing the seeing). Whom more commonly appears when it follows a preposition, as in the salutation To Whom it may concern (Does it concern he? No. Does it concern him? Yes.) or in the title of Ernest Hemingway's 1940 novel For Whom the Bell Tolls.
How do you decide which one to use? When in doubt, substitute him (sometimes you'll have to rephrase the sentence) and see if that sounds right. If him is OK, then whom is OK. If the more natural substitute is he, then go with who. For example: You talked to whom? It would be incorrect to say You talked to he? but saying You talked to him? makes grammatical sense.
All of that said, in informal speech and writing, speakers will often opt for who where whom has traditionally been used. This choice sounds more natural and less formal to most native English speakers.
Do you ever use whom?
Long live whom!
what about she and her???
Umm, no…
She you are talking about someone. Her, you are talking about something she owns or has.
I suspect the author used "him" rather than "her" because "him" ends with "m" similar to "whom." Obviously one could substitute "her" and it works exactly the same way.
The advantage of "whom" is that one does not have to say "him/her". However, grammatically speaking, "him" is correct when one does not know the gender. I do not believe that the grammar books have yet changed to say that "him/her" is the correct form of speech when one does not know. This is why I continue to use "whom" when I can.
There's a trick. It's not always perfect, but it's a start.
If the word "he" fits better than "him" in the place of the "who" or "whom," use "who."
If the word "him" sounds better than "he" in the place, use "whom."
I know that "who" is subjective, and "whom" is objective, but if your sentence diagraming isn't doing well, this is SOMETHING. With this trick you won't be 100% accurate, but an 80% is better than a 50%.
Just remember: HE –> WHO and HIM –> WHOM
Oh, poor child… Have you never experienced a live Dead show¿ Phish is talented in their own rite, but they will eternally sound and feel anæmic in comparison to the Forefathers of tangential psy-rock (my answer to the cliched genre, 'jam band'.
Bev, it is always perfect except for one exception.
Take the sentence "Give the food to w…ever might need it." You might be tricked into saying "Give the food to whomever might need it," because "to," a preposition, requires an object, such as him, her, them, etc. But the phrase w…ever might need it requires a subject and that takes precedence. So it can only be correct to say "Give the food to whoever might need it" (she might need it, they might need it…not her might need it, them might need it.) Same principle as the trick you cited and the one and only exception I've ever found. This sounds complicated but it is so only if you never learned the difference between subject (I, she, he, etc.) and object (me, her, him, etc.)
whom will help me???
I will help. What is wrong? Looking at your login name "depressed kid" does it have to do with depression, or what you perceive to be depression?
you are only one who has Rocks my world
Correct grammer plz
Depressed kid, wishing u well
I will help you
Wouldn't it be "who?"
Metallica asks for Whom the Bell Tolls.
Ride the Lightning baby!
well you know lots of people doesnt use whom right
Also, lots of people don't use the word "doesn't" right SCNR
Hi a
Mean comment
I believe that instead of "right", you meant to write, "correctly". Did you not?
A grammar diss, dissing a diss dissing another diss? *Creative*.
Do you talk the way you right.
How does one go about riding a lightning baby? Are they fast, like lightning, or more typical baby speed? Do I need to wear insulated, rubber pants? And is this going to get me in trouble with the lightning MOTHER?
By being put to death in the electric chair. It's a euphemism for that, and the song is sang from the perspective of someone who is about to be put to death in that manner.
Hi Mike. I will never forget lowkey……..
Lowkey – I believe you wanted to say "the song is sung," not "the song is sang." Please watch on YouTube Garrard McClendon's "Black English."
Actually, it was John Donne who asked, but let it rest, let it rest…
So, that would mean that "who" is not a question word, but "whom" is, and in the latter will always be the object, unless is a subject question.
To further explain – 'Who did you see?' is not the correct questions, it should always be 'whom did you see?', because the answer would be 'I saw him'.
Now if it is a subject question like, who broke the window? Well, he broke the window, in that case who is the person that broke the window, the subject.
That means that the following questions should all have "whom"
Whom do you live with?
Whom have you taught how to cook before?
Whom did you invite to the party?
etc.. in the end it is all very interesting and I wish it would be applied, anyways, it is not important as it isn't really used in current times.
The second question would instead be
Whom taught you to cook?
Whom have taught you how to cook before?
There is a difference:
(1) Who has taught you to cook?
(2) Whom have you taught to cook?
In (1) is the teacher unknown and you are the pupil, in (2) are you the teacher and is the pupil unknown.
Both sentences are grammatically correct, they only differ in perspective on the action and the actors.
whom wrote this article?
yeah, that wouldn't be correct because the answer would be "They wrote the article" meaning the subject.
Whom is being used as the subject and not the object, therefore your use of the word whom is incorrect. Proper usage would include: Do you know whom wrote this article?
How about, do you know who wrote this book? Jack wrote the book
No, it's "Do you know who wrote this article?"
"Who wrote this article" is a relative clause, the subject of which is "who," not "whom." The clause as a whole is the object of the verb "know."
Sorry, but "do you know whom wrote this article?" is equally incorrect. In this case it's who, no matter how you rephrase. "Who wrote the article" is the same as "Do you know who wrote the article".
Him did.
whom are you to say a thing like that?
The correct answer would be Who wrote this article….Did "he" write this article? Who should be used. Did she write this article? Again, who would be correct. He wrote this article. She wrote this article….he/she is the SUBJECT…the subject who wrote the article. Lol….So, in summary…."Who wrote this article?" IS GRAMMATICALLY CORRECT!
Beautiful amazing today's woman leap year Olympics 366days every 4years
WHO(HE) wrote this article, not whom
It's so sad the charm has vanished from this world!
In America, the charm is long gone…
I love you
sorry,I tried to write down some comments,but I did something wrong,can I delete what I said just now?
it does not seem as if using the word 'whom' helps the message that is being communicated to be any more understandable because of its use. i am purposefully not using capital letters in this post. does it make the message less clear? i actually use this style of writing in my profession and on the systems i work on (where it is required). the reality for me is that i am able to get my messages out more quickly without capitalizing and it gives my writing style a personal flare. is my writing style is having an impact on what is considered proper written english? i hope so. language is always changing and evolving, as it should. i will never use the word 'whom' unless the stakes of not using it have a impact on me. chastise me if you want- that seems to often be what is being done by people who use the word 'whom' anyways.
It is all about aesthetics and how others perceive you. It is like clothing, in a sense, because if you do not follow the formalities, you might end up looking like a hobo.
RiotGrrrl (Nice name! I haven't heard that terminology in a long time…nice to see it again…) and Green, I think you're greatly underestimating the importance of syntax. The rules and structure that grammar provides is responsible for langauge having any practical use. As far as the other point about people using language to affect how others perceive them, I think it's funny when their effort causes the opposite of the intended affect. Like when people erroneously use the word "I" in a sentence rather than "me" or "well" when "good" is actually correct (and of course "whom" when the sentence should use "who"). They're trying to sound smarter and instead sound like pretentious idiots. Or at the very least, it's that they actually want to sound pretentious (who does that?!), but instead make it even more obvious that they have poor English language skills.
Wait a minute, the verb/tense agreement should be, "he rules and structure that grammar provides ARE responsible for language having any practical use", correct?
I couldn't agree more!
you mean…
opposite of the intended *effect*
I think the day is coming…or maybe has come…when what we were taught about grammar will disappear. People act and think so much more independently. …
The disappearance of good grammar goes hand in hand with the disappearance of class in America.
Right on, Dee! The decline of America is leaning towards lazy language. To be taken seriously, one must speak/write seriously. I applaud and agree with you! Well said, Dee! This Country has been dumbed down to the point of utter frustration (NOT flustration!). Our speech is our first impression of how we are perceived. Our Forefathers are rolling over in their graves right now listening to poor grammer, zero command of the English language, no more proper cursive handwriting, etc. Why even hire English teachers anymore? Grr…
Oprah once said that if a person reads ONE book per year, that person is considered well-read! Preposterous! I read at least a book a week! You're an idiot if you can only manage one book annually! Put down the video games and pick up a classic novel morons.
This Country is getting more stupid by the minute. I, for one, possess the arrogance of correcting someone's grammer. Offend someone? Too bad! You can thank me later just as I did those who enlightened me so many times.
I wish you and I were in a book club, Dee. I'd be proud to exchange ideas with you.
Muphry's law, demonstrated:
"I, for one, possess the arrogance of correcting someone's grammer."
Love it.
And I, for one, possess the arrogance of correcting someone's GRAMMAR, not "GRAMMER." I'll join the book club. I eat at least one book a week.
Of course, because grammar is only used in America. Right?
I was okay with your comment until the very last word, "anyways"! There is no such word, and there was a very funny "Murphy Brown" show that dealt with this issue. BTW, should I put the exclamation mark inside or outside of the quotation mark? Will it affect the clarity of my message? No!
I like the Spanish language custom of putting an inverted question mark or exclamation mark at the beginning of a sentence in which it will be used at the end of the sentence in order to alert the reader to the intent of the sentence. ¡Adios!
Ha. Ha. I like that. Spanish language. First time I come to know of that unique way they adopt to catch attention. Very interesting and novel too. Inverted question mark and exclamation mark at the beginning. I am going to try this trick next time for sure.
First time I "came" to know….
I think you mean "flair"…
She does
Arthur, maybe her use of the word "flare" is correct. Afterall her ideas on punctuation and grammar are quite inflammatory!
OK riotGrrrl, you might think it is faster to type without any capitals, but it does make a difference to the reader. It's harder to read and though it's not quite as difficult than when it's all capitals (if I'm faced with a long ingredient list on foods and it's all in capitals, I simply put the package away and buy something else because the text it so difficult to read). So have your individual quirk, but I wouldn't call it flare, just a lazy way of typing.
Your writing style and personal flare are pretty unclear. Yes, they do have an impact. Congrats.
would you please talk to my Language Arts (English) teacher? she makes us write upwards of three essays a semester –all in formal language, mind you–, and I'm still not certain as to why. the only place I would see myself actually writing a formal essay in real life is for a scholarship application!
you are very egocentric an would like to eradicate all the rule of English Grammar . With more people like you the language would go in shambles . It is not all about you . you want to dismantle years of tradition jut to suit your needs ?
Shouldn't it be personal flair, rather than personal flare?
Stylishness and Originality
wth- what a load of crap- are there better things you can spend your time on??????
Why, pray, have you become so agitated because of how others occupy their time? Some might wonder whether you use your time solely to criticize. Consider the first syllable of your surname. Act that way.
To whom it may concern—–Great comment, Shool master. I couldn't agree more.
Tell us what you consider better. Bear in mind that you are here of your own volition.
There is only one better thing to spend your time on, and whom might that be?
You guessed it! Whom that is is none other than Our Lord and Savior!
Praise be to whom! Praise be to him!
Jesus Christ's older brother, Raul Christ!
hmm..Sir chillington…may i suggest you spend your time not critizing those around you and uhh.."spend your time" on "better things"?
Jon: You have used more than your daily allotment of question marks. Please take a remedial course in punctuation, at the very least.
Hi macey
Hey im in computure class
meet me in the library after school i've got something for you
hi macey
Computer* fool
brett – I think you should skip COMPUTER class until you master English, specifically Spelling and Punctuation. LOL
Holy Lord, Macey, i haven't seen you in years?!
Whom are you doing Noww!?.
good for me, too!
olkay respond now GO!!
bye bye macey
hi mercedes
How about…"I must be the only one/person who/whom…" and/or… "I must be the only _______ who/whom where _(such and such happens to me)___…" can that sentence be completed where a case can be made for both whom and who?
i.e., I must be the only one whom bad luck happens to….or something akin?
The often heard but misleading "rule" that a sentence should not end with a preposition is transferred from Latin, where it is an accurate description of practice. But English grammar is different from Latin grammar, and the rule does not fit English. In speech, the final preposition is normal and idiomatic, especially in questions: What are we waiting for? Where did he come from? You didn't tell me which floor you worked on.In writing, the problem of placing the preposition arises most when a sentence ends with a relative clause in which the relative pronoun ( that; whom; which; whomever; whichever; whomsoever) is the object of a preposition. In edited writing, especially more formal writing, when a pronoun other than that introduces a final relative clause, the preposition usually precedes its object: He abandoned the project to which he had devoted his whole life. I finally telephoned the representative with whom I had been corresponding.If the pronoun is that, which cannot be preceded by a preposition, or if the pronoun is omitted, then the preposition must occur at the end: The librarian found the books that the child had scribbled in. There is the woman he spoke of.
I am a Latin teacher and I am always using "whom" and tend to correct my students when they do not. This comes from my Latin teacher in high school who made us say "whom-a" so she could distinctly hear the difference and ensure that we were using who/whom correctly. I even pick up the use of "who" instead of "whom" on television. So saddened when Alicia Florrick on the "Good Wife" did this.
I learned the difference between "who" and "whom" in grammar school and it stayed with me.
Now, if people would only learn the difference between OTHER subjective and objective pronouns!
I must be the only one to whom bad luck happens.
I teach using a simple rule: Wanting a question to which the reply could be (the one-word pronoun) 'Him.' such as either 'Who does this belong to?' or 'To whom does this belong?' choose the question with the M in it. Thus,'To WHOM does this belong?'
That's my anniversary! My husband and I text each other whenever we notice that it is 7:11. If we are in the same room we stop and give each other a kiss. We do this still after 17 years of marriage! Now, let the bashing for some grammatical error I probably made commence!
Why does this sound so wrong when it must be right?
I know whom you mean.
I agree with Taylor Swift.
P.S. I love you guys even though you are nerds
Ariana Grande – 10.3.16
"P.S. I love you guys even though you are nerds."
Well, I love you BECAUSE you are nerds!
Bad Horse – March 5.3.16
"Why does this sound so wrong when it must be right?
I know whom you mean."
Simply because we're used to hearing and seeing it wrong. That's one way the language is helped to degenerate. Make sense?
"That's one way the language is helped to degenerate."
Funny, in the Netherlands we tend to say the same thing. However, if people no longer understand the difference between "who" and "whom", it may indicate that it is becoming obsolete. By the way, you might say that American and Australian English are deteriorations of British English. In Dutch schools we were not allowed to use the American spelling and pronunciation; we had to stick to Standard English.
That's because of the "you." Formerly, it was in the objective case but now it is in the subjective case. And the form "you" matches with "who" which is why whom feels awkward even though it is technically correct. So let's use ye again, everybody!
You are all nerds.
Never contact me or come to a performance of mine again.
first of all taylor swift we not nerds with yo dusty self lol
Above message must be from pathetic Kanye
As if, Taylor Swift! Money doesn't buy proper English. Have a prof proofread your lyrics. Might help.
their signs a possession for axample, their hats
they is a subject for example they are
they' re means they are but it is only the shorts words ' re = are contracted
Who is a subjective-case pronoun, meaning it functions as a subject in a sentence, and whom is an objective-case pronoun, meaning it functions as an object in a sentence
For example, who I see ?, who you want ?
Whom trousers are theses?
Actually, you'd better ask "whose trousers are these?" since you're tackling possession, who possesses such object as the trousers.
To whom do these trousers belong?
Unfortunately, I've been self-taught by forasciously reading over the years. In the tenth grade my Rockland County NY High School changed its format of teaching to what they referred as a "modular" type, which left many of us scrambling the weeds. I then developed pneumonia, being hospitalized for two weeks (Woodstock was on the radio!), and shortly after, in mid-May, my [half]-sister, 9.5 yrs my junior (I, 16 at the time), became ill, beginning Friday of Mothers Day Weekend. Daphne succumbed to Reye's Syndrome; death came that Monday two months shy of her 7th birthday. The rest of my High School years became a struggled blur, but I persisted thereafter, by using my strong foundation and love of reading ~ mostly any industry publication that crossed my storied work career; the Boston Herald & Globe; The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Christian Science Monitor, among many others. I never let a word go by without having a reliable Dictionary at hand. Now, with Dictionary.com on my Android Smartphone, it's convenience is most assuredly an immeasurable blessing! – even at my age [now] of 61 ~ because those to whom knowledge is timeless, know that it takes place from cradle to grave! If one doesn't think so, they're the fool!!! Thank you for this space to express myself, and bless you [all] for what you do! Keep up the great service to all of us who benefit!
Thank you for that testimony Terry.
"VORACIOUSLY" reading. But thanks for that rambling diatribe. We all were dying to know your life story.
Ignore 'Scott', he's clearly an arse.
***USE not "user"! Sorry about that!
It was not a rambling story. It had a point. You did not have to read beyond the first sentence, did you? You simply wanted to be mean, a characteristic of internet activity. Like Terry, a number of people experienced high school as a less than invigorating blur. Most teachers were dull, most students indifferent, and most subjects were poorly presented. Reading was an unassailable activity that was often more interesting than the silliness of high school and having a dictionary was an absolute requirement.
Julienne – 15.1.2016
For example, whom do I see? & whom do you want?
aaayyy lmao those are my trousers
"SHUTUP" is about the rudest, inane response one can give. It's a testament to inadequate Emotional [lack of] Intelligence! For SHAME!
I would rather hear 'shut up' than judgmental blather from some self agrandising pedant. Your misunderstanding of emotional intelligence and intentional misuse of capitalization makes your response amusingly ironic. I would add something more fun to use than 'shut up, but I would like this posted. "One finger out, three back", 'Terry'.
I think Terry got some of that famous brown acid at Woodstock. It wasn't pneumonia at all.
I love reading everyones banter between one another..quite fascinating.
Scott. Shut up. We don't want to hear from you again; you're not fit to publish.
The Man
whose as a substitute dor whom never comes in the mind of a standard speaker of English !!!!! Whose is the genitive case( whose necktie is this ?? it's mine / Dad's….etc)
To whom am I speaking witk
I mean with
No need to add the word "with". Rather, "To whom am I speaking?"
When the name is known, who. When the name is unknown, whom
Hi, Satan! I'm a huge fan of your work.
It does not matter if the name is known. It matters where who/whom falls in the sentence. If it is the subject (the one doing the action), you use who; if it is being acted upon, or the object of a preposition (for example: on, over, under, to, etc.), you use whom.
Lizzie, it has nothing to do with knowing the name or not. It has to do with who does the action and who is acted on. Subject and predicate. I/me, he/him, etc.
Ok, so according to your logic, instead of asking "Who are you?" you should ask "Whom are you?" because you don't know their name. Yeah, not a chance.
No, it should be, "Who are you?" because "who" is the predicate nominative there. In technical English, "to be" is a copula, which means it performs no action; it just links two subjects. One would answer, "I am he". "Who is it?" "It is I." It's technically grammatically incorrect to say, "It's me" or "It's him/us/them." It should be "It is he/we/they."
Ex: It is we who are in charge. It is we who will speak. It is we whom God chose to lead his people out of Egypt. (and so on).
Notice the relative clause "whom God chose to lead his people out of Egypt", which modifies the subjective pronoun "we" because "whom" replaces "us" in the relative clause, which, if extracted, reads, "God chose 'us' to lead his people out of Egypt."
Congressman Fuenches is the candidate ??? (who/whom) the voters feel is the best qualified.
If you kindly answer please……
Who is correct.
Susan Decker – 27.12.15
Susan who is not correct.
No, Susan, 'who' is not correct. Consider the slightly complex statement: "Congressman Fuenches is the candidate…" What makes the statement complex?
Well, so far the congressman is the subject, wouldn't you say? Therefore surely 'who'. However, in the latter part he becomes the object, the one who has things done to him "…whom the voters FEEL is the best QUALIFIED.
Lizzie, it has nothing to do with whether we know him or not. But see my simple rule above (10.5.16); the pronoun has an 'M' in it. Therefore 'whom'.
Jacquelyn Hyde.
WHO, the voters feel..
…………..WHY? The name of the candidate is already known. In that case, the word, who, is used. If the name of the candidate or the name of the person, is unknown – use whom. ..
oh ok i think i get it now but it's still very confusing to the almighty SATAN!!!!!!!
omfg lol haha im laughing so hard right now
You are forgiven.
Whom is forgiven?
Satan is forgiven.
Who is forgiven?
~Actually, the sentence seems more consice without that part of speech altogether. The sentence would have even greater clarity if both subsequent instances of 'the' were also removed…..
* * "Congressman Fuenches is the candidate voters feel is best qualified." * *
~Also, when in question, consider using 'that' instead of 'who' or 'whom' (many times this substitution solves the problem, but is sometimes not appropriate). If applying this substitution, the use of a single subsequent 'the' (in either of the original occurrences) may aid in overal sentence clarity…..
* * "Congressman Fuenches is the candidate that the voters feel is best qualified." * *
* * "Congressman Fuenches is the candidate that voters feel is the best qualified." * *
"Congressman Fuenches is the candidate who the voters feel is [most qualified" is correct because "who" replaces the subjective pronoun "he" here.
Ex: "Who [do the voters feel] is the 'most' qualified? ('most' is better word than 'best' there.)
Answer: "He [Congressman Fuenches] is the most qualified candidate."
I've found it easiest to keep track of when to use "who" and when to use "whom" by posing the same question for "he" and "him". We don't say, "him is smart" or "give he the coffee cup."
A similar problem is found with using "effect" and "affect". People in the computer field have given up trying to know the distinction, and now use "impact" or "impacted" in place of both words. You might impact the design, and the software might be impacted by your contribution.
Words that imply the direction of action add clarity. Sometimes they are essential. In a loan agreement, it's important to distinguish between "lendor" and "lendee". Imagine if the wording only mentioned "loan participant."
effect is a noun, affect is a verb. except when affect has the definition of emotion.
I like your response. It's very clear.
It may be clear, however it is incorrect; one can "effect changes" (make changes) as well as feel their effect
I find it especially annoying when people (mis)use WHOM in place of WHO because they think WHOM is fancier (and interchangeable.
At my previous job, the Operator would announce over the public address system: Would whomever paged Mr. Jones please call the operator.
Obviously the operator was wrong. The person who paged Mr. Jones did the action and was thus the subject of the sentence; Mr. Jones was the recipient of the action and was thus the object of the sentence.
Would whoever used the word WHOMEVER please stop doing so.
However, the little used 'whomsoever' would be correct.
Can you stop being so negative!!!
Oh, sure…let's just do away with "whom" because people can't be bothered to get it right. We might as well just go back to living in trees and flinging our crap at each other.
Thaz basically what is happening here. I don't find a difference, verbal crap, or crap is being thrown at others, in response. It is no, more civilized
I used "whom" in my sixth grade summer reading essay, and my teacher marked it wrong and took away like three points for it, but I was right!
For that summer reading assignment, I chose the seventh "Guardians of Ga'Hoole" book, and I said something like "Some owls mistook him(Nyroc) for his mother, whom he looked similar to." Whom is referring to his mother, who is the subject of the sentence. He looked like her, not she, so "whom" is correct.
I meant object of the sentence, not subject.
Morgan, you were absolutely correct in your use of 'whom' whether or not you ended the sentence with a preposition. If your teacher took marks away for 'whom' he/she would be wrong.
Ending the sentence with a preposition does not make it incorrect, but it merely becomes a question of form.
Wouldnt u use whom when u dont know who your righting to
'Whom' is correct, but ending a sentence with a preposition is not. The sentence should be "Some owls mistook him (Nyroc) for his mother, to whom he looked similar."
'Whom' is the object of the preposition 'to'.
100% correct. It's a good lesson about how to re-phrase sentences, without it ending with a preposition. Excellent Linda.
This is something up with which I can not put!
Hence, "in my *sixth grade summer reading essay," @Linda.
The often heard but misleading "rule" that a sentence should not end with a preposition is transferred from Latin, where it is an accurate description of practice. But English grammar is different from Latin grammar, and the rule does not fit English. In speech, the final preposition is normal and idiomatic, especially in questions: What are we waiting for? Where did he come from? You didn't tell me which floor you worked on.In writing, the problem of placing the preposition arises most when a sentence ends with a relative clause in which the relative pronoun ( that; whom; which; whomever; whichever; whomsoever) is the object of a preposition. In edited writing, especially more formal writing, when a pronoun other than that introduces a final relative clause, the preposition usually precedes its object: He abandoned the project to which he had devoted his whole life. I finally telephoned the representative with whom I had been corresponding.If the pronoun is that, which cannot be preceded by a preposition, or if the pronoun is omitted, then the preposition must occur at the end: The librarian found the books that the child had scribbled in. There is the woman he spoke of.
wow Morgan – I so wish I can go back and slap your teacher…………honestlyI I always get confuse still today
same. "whom" can be a female, male, dog, cat, WHATEVER! WHO THE HECK ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? WHO CARES?
I meant, You were RIGHT. (Not WRITE). My bad.
You were write, Morgan; your teacher was wrong. I actually think a bigger problem in English is the subjunctive mood, which makes the difference between "who" and "whom" look like small potatoes. This is because English verbs have very few inflections anymore as it has "syncretized" (that should be a word of the day on this website) over the centuries. We no longer inflect many verbs in English and the entire inflection of the subjunctive has all but disappeared; in the present indicative, we just have an -s or -es at the end of third person singular verbs, i.e., do, does; write, writes.
In Shakespearean grammar, we saw a lot of subjunctive verbs:
"Murder, though it have no tongue, shall speak with most miraculous organ."
In the above sentence, we would probably say, "though it may have no tongue" or "though it has no tongue", Shakespeare used a present subjunctive verb.
Ex. "If that be the case, I shall eat my hat." The "be" in the protasis is a present subjunctive verb wherein we would normally say "is". The past subjunctive equivalent would be, "If that were the case, I should eat my hat." Here, "were" and "should" are both past subjunctive verb forms of "be" and "shall".
It's rather difficult to understand and, even in the days of Old English with Chaucer and as recently as Shakespeare, the subjunctive mood has never been strictly followed in English; it's always been somewhat interchangeable, and today, it is almost nonexistent except in idiomatic phrases such as, "Be that as it may", which translates as, "If that be as it may be"; Come what may, which is, "Let come whatever may come"; Come tomorrow, which is, "whenever tomorrow come"; "Suffice it to say", which means, "If it suffice to say"; "as it were", which means, "as if it were so"; "so be it", which means, "let it be so"; "God help us", which means, "May God help us" or "Let God help us"; and so on. We also use it in commands, prayers, wishes, possibilities, conditions, and in "that" clauses with words such as "ask", "request", etc.:
I ask that you be on time; I request that he have his own ride; I pray that I be given the serenity to continue; I wish I were an Oscar Meyer wiener; My goal is the he find true his soul mate; etc.
It should have been, "You were RIGHT; not you were WRITE".
So should the famous publication in the UK "Who's Who" really be "Who's Whom"?
Subject, who is the famous person? He is. Object, fame has come to whom? To him.
I don't believe so. One would say, "Who is he?" not, "Who is him?"
What do you ask: who is he? or Who is him? So it should be obvious now.
The rule for "is" applies here, saying somethis "is" something isn't doing something "to" something. So, "that is HIM" is actually wrong. However "that is HE" is so rarely said, because of the popular English way of thinking. The word-order suggests that the word AFTER the verb is somehow an object. This happens also with "and" with which many people make the same error,for example saying "Jim and me went to town."
'Who's Who' would be correct. For eg. – Who is he? He is Sir Francis Drake. So in both cases it is subject-based, hence Who's Who.
In a question like the following however, "Who spoke to whom?" there is a subject-based as well as object-based pronoun.
As the new generation abuse and "butcher" new words, yes i was born in 2001, and like everyone of my friends do this, but i think who creates a new word should be the ones who destroy that word, am i making sense here???
this reporter doesnt make sense
You have a lot to learn. But that's fine at your age. Language evolves slowly and through decades and in some regards centuries. Look at old English. If we were to go back in time we'd not have a clue what (they) were saying. Similar is that if they came to our time, they'd be clueless to what we're saying. Something a lot of people fail to keep in mind is that language is meant to communicate. As long as that is fulfilled then it is acceptable and in fact it shouldn't be considered a problem.
Who is talking to Whom ?
Both the words are equally important and meaningful and serve different purpose.
My favorite rock group is definitely The Whom and
my favorite tv show is Dr. Whom, to which you might say Whom-ptee-do, who gives a #@%&?
BUTCH- (DUMMM NOMER-LOOKIT UP, IGNORAMUS) YOU ARE JUST YET ANOTHER BLAZING A- WHOLE ( YES, THE WHOLE PART OF YOUR GREASY SELF) EXAMPLE OF THE DEGENERATION OF American PEOPLE—NO WONDER EVEN THIRD-WORLD COUNTRIES ARE GETTING AHEAD OF US —THE USA DUHHH. I'm willing to bet you're sickly and ugly and small-receptacled like most mo-rons of your generation- the generation of DE-GENERATION. DU-UH Nomer means NAME.
teka – take a chill pill.
Thanks. It's clearer to me now ¥¨œ∑´®†øπ¬å˚ß∆∂˙ƒ©Ω≈ç√`∫˜µ≤≥Œ"´‰ˇÁ¨ˆØ∏ÅÎÍÏ˝ÓÔÒÚƸ˛Ç◊ıı˜
in sentence:" To Whom it may concern" the subject is the pronun "it" so "whom" must be in objective-case.
More directly," to" is a preposition. "Whom" is the object of the preposition.
Maciek — you're absolutely right. "Whom" is correct NOT because it's the object of the preposition "to"; it's correct because it's the object of "concern."
I learned to state my reasoning as: Objective case, object of the preposition to..
try rephrasing the sentence,
It may concern (him or he)
if it is right to use him, use whom.
Over the last 200 years, the pronoun whom has been on a steady decline. Despite its waning use in speech and ongoing speculation about its imminent extinction, whom still holds a spot in the English language, particularly in formal writing. Understanding when and how to use this embattled pronoun can set your writing apart.
Whom is often confused with who. What's the difference between these two pronouns? Who is a subjective-case pronoun, meaning it functions as a subject in a sentence, and whom is an objective-case pronoun, meaning it functions as an object in a sentence. Who, like I, he, she, and they, performs actions, as in Who rescued the dog? (who is doing the rescuing in this sentence). Whom, like me, him, her, and them, is acted on, as in Whom did you see? (whom is being seen here, not doing the seeing). Whom can also be object of a preposition, as in the salutation To Whom it may concern (whom is the object of to; Does it concern he? No. Does it concern him? Yes.) or in the title of Ernest Hemingway's 1940 novel For Whom the Bell Tolls.
How do you decide which one to use? When in doubt, substitute him and see if that sounds right. If him is OK, then whom is OK. If the more natural substitute is he, then go with who. For example: You talked to whom? It would be incorrect to say You talked to he? but saying You talked to him? makes grammatical sense.
That said, in informal speech and writing, speakers will often opt for who where whom has traditionally been used. This choice sounds more natural and less formal to most native English speakers.
Do you ever use whom?
In formal correspondence yes, informally, no, it sounds stuffy.
I was taught that we should never end a sentence with a preposition. I don't know why, of all the rules of English grammar, that one stuck. It is, however, an important rule, for without it, "whom" is doomed. The problem is, nobody follows the rule (most likely don't even know it is a rule). For example, it is proper to say, "To whom are you speaking?", not "Whom are you speaking to?" When the words are put in their proper places, "whom" comes more naturally. Problem with English is, it's not really its own language; only about 6% of our words are anglo-rooted. English is a mish mash of many languages, including German, French, Latin, Old- and middle-English (which is derived from the Nordic tongue), and even a lot of Arabic. One could possibly trace the totality of the English roots to the time of Nimrod and the tower of Babel. The real bitch is that the languages on which English is built have different grammatical rules themselves (e.g., if one translates "I'm going to the store with John" into French, the rules of construction are the same as we use most often in English so the words come in the same order; but a direct translation involving German or Spanish yields a different sentence: "I to the store with John am going". Now, if the languages from which our words are derived all have different rules, one can see why grammar is so confusing to student of the English language! To work in the word "whom", here: Who's going to the store? I am (vs. me am); and With whom are you going? I am going with him, with John. Now, in German, it's made relatively easy because German has one set of rules that it sticks to (because it is not a mish mash of different languages with a variety of rules unto themselves). In German, all we had to remember was this: if the pronoun accompanies the words "aus", "ausser", "bei", "nach", "mit"zeit", "von", or "zu", it takes the objective form, the equivalent of the English "him" v. "he", or "her" v. "she". I all other cases, the pronoun takes the subjunctive ("he" or "she" equivalent). No questioning which form to use. If the word is used with the above (aus, ausser, bei…), use the "him/whom" version of it. Another problem with English is that we no longer apply gender to our nouns like other languages, and the word's gender is telling of which form to use. In German, to use a word in the objective case, if the pronoun is masculine or neutral, it will always end in an "m", just like "him"; and if it's feminine it will always end in "r" or "-er", just like "her". Examples: Haus (house) is neutral, das Haus, so to say "to (zu) the house", "from (aus) the house", "with (mit) the house", they all take the "m" ending ("he's going home" [or, going to the house] is "Er geht ZUM Hause"; "it comes with the house" is "Es kommt MIT DEM Hause"; and "the music is heard from that house" is "Die Musik ist AUS DIESEM Haus gehort" — there should be an umlaut on that "o", but can't do with this keyboard). If the noun is feminine, like "woman" (DIE Frau), the pronoun takes the "r" at the end: "he's giving the woman clothes" = "He's giving clothes TO (zu) the woman" = "He gives to the woman the clothes" = "Er gibt ZU DER Frau die Kleider". It still gets confusing, but it is so much more cut and dried in other languages than our own. I would hate to have to learn English as a foreign language!! Virtually no rules that don't have many confusing exceptions.
if I said or heard "to who are you speaking?" it would sound odd– I would at least start to smile, and maybe even go on to chuckle or laugh. It just sounds really odd.
Indeed, but "Who are you speaking to?" Doesn't sound odd as it is the most common way of asking this question.
"To whom are you speaking?" is more formal, and probably more correct in a classical sense (i.e. using the "don't end with a pronoun" rule we have all heard yet all ignore – see above example).
But neither "To who are you speaking?" nor "Whom are you speaking to?" are right or used anywhere.
The natural rule for WHOM is, not only that it should be the object of the action, but that it should follow either a verb or a preposition.
Don't know whether this has already been mentioned, but this article is incorrect when it states: "Whom can also be object of a preposition, as in the salutation To Whom it may concern (whom is the object of to; Does it concern he? No. Does it concern him? Yes.)"
Whom in this sentence is NOT the object of the preposition "to"; it is the object of the verb "concern." The whole clause "whom it may concern" is the object of the preposition. Just because a preposition precedes who/whom, it does not make the pronoun objective. Consider these two sentences:
(1) Give the receipt to whoever is sitting at the reception desk.
(2) Give the receipt to whomever you find sitting at the reception desk.
Both are preceded by a preposition, but in (1) whoever is the subject of "is sitting"; in (2) whomever is the object of "find [sitting]." In both sentences, the whole clause is the object of the preposition. Sentences like these are the ones where you most frequently hear "whom(ever)" being misused, and this article adds to the confusion.
Whomever should be used in both instances. "…is sitting at the reception desk." and "…you find sitting at the reception desk." are both descriptive, in a sense adjectives.
For example, Give the receipt to whomever is green in color and Give the receipt to whomever you find is green in color.
Completely correct A1 with a clear explanation and clean examples, nice work, thanks
Thx for the tips. This helps me a lot we are actually doing an assignment in English right now and what you said really help. It will absolutely be included in my assignment! Thx Al!
An easy way to decide between whoever and whomever (without fumbling through clauses and objects of prepositions) is to divide the sentence into two complete sentences and insert pronouns. If both sentences take "him," use "whomever." If either one takes "he," use "whoever."
Using your examples:
1) Give the receipt to whoever is sitting at the reception desk.
Give the receipt to HIM. HE is sitting at the reception desk.
Him and He = whoever
2) Give the receipt to whomever you find sitting at the reception desk.
Give the receipt to HIM. You find HIM sitting at the reception desk.
Him and Him = whomever
Works every time!
Margot — You're right. And the he/him rule does work every time. Many here have pointed it out but still use convoluted reasoning to come to the *wrong* conclusion, especially after a preposition. The fact that the article incorrectly states that "whom" is the object of the preposition "to" doesn't help the situation.
That's OK.
I had a fantastic time reading this! I adored the entire conversation. Love it, love it, love it. Rock on, smart people!!!
I completely agree!
I love the page.- informative especially as a non- native speaker of English, which is actually my third language after a local dialect in Kenya
and Kiswahili.
totally right
For all the bickering going on here, I think that many have lost sight of the fact that there are two kinds of grammar: proscriptive, and natural Proscriptive is the one where academics argue and point fingers, and natural is the one that people actually use.
Although neither form can be shown to be better than the other, remember this: Usage makes the language, so in the long run, Natural grammar always wins.
Use who with his
Use whoM with hiM
stop arguing cause nobody cars
stop arguing cause no body cars
I care.
Thank you! This helps a lot!
I am going to hack you all
uh dare you to try because I have security on my computer so they can trace you down so Id like to see you try
You are cra cra
I'm sorry you might not be the same Azariah .
This just saved Whom's life. Thank you!!!
You are right
No Doubt "WHO" is subjective-case and "WHOM" objective-case.
Every Word in every language has its unique meaning where it stands and how it stands. Subjective case pronouns never prefixes any adjectives.
( Nouns may prefix-Optionally, e.g.,Happy Girl, but not happy she.)
But, objective pronouns prefix prepositions. Sometimes the proposition hides and tends its meaning correctly.
e.g., A guy knocked at my doors whom I never saw earlier.
A guy knocked at my doors to whom I paid no attention.
Lets explore more….
the lot of you have made my disession for me not to sign upon this site. There is no possitive or supportive dialog here. I just wanted to know who was interesting and not whom was being belttled.
I think you mean "A guy who I had never seen before, knocked at my door." It sounds better like that!
Second one could do with reconstructing too . . . something like . . .
"A guy who I had never seen before, knocked at my door earlier". Order is also important in the sense.
"never" and "earlier" are referring to separate parts of the sentence; or they contradict!
Just a thought about your first eg sentence which you expressed as "A guy knocked at my doors whom I never saw earlier." Would it not be better expressed to say 'A guy whom I never saw earlier knocked at my doors.' Or A guy, whom I never saw earlier, knocked at my doors?'
Just a thought. No criticism. The only type of criticism I like is constructive, whether to me or from me!
Have a great day.
God bless you.
Who and whom were starting to make sense before hundreds of you decide to chime in trying to show how intelligent you or your grandmother is or were, only succeeding in confusing the issue. If you have nothing to add just say nothing.
Seems to me like they WERE adding to the conversation and it is YOU who has nothing to say.
…and yet you ignored your own advice and 'said something' even though it wasn't at all helpful in the discussion.
Just read the article and then go away.
My grandmother always told me who's on first, what's on second, and I don't know is on third.
You have no right to put down those who have "chimed in" trying to help, by saying that they just try to show off how intelligent they, or their grandmothers, are.
YOU are the one trying to show off by saying that you already "knew" the difference between who and whom. Then, why were you reading?
Were you confused after reading the discussion? To me, that sounds as if you weren´t THAT sure in the first place.
Thanks, Henry, from Mexico, some people REALLY need to be put in place! I hope that pags read/reads YOUR comment.
I agree
Well. Aren't you a bundle of joy. That's what blogs are all about. 'WHO' do you think you are!? lol No, but really….. C'mon! Grow up or grow older or 'just say nothing' (lol). We are all here for different reasons and with different approaches to life and the english language. We are all reading and learning and sharing, and you are gonna sit there and tell people to just not write anything or give any feedback to the blog and global community because YOU are getting pissy because YOU are annoyed at what they are blogging!!? You said it was starting to make sense. So? Did it? Did you get the message? Or were you too wrapped up in your own lil' world too much to venture passed your own triggers?
Anyways, I wish you the best in the new year. Please keep an open mind, and don't be bossy. get it? lol
Is that rod up your bum steel or PVC?
English is my second language and this is what I learned in school: WHO is used as a subject, WHOM is used as an object of a verb or preposition, and the verb TO BE is intransitive therefore it does not take an object: "WHO shall I say is calling? is correct. I think in most instances it will be clear which one to choose except in cases like the one Chandra mentioned above.
Though "who" is often used in place of "whom" in everyday conversation, the one place where "whom" is still preferred over "who" is with prepositions; e.g., "to whom," "for whom," "by whom," "in whom," "with whom," …
Thanks David Shaffer your explanation was most concise yet to the point!
D.S. substitute him for whom, "to him", "for him", "by him", "in him", "with him", oh yea it sounds right..
I think, and this is only my opinion, that "whom" is going to be around for a very long time before we see the small notion "archaic" next to it in the dictionary. People still use it, but mostly in the formal or academic context, and even in an informal circumstance, one could still encounter "whom" while talking to someone who uses proper English. For instance, in my university we are required to use proper English, hence this pronoun pops up quite a lot. Nevertheless, the decreasing use of "whom" does cause some confusion for many of my classmates as they can distinguish when to use "whom", as they haven't been using it or see other English native speakers use it in real life. This post, along with many comments, are extremely helpful for those who are a) novice in English speaking and b) haven't had enough experience with English to tell the two apart, like my classmates and myself.
Speaking of using proper English… Wouldn't it be proper to say, "like my classmates and I" rather than, "like my classmates and myself" (see above comment). You would say, "I have had experience with English," not "Myself has had experience with English." I've noticed a tendency for even well educated people to over use the reflexive pronoun "myself" and indirect pronoun "whom" these days, even when it's grammatically incorrect, so just thought it was amusing to see "myself" misused in a comment about the correct use of "whom."
Actually, Anne, in the sentence you are referring to, the pronoun 'I' would in fact, not be the correct pronoun. The sentence fragment is not '..myself has had experience..', but rather '..those who have had experience..'.
Therefore, the pronoun at the end would be an objective pronoun. 'I' is never an objective pronoun, but a subjective one. 'Myself' and 'me' are objective pronouns. 'Myself' is more appropriate than 'I' in this situation, but 'me' would probably be the best choice, since 'myself' is reserved for situations in which the action is taken by the first person. In this fragment the action is taken by "those (people)", which is a third person pronoun.
MY problem with that particular sentence is the fact that "This post" is the subject and "are helpful" is the verb.
Anne, you are 100 percent correct! The overuse of "myself" makes me cringe and oddly enough it is usually the more "educated" people misusing that word. I think they think it sounds smart.
And why is it that most people cannot figure out how to properly use "me" and "I"? Uuuugggghhhh! Drives me nuts!!!!!
I'm so glad I'm not the only one that understands the proper use of these pronouns, BFMS
Anne, you have asked, Wouldn't it be proper to say, "like my classmates and I" rather than, "like my classmates and myself," which was used in the comment to which you were responding.
To answer your question, it would not be proper to say, "…like my classmates and I" rather than, "like my classmates and myself."
The correct way the writer should have written his phrase is "like my classmates and me." Like "whom," people are often confused by when to use "I" and when to use "me."
As with so many English questions, there is a simple way to know when to use "I" and when to use "me," and it is very similar to the solution offered above to the "who" and "whom" issue.
Split the conjunction. Would you say,
1. "…haven't had enough experience with English to tell the two apart, like my classmates and like I"?
Or, would you say,
2. "…haven't had enough experience with English to tell the two apart, like my classmates and like me"?
It's easy to see that "like me" sounds correct and IS correct, which gives you the answer to your question. It is correct to say, "haven't had enough experience with English to tell the two apart, like my classmates and me."
Lee, if the Daniel was saying that the post was helpful to people like his classmates and himself, then yes, "me" would have been the proper pronoun. But that's not what he was saying. Here's the quote:
"This post, along with many comments, are extremely helpful for those who are a) novice in English speaking and b) haven't had enough experience with English to tell the two apart, like my classmates and myself.
He was saying it was helpful to people who have NOT had the experience with English that his classmates and he HAVE had. He has had the experience ("him" hasn't had the experience), therefore he is the direct object in that case. "I" is a direct object, the correct pronoun to use in that particular sentence. Because of the complexity of the sentence, I understand that it's not obvious to many people (as evidenced by many of the follow up comments), but I still maintain it is the correct one for use in that sentence.
Lee, if Daniel was saying that the post was helpful to people like his classmates and "himself," then yes, "me" would have been the proper pronoun. But that's not what he was saying. Here's the quote:
"This post, along with many comments, are extremely helpful for those who are a) novice in English speaking and b) haven't had enough experience with English to tell the two apart, like my classmates and myself.
He was saying it was helpful to people who have NOT had the experience with English that his classmates and he HAVE had. He has had the experience ("him" hasn't had the experience), therefore he is the direct object in that case. "I" is a direct object, the correct pronoun to use in that particular sentence. Because of the complexity of the sentence, I understand that it's not obvious to many people (as evidenced by many of the follow up comments), but I still maintain it is the correct one for use in that sentence.
Anne, It would not be "like my classmates and I", but "like my classmates and me." Get it right when you're correcting someone.
Even more amusingly, Anne's attempted correction was also wrong. The proper way to compose the ending of the original sentence in question would be "like my classmates and me", not "my classmates and I". The first-person pronoun in this case represents an object of the sentence (me), not the subject (as would be indicated by the pronoun "I"). The structure of the example Anne provided, therefore, did not match that of the sentence in question, because the first-person pronoun represented the subject rather than the object.
This article was helpful to me. (Correct – "This article" is the subject, "me" is the object)
This article was helpful to I. (Incorrect)
Since "like" is a preposition, it actually should be "like my classmates and me." If you drop the "classmates," you can see that "like me" and not "like I" should be used. — Unless a verb follows, but then it should be "as' instead of "like." (Like [correctly: As] my classmates and I do / have / or whatever." You're right, though, about the overuse and misuse of "myself." It's very annoying.
Surely Daniel has it right and the the use of "I" is incorrect?
You would certainly say "…tell the two apart, like myself."
or possibly
"…tell the two apart, like me."
but you would never say
"…tell the two apart, like I."
A distant memory from school days long past…
If the question is "whom?" the answer is "him"
If the question is "who?" the answer is "he"
…"like my classmates and I" is incorrect English; you would never say, "like I". 'Like' must be followed by either an object, or reflexive, pronoun and not a subject pronoun.
I think either, "like my classmates and me", or "like my classmates and myself" are acceptable.
Whether or not "like my classmates and I" is incorrect depends on the rest of the sentence. "They are all going to the prom, like my classmates and I." In this case, "like" is a conjunction. The sentence I gave as an example can be expanded to "They are all going to the prom, like my classmates and I are going to the prom." In this case, neither "me" nor "myself" would be correct.
IMHO Small notions are the best notions.
IMHO Words used in nearly every circumstance are the best words for small notions.
IMHO Universities that require the use of whom are universities full of small notions.
IMHO Confused classmates should be confused until they are not
IMHO Rules for use of who/whom should be posted with verifiable and legitimate sources cited and comments are for trolls and soapboxes
My grandmother (Phi Beta Kappa, University of Michigan 1922?) taught me (and the rest of the family) this über simple formula:
The boy hit the ball.
Who hit whom?
Subject Verb Object
And the expansion to prepositions, which take an object: to whom, about whom, by whom, for whom, from whom, and so on.
'Whom; is the objective case of 'who' i.e. a person, not a thing.
Grandma is wrong.
that was really mean to say and i dont think you should say that
Grandma is humane by not using a living thing to be hit! So, look at grandma as being humane rather than wrong…
Should it be " whom hit the ball "?. haha
Actually, Gramma's right – and I think you're missing the point.
She's not implying that the ball is a person. Don't be stupid.
She's simply establishing the proper syntax of a sentence, i.e. subject-verb-object. (Which is actually pointed out right in the original comment).
Thanks, Henry, from Mexico, some people REALLY need to be put in place! I hope that Parthasarathy read/reads YOUR comment. S/he needs to realize that those are two separate and unrelated sentences, each showing when to use who and when to use whom.
Love the formula!
Thanks for the tip.
You make the mistake of who-ing when you should be what-ing. Unless the ball is really a cruel nickname. I'd correct the formula to Who hit What but I'd never hit What myself and I'm not sure Who would either.
Also there's the problem of the question mark. We know Who hit the ball so why are we asking it again? You're grandma got it wrong my friend.
Dear Costello,
Two thing comes to mind after reading your comment above,
one you got too much time on your hands or you don't like grandmas
Actually, Gramma's right – and I think you're missing the point.
She's not implying that the ball is a person. Don't be stupid.
She's simply establishing the proper syntax of a sentence, i.e. subject-verb-object. (Which is actually pointed out right in the original comment).
* your grandma, Costello
No, she didn't. You are the one who is over-interpreting by combining two separate thoughts into one. "Ball" and "whom" have nothing whatsoever in common with each other and she (the grandmother) obviously knew that.
that's your
Those two sentences are not related. Whom is not being used in place of ball. It stands for a person. If someone knew that your brother was hit, s/he would ask "Who hit your brother?" If that person had no idea who did the act of hitting or who received that action, s/he would ask "Who hit whom?"
well i dont care
A relatively common stance. Also not a constructive one. In any case, I'm not sure why it was necessary that you didn't care. In fact, so doing implies at least a small amount of caring. But I digress. I hope you may change your mind. Formal writing is a useful skill.
I can be constructive by not being destructive and that means by not getting in the way, or getting in the way and telling you how to do it better, or letting you figure it out on your own. Or I could preach to you or troll at you and wait for you to reply haphazardly while thumbing your nose; although you're probably too high class for that so you might just take your glasses off instead and follow up with an eyeroll.
And we don't care whether you care.
Agreement is a relatively common stance. Lots of people around the world do it almost (almost almost) every day. Agreement is also not always constructive; although constructive is pretty vague friendo.
Then why did you not only take the time to read the article, but reply?
Charles…It's too bad that you don't care. I wonder how many other important parts of life about which you do not care.
That was very rude. John has a point. If you don't care then get off of this website and don't comment!!! I hope u change.
The who/whom conundrum was finally solved for me very clearly in this article. I need to explain this to my daughter, and I plan to use the examples used here because I can't think of a better way to help her understand.
Keepin' it real *thumbs up*
use it in sentences like,"to whom shall i write this letter to?"
its true pplz.:)
"To whom shall I write this letter?"
There's no need for the second 'to'.
Actually, I think that would be more likely "To whom shall I write this letter?" The second to is superfluous (it is already stated up front).
Or, use it in sentences like "To whom shall I write this letter?"
By the way,
why is "I" capitalised in English?
To my ( admittedly limited ) knowledge, "je" is not capitalised in French, nor "ich" in German?
Does anyone know?
"I" is always capitalized because it was conventionally agreed to be so. I asked this same question when I was in the 1st grade and my grammar teacher gave me this answer. Most grammatical rules are conventional. For example, the MLA & APA styles we use in writing a research paper were agreed at a convention held @ some place sometimes.
There needs only be one "to." The second one is called a redundancy. The correct usage of this form is "To whom shall I write this letter?", so you know.
You want to use just one 'to', either at the beginning of the sentence or at the end.
"Whom shall I write to?" or "To whom shall I write?"
Except there you have a tautology: the last 'to' is redundant because of the first 'to': "To whom should I write this letter?"
"To whom shall I write this letter?" is correct. Since To has already been used at the beginning of the sentence, it is not needed again at the end.
To whom shall I write this letter?
I think it is either "To whom shall I write this letter?" or
"Whom shall I write this letter to?"
It is still not proper to say "Whom shall I write this letter to?" as that is ending a sentence with a preposition.
The only proper question that is asked is "To whom shall I write this letter?"
What are you talking about? That's one other example of 'ending a question with a preposition,' and it's one that can't be iterated in any other concise and pleasant way. However, that's ignoring 2 important details:
1. There are both prepositions and postpositions. Prepositions are words that show relation of a substantive to others in a sentence closely preceding the object. Postpositions are the same thing, except they closely follow the object. (This is an important detail, my current, only slightly relevant example notwithstanding.)
2. Prepositions can be stranded or omitted in proper English. Stranding or omission is the only accepted form in many cases and the better in many others.
The transitory taboo (which hasn't entirely passed yet) around splitting prepositional phrases and infinitives is relative to Latin. However, as English is a Germanic language, as opposed to a Romance language, it isn't always compatible with Latin rules. It's pretty cool that they match up as much as they do.
"Whom shall I write this letter to" is ending a sentence with a preposition, isn't it?
My dearest Olivia, "to whom shall I write this letter?" is equivalent to "who shall I write this letter to?". I hope this helps
you may omit the 'to'. Ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put. I believe that was Winston Churchill's….
You're, you, everyone on here is cracking me up!!! Here ya go….throw momma from the train a kiss..
HAHAHA….thanks for the belly laughs! !!
Yes, but you would want to remove that extraneous "to" from the end of the sentence.
As I now see, several other people already said the same thing. Must remember to read the whole thread before posting.
Sorry Olivia, but no. The correct sentence should be "To whom shall I write this letter?" The "to" on the end is superfluous.
take out the second "to"in your example sentence for complete correctnes: "To whom shall I write this letter?"
but, when you do, only say 'to' once… otherwise it's kinda redundant… and silly
sounds formal
ya what they said
Whom might say it sounds formal lol im sorry
Dear "a person",
The point is that you would not say 'Him might think it was formal" …you'd say "He might think…". So it should be, "WHO might think…." , since "who" is the subject, doing the saying. (Just saying…lol)
you mean who…
We are losing the last remnants of our once inflected saxon language. The "m" at the end of whom is called the saxon dative. In modern German this use is still very much alive and powerful. In english most of our case endings have been lost for more than half a millennia but this stubborn m is a result of the pronoun's position used as an indirect object. Because it is one of only a handful of inflected examples remaining, the use of whom sounds stilted, formal and has to be reinforced with a preposition to make the meaning clear. In german for example, no preposition is necessary because the "m" does the heavy lifting and it is clear to the listener that action is "to" this person or thing. Example in german; wem gehoert. rendered in english "to" whom does this belong. Sadly the to in english is
utterly redundant.
In the case of "To whom it may concern," the preposition isn't a reinforcement. If it were addressed to a particular person instead of 'whom,' then it would be, for example, "To Bryan." Alternatively "For Whom the Well Tolls" would be "For Bryan." "Whom the Bell Tolls" would be about a person being tolled by a bell. "Whom it may concern" is one indefinite noun. The preposition is to establish direction. Who/whom just establishes role in the sentence. German sentence is slightly different in general from English. "Whom does this belong?" just doesn't make sense. That would, for starters, imply that 'belong' is a transitive verb, as the standard configuration of the sentence would be "This belongs whom?" With a transitive verb, a sentence that makes sense can be formed. "John met whom?" The answers to those questions would be "This belongs Bryan," and "John met Bryan." You can see how a preposition would be necessary for an intransitive verb. The real problem is that people aren't aware of "whom" except in the example that is seen in prepositional phrases. I imagine this results from lack of awareness of which noun is the subject in the interrogative configuration and assumption that the first noun is still the subject, even though the direct object usually comes first in the standard question, as the indefinite noun or adverb tends to lead. I hope this helps to clear up the misconceptions you conveyed. While your stance was close to the truth and definitely interesting to read, I felt I should share my perception as well.
To frank and Bryan,
Whoa! That was rather lengthy, but quite effective! Thanks for the clearing up!
Tiffany the Cow
Thanks, Frank! German is my first language, and your explanation is the most lucid (for me) – I finally understand!
Your explanation is very good – I speak German, too, and wem (=whom) is still very much a part of our parent language.
Your comment brings up a grammatical error that has become very much accepted in everyday English usage – but grates on my ears (probably largely on account of speaking German). I call the error "indirect passive". In English grammar (and German, too), one creates the passive voice by using the effective direct object as the subject and making changes to the verb structure and agent. But one hears increasingly the indirect object used as a subject – which is totally incorrect and sounds (if you think about it) very ridiculous. Example: "Much has been given me" (correct) versus "I have been given much" ("indirect passive"). I have been given…? My head on a silver platter? I can just see myself being handed over to the recipient. If you have to use the gawky passive construction, use "receive" or "get" as your verb! I attribute the rise of this horrendous practice to two factors – 1 English speakers (especially we Americans), who are ignorant of our own language, and use atrocious grammar – probably 90% of us couldn't distinguish a direct object from an indirect object. – In German, that distinction is still maintained in the declension of nouns and pronouns and even adjectives. You wouldn't get by without being able to make that distinction. 2 Most of us model our speaking habits after what we hear on television and in movies. I would argue that – ironically – people whose profession is the use of words (journalists, advertisers, actors and actresses) are often the most ignorant ones of the bunch. I hear so many bad examples of English grammar and word usage that it is painful to my ears.
really true about journalists; I despair of my own favourite Daily using "who" in Headlines wrongly! (and as for spellchecker-mediated errors, dropping homophones in without warning, here and their!!!!!!)
Reminds me of when we used to ask "pass me the salt" and my father would complain that we were too heavy…
One must also consider situations when whoever and whomever are used in phrases within sentences.
"The prize will go to whoever wins the race." He wins the race, not him wins the race.
"The prize will go to whomever the judge chooses." The judges choose her, not the judge chooses she.
Thank you, Kathryn, for this explanation. It makes great sense.
not quite right I think?
"The prize will go to whomever wins the race; whoever wins the race will get the prize"
Sort of.
I tried putting both 'he' and 'him' in 'To whom it may concern' and neither sounds correct!
After a preposition we can only use me, you,him, her, it, us, them. And after a preposition only whom can be used. It is a rule in grammar.
English is weird
The "him/whom" thing was just a rule of thumb.
Sometimes it won't sound quite right, but who is always a subject and whom is always an object in a sentence (direct object, indirect object, object of the preposition, etc.
"It may concern him" – sounds absolutely correct.
Try to put it this way: "It may concern to him" and see the difference!
The simplest way to explain would be to say sometimes you have to take the "he/him" part out of context. Sure, when you directly replace whom with "he" or "him" it sounds silly. Neither "To he it may concern," nor "To him it make concern," sound correct. Instead, try to rephrase the statement a little, or the a question of who is receiving the object and who is the subject. Examples of both, perspectively, are "It is concerning 'him'," or "'Who is it concerning?' 'him'."
It may concern 'him'.
to 'him who' it may concern
Does it concern him? Sounds correct, so use whom
Does it concern he? Sounds bad…don't use
It could make sense if you put a comma after 'him', though it would be more of a preposition than a passive statement.
Try to think to say : "To HIM it may concern" it will make grammatical sense and correctly than say:" To HE it may concern".
I think that's because in 'To whom it may concern' the 'whom' is actually short for 'whomsoever'.
The article means that you should reword the sentence before including him or he to test whether it should be who or whom. In this instance, I suppose the 'test' sentence would be, "It may concern him/he", and in this case 'him' is clearly the correct form.
You don't just replace the word. You also have to alter the words into a sensible order.
So in this case the options are:
"It concerns he."
"It concerns him."
Which one sounds correct?
thats odd!!!!
I know right! It really does if you're not reading the article!
It may concern him to be seen here.
Because "to" is a preposition, whom would be correct because it is the object of the preposition, hence objective case.
Try thinking of it this way: Does it concern he or him? Him. So whom should be used.
Leave off "it may concern" and try it. "To he" is never correct. "To him" is correct. Therefore, "To whom" is better than "To who". Now, you can put "it may concern" back on the end of the phrase!
You don't switch the word out, you answer the question that the word "who" or "whom" is being used to ask. For whom does the bell toll? Does it toll for "he" or "him?" Whom did you see? Did you see "he" or "him?" Who did this?! Did "him" do it, or did "he?"
Hope this helps!
It does if you realize that phrase is just a sentence fragment. The whole sentence is, "This letter is addressed to whom it may concern," in which case, "This letter is addressed to him," makes perfect sense.
You'er probably not use to using words like that. Or, you know no advanced English.
You have to put it in a sentence like this: Does it concern him? or Does it conern he?
You don't have to use the original sentence. You can mix up words.
For example: To ____ it may concern.
Just mix up or remove words.
For example: It may concern (he/him)
You would use him, so use whom, because of the rule.
So, it would be To whom it concerns.
You have to rephrase it, like this: " It may concern him"
Please see this way and decide which one would you take as correct.-
(For he) to whom it may concern
(For him) to whom it may concern
Dear Gina;
For me, the easiest way to remember it is:
Who does What to Whom.
(Who, in this case, can be any noun – person, place or thing). So just find those elements in the sentence and you're done. It does sometimes sound odd or even pretentious, but you'll be correct. So in your example the Who is "it" – the What is "concern" – and the Whom is/are the people reading your letter.
In 'To whom it may concern,' the part that would be replaced by 'him' is 'whom it may concern.' This is because it is one nominal phrase. More examples would be '((What I do for a living)) is (the best career) [in the world;] ((Where I left my car)) is (my concern, not yours.) Each enclosed group of words is a nominal phrase, but each is slightly different. The double-parenthetical phrases are relative clauses. The single-parenthetical phrases are determiners. Lastly, the bracketed phrase is a prepositional phrase. There are a few other classes of nominal phrases, but these are the most common. It makes sense that substituting a definite pronoun into a relative clause wouldn't make sense, as relative clauses are indefinite by nature. So the replacement would be to go from 'To whom it may concern' to 'To Bryan.' See?
Are you writing the letter to him, Gina? Or are you writing the letter to he?
To him / To he… ignore the 'it may concern'… unless you want to ask if it concerns him, or if it concerns he….
This is tricky because there are actually two phrases to complete:
"To him" and "it may concern him.' Both use the objective case, so no problem here that it should be "To whom it may concern."
But what about: "To ___ is concerned?" Here, we have "To him" and "he is concerned." Does the "him" or the "he" prevail? The rule is that every very needs a subject, so the "he" always prevails–> "To who(ever) is concerned." So you would never say, even in formal English, "I want to tell WHOMEVER is concerned that everything is ok," you would always use WHOEVER in this circumstance. (Even less would you say "I want to tell everyone WHOM is concerned that…," Even though you would say "I want to tell him," we do not use whom, because "is" needs a subject.)
Look at it this way Gina, You are correct in thinking that the response can be seen in the question, so…
To Whom it may concern
It may concern he
It may concern him
communication is an interesting complex in its simplest form
Who needs a whom when a who will do? Who, what, when, where why. Why is "who" the only one of these words that requires an objective form? I don't think the word is necessary to clarify meaning.
Who needs a whom when who whoms whose?
What is the only one in that list besides who that is a noun. Only nouns and adjectives can be subjective or objective
Whom is a mother word for you so whom shall go to sleep
Also it u can be used as me gtg
When did whom come in my dictionay never I am not saying don't use the word whom but it is not in my dictionary.
"What" is the only other pronoun of all of these, and it wouldn't make sense for it to come with a Saxon-genitive. The rest are adverbs, and adverbs only have one case.
Hemingway took the title of his book from John Donne's "Meditation XVII", from the well-known section that begins "no man is an island" (see http://www.poemhunter.com/best-poems/john-donne/no-man-is-an-island/). It's a little dangerous to cite a 17th Century text as a guide to modern usage (e.g., regarding whether to use "do" in the negative imperative of "to be", Donne wrote "Death be not Proud" but Presley sang "Don't be Cruel"). However, Donne's thee's and thou's notwithstanding, "for whom" is still unimpeachable formal usage.
I'm sad to see the disappearance of the subjunctive mode (mood?)
in spoken English. I assume it has mostly disappeared in written
English, too.
Right: I wish I were right.
Wrong: I wish I was right.
I don't know why this is important to me but, it is.
I went to school eons ago when we diagrammed sentences. (Although I can't remember how to do that now.)
You are so right
I believe it should be…
I wish you were right. and
I wish I was right.
Hope I didn't misunderstand you.
Jantaman, it works like this (from Wikipedia):
The subjunctive is a grammatical mood…. Subjunctive forms of verbs are typically used to express various states of unreality such as wish, emotion, possibility, judgment, opinion, necessity, or action that has not yet occurred….
The key thought is "unreality," things that are not so:
I wish I were dead (but [the reality is] I'm not).
I wish I were tall (but I'm short).
I wish I were thin (but I'm fat).
Here it is with "opinion," something I hold but which may not be true:
If this be true (and I am of the opinion it is)
If this be so (and I am of the opinion is is)
Hope this helps.
I really agree the students today do not listen to the teacher
The problem runs deeper than you may know. I am a recent high school graduate, and to my dismay, not only are high school teachers seemingly unaware of the basic rules of subjunctive case (as well as many other major points of grammatical convention), but my English professor last semester was, too. All of my English teachers have used more casual, layman English than I do.
I still love to diagram sentences!! I know it is weird!! We had an old spinster teacher in 8th grade English that thought everyone should know how to diagram after they completed her class. It sure did help me when I studied English in college. You could not diagram sentences if you did not know the parts of a sentence.
To answer your parenthetical question, it's subjunctive case. And the reason, I suppose is that people in general lack the abstract thinking to easily keep up with grammar lessons and in this time of careless, convenient deregulation, would rather not bother with it.
Much of the above questions,and the problems with those questions, arise from the limited definition beginning the article: "Who is a subjective-case pronoun, meaning it functions as a subject in a sentence, and whom is an objective-case pronoun, meaning it functions as an object in a sentence."
Half-true. "Who", as with any 'subjective-case' pronoun, can function not only as the subject but as the predicate nominative in not only a sentence but any dependent or independent clause."Whom" is simpler: it cannot have a verb.
For example: "You gave it to whom?" (object of preposition "to"). But, "You gave it to who came in first." ("who" is the subject of the dependent clause "who came in first").
In Nora's sentence above – "' "The students would have learnt to be clear about whom they are"? – - 'whom' should be 'who', since it is the predicate nominative of the clause "who they are".
Whether periods and question marks go inside parentheses, and the use of double quote marks ('") I leave for another grammar discussion.
This, also, is all correct. I had struggled with this question: whether to use who or whom when the subject of the preposition is a phrase rather than one word. This explains why in this particular case it should be "who" when "whom" seems correct but isn't.
True. The requisite for truly understanding "who/whom" would be to understand subject, object, and nominal phrases, especially relative clauses (or those "god-forsaken" prepositional phrases containing relative clauses), which seem to cause the most confusion. Most just stick to simple patterns and, when in doubt, go for "who" or alternatively just arbitrarily pick one. Still, answering the question posed by the question of who or whom will hold the answer as to which is proper to use, relating an answer of 'him' to a question of 'whom.'
I use whom but not very often, we have bible quizzing and the questions can be 'who' or 'whom' and asit is very confusing they do not have to specify it as 'whom'
Can we use- who is she
This is actually very simple: use "whom" after a preposition.
What do you think about a sentence like "The students would have learnt to be clear about whom they are"?
In the sentence "The students would have learnt to be clear about whom they are", you have to focus on the sub-structure of "whom they are". The "being" of students is in question here, which implies they are the subject and not object. Hence, "who" would be appropriate.
In this case, "whom they are" is a dependent clause, and the ENTIRE clause is the object of the preposition "about." Because it's a clause, it requires a subject (a word in the nominative case); in this instance, the nominative case is "who." Therefore, "who" would be the subject of the dependent clause, and the entire sentence should be: What do you think about a sentence like "The students would have learn to be clear about who they are"?
Messy and sounds weird
The word Whom is not messy and does not sound weird. it is a proper pronunciation of the question who and a wondering thought as in "Whom are they?"
Problem with Eliana's example is that there is not an "action verb" in the sentence. "Are" is a form of "to be" and therefore cannot have an object. It can only have a subject (which is "they", by the way) and a predicate nominative (which is "who", properly).
Not always: you can construct sentences like "Whom did you attack?" but these days most people would ask "Who did you attack?" The "whom" refers to an action-taker and not an action-maker.
David. Very simple to you? Yes. Very simple to those who got an A in English? Maybe. But not to the rest of us.Your answer of course is pure simple logic. To a fault. it would be like a rocket scientist telling you: " David its very simple, just calculate thrust.") I already don't know when to use who or whom, and now you want me to figure out when, where and what for that matter the hell a preposition is.
I'll stick to the him / he thing.
Yes! "Who is she" and "I know who you are", not "I know whom you are". The verb "to be" in this case has a quality of an equation rather than an action.
I use whom every day of my life practically always in writing and not as aware when speaking. I am a writer. I do tend to write in a formal manner naturally. I dislike conjunctions. The internet terms ( I don't know the real name for these appalling popular "words") OMG and the like.
I understand that it is time and space saving. I would never consider having a meeting or desire to chat with anyone who would write in this fashion.
I am not young but when I was I was still eloquent and articulate. Thank you God for this. I love this website and thank you for explaining this. I do it naturally. To whom are you speaking. Sounds right. That is how I know. I may not always be correct but now I will keep him in mind
@mydogsas #allcreaturerightsadvocate #entertainment4awareness. Oh and Edutainment.. just took one of your quizzes. Thank you for telling me what business I am in! @Twitter +
"It is I to whom you are speaking." Same deal here of a predicate nominative, I, and a subject, it. Most people would say "It is me…"
"Is it me you want?" should be "Is it I you want?"
As for texting shorthand, those are acronyms. Many people hated acronyms before the internet and texting came along. But they can be so darn handy. I use the word "texting" but it still seems wrong to make such a noun into a verb!
Actually, "me" is correct in your first example. If you rearrange the syntax, you get (in your version), "You are speaking to I," which doesn't make sense. Since you used "whom," that means the person being spoken to is the object, and since I is the subject and not the object, "me" must be used.
how we can use who is he
Who is SHE? is a correct way to say
Is this statement grammatically correct?
" That girl is murder ".
It is part of the lyrics of a song , and I believe it is incorrect !
I thought you were still there. I go to church everyday. Are they right
Poetry has as much to do with grammar as rain with sunshine
Really? School is out ! Get a lice and go and shag the sheep . Happy NeNewest Aberdeen lol
In a sense. Like "that essay was murder" using murder as "was difficult, a pain". Probably informal way to say it but. In that sense "That girl is murder" works if it's "that girl is a pain". Which some songs do seem to relate to girls being troublesome.
In my opinion it is incorrect. It can either be that girl is a murderer or that girl is murdered. I am not English native speaker so it's just my opinion, that girl is a murder doesn't sound grammatically correct at all.
Katrina, it is right. You may be confused because you are thinking literally, but this sentence is using a metaphor. The girl is not being murdered or committing a murder. Murder is being used as a symbol to describe the girl. She is trouble, or she causes pain. Or maybe if she was especially evil, the singer could even be saying that she is the physical manifestation of murder.
"That girl is murder", not "a murder". A subtle & strange but common English practice used to be more descriptive, especially where artistic license is involved.
tgyu (;
My native language is not english. I was looking up the meaning of calling someone a "this". The search landed me on this blog. Does anyone has an input on the subject? I would like to know if it was proper from someone who knows me well and my name calling me a "this". As in.. "When you get old THIS -pointing at me- will take care of you"
Thank you
I am English. Here, I do not think that is a very nice way to refer to someone. It is treating a person as an object. I find it a bit de-humanising. You might point out a drug addict in the street and tell your kid "Watch out, "this" is what you could become if you do drugs", for example. I think Americans use it more and don't have the same problems with it.
As another example, I have heard people comment on members of the opposite sex by saying, "That's nice", which I think demonstrates the use of this or that to refer to people makes them a bit of an object.
Just my point of view
I completely agree with you. This person calling the nice lady "this" was RUDE, and unnecessary. If you may, please read my remark aswell. Thank you.
And a very good point it is!
I am American, and that usage would be rude here too. The only exception I can think of is if they refer to you as 'this sweetheart' or something similar, but just a simple 'this' is very rude.
I thought of something else. It is also normal to introduce someone by saying something like, "This is my friend."
"This is my friend" is correct. "This" will take care of me when I am older is rude. "Louisa" will take care of me when I am older is better.
As long as the word 'whom' still serves its purpose then it should be retained in the English lexicon. I often use the word and as much as I know, I use it correctly.
You would use "he" or "she". Unfortunately, English has no easy gender-neutral pronoun like "on" in French or "man" in German. Another way to say: "this person" but not "this" (Strange that a language without gender distinction would not have such a pronoun. Yet, languages with gender distinction have them!)
english does have one–as in one cannot enter before 7 pm. it functions exactly as 'man' in german. the problem is, hardly anybody uses it. (with thanks to my latin teacher!!)
You need to research the word, joke. I would also recomend insecurity and self worth. This is my mother…is she? She may carry the title but her person is evident (only) in her actions to the noun. If he or her feels insulted. You may need to look as to why?
Using "this" in reference to an individual is uncommon and, more importantly, quite improper. When it is used that way, it is typically used with a degrading intent because it depersonalizes the individual and reduces them to a mere object — a thing. On some rare occasions it has been used in a joking manner, but only when everyone present clearly understands the speaker's light-hearted intent.
No mam, that is not proper or even correctly structured in the sentence. I believe that a individuals grammar is very important. This one who had referred to you as "this" is either poorly undereducated or a simple JERK.
My view is that "person" is the implied object of "this" as in: "When you get old, this person (or this type of person) will take care of you." Though I agree with others that without the word "person" or "type of person", the statement sounds really rude especially if taken out of context.
Imagine I am in a beach and writing a letter to my friend. How do I write that I visit beach every evenings." I go to beach every evening " is it right?
You missed out "the". It should be "I go to the beach every evening".
That´s the boy ___ I met at the party!
___? who? whom? that?
How do I use your methods to find the answer?
Who is the boy you met at the party? He is! He = Who?
That is boy whome i met at the party..
Person 1: 'Who' is they boy you met at the party?
Person 2: He is the boy 'who' I met at the party.
(points in a general direction)
Person 1 Didn't see where p2 pointed, and asks: 'Whom'?
How about: He's the boy I met at the party.
Don't use either. Simply say, "That's the boy I met at the party." A better staement would be, "He's the boy I met at the party."
Go to Dictionary.com then go to Grammar.
Oh Sauncie. You had me up to your use of "irregardless". That's not a word. If it was, it would break down to "without without regard". I've noticed throughout my 47 years as a hick from Texas that people say that when they're trying to appear intelligent. And then there's the "supposably" that those koo-koo kids in Oklahoma like to say. And don't get ME started on Arkansas…
If they haven't done it already, it's time for dictionary.com to do an article on the contrary-to-fact subjunctive mood (as in, "if it were…"). This (the use of past-tense forms to indicate untrue hypotheticals in the present tense) is so confusing that even the New York Times constantly screws it up.
Anyway, I'm certainly with you on "irregardless". I don't know nothing that bothers me as much as a double negative.
Uhh no, I don't know 'anything' that bothers me as much as a double negative, is the correct version of that statement.
"I don't know nothing that bothers me as much as a double negative."
Well I don't know nothing about the incorrectness of that correction & don't you never not forget it.
Boy-oh-boy, some of you people really have too much time on your hands. ("That's the pot calling the kettle black.") My parents are German immigrants and I hated being teased as a child for their accents and so I went out of my way to learn to speak clearly and precisely. This topic is interesting to me. Here's the deal with "whom:" If you ask a question and you can answer it with "him" instead of "he," then whom is the correct word irregardless of male or female, i.e. "I came with him" is the correct response to: "With whom did you come." You wouldn't say, "I came with he." This has always worked for me and I don't have to remember prepositions….bla-bla-bla. Yes, of course we should keep whom in our language! Just because there are lazy dummies out there that don't give a rat's hoot about our language, doesn't mean those of us that do want to speak the English language correctly should stop caring. I'm still pissed about "Ebonics" and Spanish as this country's second language because they're either too stupid or lazy to learn this country's language. They have no respect for the blood spilt on this land by our fore-fathers who ALL learned to speak English. [DON'T GET ME STARTED!!]
"Irregardless" of the grammatical issues in your reply – I still don't understand a word you're saying. Wouldn't your rule require knowing the answer to the question before you asked it? ("If the answer is I came with him then use whom"?) Also, in what instance would the answer not be "I came wiith him"? Perhaps, I came with her or I came with it?
I always understood the usage to be simply "used when refering to an unknown person or persons".
Well excuse me if i want to keep speaking the language i was raised on, yet still want to learn correct English grammar. I can't believe people are still upset about people who live here yet speak another language besides English. Spanish is a beautiful language so why don't you take your complaints somewhere else?
Being bi- or multi-lingual is a great blessing for an individual, but a great curse for a nation, because it is divisive, isolating, and polarizing. The story of the Tower of Babel is an illustration that fact. One Nation needs one language; one individual needs as many as one likes.
Please do not use "irregardless" it is no a word. Regardless is the only word to use. In any circumstance. Thank you.
Thanks, very helpful.
The thing that makes the determination of the case for "who" more difficult than that of other personal pronouns like "he" is the fact that it can be used as a relative pronoun. When "who" is the subject of a dependent clause that is the object of the independent clause, it's easy to use "whom" inappropriately, as in "I want to thank whoever put the bomp in the bomp-de-bomp-de-bomp".
I think the confusion that this has caused (exacerbated by the tendency of traditional grammarians to parse sentences insisting that individual pronouns in phrases, rather than the phrases in their entirety, are objects or whatever of sentences, as in "I don't like him riding the subway alone at night") is a large part of the reason people have been shying away from "whom".
I'm good with keeping whom. And I do use it when appropriate. I always go with the "if it follows a preposition" rule personally. The lost word that bugs me more nowadays is than. Then is not the same as than, but is way too often incorrectly substituted. I cringe every time I see "More often then not" or "She was shorter then him". You should add an article on the proper use of than.
I try to think of 'then' as what is next, or as an element of time. The word 'than' is a comparison word.
The only reason why I sometimes use "whom" instead of "who" without deliberating over it to the extent that it slows down my conversation is because French is really particular about not having prepositions at the end of the sentence. As a result, I'm used to translating and thinking:
to whom
about whom
for whom
etc, with prepositions in the middle of the sentence and "whom," if necessary, right after. If you repeat a phrase often enough, it'll pop into your brain whenever the situation is relevant.
I don't think "whom" is dying because of laziness. I think in part it is a reflection of the cultural influence on language. In Ohio and other mid-west regions, a grammatical tendency is to move the preposition to the end of a sentence. For example, people in Cincinnati, Ohio would never say "to whom are you speaking?" Most people in that area tend to move prepositions to the end of the sentence, so it sounds more like this "who are you talking to? There, who is correct because its place is still in the subject part of the sentence. Whom is rarely used then in that part of the state because the prepositions all tend to appear at the end of the sentence and the "object" of the preposition is moved to the subject place of the sentence. It's the way Cincinnati speakers order their sentence. And it's completely about regional usage.
It may be regional dialect to say "who are you talking to," but it is still improper grammar. Both the preposition at the end of the sentence and the use of who instead of whom are improper.
As for the word whom, keep it in our vocabularies! It has a distinct and specific use.
The article about Who and Whom is confusing and poorly explained. "Who" is for the SUBJECT of a sentence, which includes sentences with intransitive verbs (verbs that have no object) such as "to be": "Who are you?"
"Whom" is always an OBJECT of a sentence, whether it be direct, indirect or a prepositional phrase. "You came WITH whom?" "Whom are YOU trying to kid?" "You gave IT to whom?" "Whom did HE tell?"
This stuff about mystery and a person not present is RIDICULOUS AND WRONG.
Which article are you referring to, the one that mentions mystery and a person not present? Did dictionary.com take down that article? The current one doesn't mention it at all.
i think it should people should remember grammar
To James A.C. III or whomever it may concern, (Sorry, had to)
I am fairly sure "they" can now be used as a pronoun which doesn't specify gender. The other option being "he or she" but "they" is a lot more concise.
I think "whom" definitely should (and MUST) be kept. While I understand the reasoning behind standardization, there are many things about human language that Homo sapien simply doesn't understand. Basically, I don't think it's wise to start changing something you never fully understood to begin with. Did you know Homo sapien has only had written language for about 10,000 years? While numbers form the "universal language," words form the language of life. To get to the point: there's too many things that too many people still misunderstand, causing unnecessary conflict and dissension, and taking a closer look at human language in its more literal sense can help with that. Humanity will lose that opportunity if it allows the word to change with the times, instead of judging the times with the word as was meant.
Hello Mr. Branch,
I feel compelled to speak out!
That was your opinion,
and I'm sticking to it!
So beautifully expressed and a great pleasure to read.
Thank you.
I am an 8th grade student, and I pride myself in how I often use proper grammar. And I take Latin as my school language, so it helps to understand the meaning of certain english grammar rules. And I have been using the word "whom" in my common day dialogue for the past couple of years now. Sometimes I will even correct friends for saying "who" instead of "whom" and they get mad at me. But I have always prided myself in having very proper grammar. And the part where the Latin comes in is that when I learned about Nominative and Accusative cases I realized why to use "whom" versus "who". And now that I have read this, I am glad to know I have been using "whom" correctly, and I don't just sound stupid when I use it in a sentence.
yes, absolutely the same: I'm in British year 11 (American '10th grade', I beliveve) and I introduced my friend to 'whom' and now we correct people together. It's great fun, and annoys people greatly.
Only dying in the realm of the ignorant. I for one still battle the split infinitive when I can and jump on "try and" every time it rears its "whaaa?" head.
What's with this location of the individual having ANYTHING to do with the who-whom question? The simple memory aid is, "Who hit whom?" (Memorize that.) Who is the doer* of the action and whom is everything else. It's that simple. It doesn't matter who is present and who is in another room, not at the event, or out-of-state.
If the word follows a preposition or verb, use WHOM. So, first go to the verb and see where the word falls in relation to that. Before or after? The doer or the done-to? So where does the location of the person about whom you are speaking come into play? (Or is it "Come in to play?"—lol) I do not think it comes in to the question at all.
*–Remember the linking verb "to be" is not an action. Thus, before and after the verb is all "who".
I was told that I am archaic, because I use "whom."
"So, you're at a party and you run into someone you think you recognize…" Something is missing, there, methinks.
The only people using whom are those who believe adherence to archaic rules somehow elevates them above the masses.
No, it's just correct grammar. If I am just talking to my friends, I won't care as much. If I am seeking to sound professional and competent, I will certainly note the who/whom distinction.
I'm not sure I believe you. According to your party example, I should say
"Whom came with you?" because that person is not in front of me. The rules can't include both presence and objective vs. nominative case, because sometimes they disagree!
yeah, I was thinking the exact same – imagine the person _whom_ you were talking to then leaves, you turn round to your friend and say 'whom was that?'… no…
I like pizza.
Sorry to run into the paranoid right even in a discussion about the use of the proper pronoun!!! "Word Nazis" like me are neither liberal or conservative, except in trying to conserve the beautiful English language. Neither "whom", "him", or "her" — all the direct or indirect object in a sentence (rather than "who", "he", and "she", which are pronouns in the subject of a sentence or clause) are outmoded. When people use the subject form of a pronoun instead of the correct object form, they sound like uneducated ignoramuses trying to sound cultured. e.g., "They donated this to he and I," instead of "They donated this to him and me." Likewise, "Who did you hit?" should be "Whom did you hit?" Back in the day, teachers of the 5th & 6th grades required students to parse sentence (we actually drew diagrams to clarify subject, verb, object–if any, phrases with participles or prepositions, subordinate clauses, etc.). This helped us immensely to understand immediately what form of a pronoun we should use. Now, students are allowed to write almost anything and, as long as it is a semi-coherent sentence, the teacher will let it pass.
A lot of people in the comments seem immensely confused. Some seem to think this article is arguing that "whom" should be taken out of the dictionary, which is not the case at all. It's simply asking if anyone actually uses it anymore. There are still plenty of words in the dictionary that no one uses in every day speech. For example, does anyone still use the word "cleave" to mean "stick together?" Of course not, but people used to, so that's why it's still in the dictionary. The point of this article is not to argue for the removal of "whom" from the dictionary, but whether the word is even used today.
Anyway, English is no longer a case based language as it was prior to the Norman Conquest. We have almost no cases for our verbs and nouns any more. Why? We don't need them! All we need is word order to make sense of things, not cases. So why are we holding on to "whom" so dearly? It's merely the accusative case of "who." It's outdated, unnecessary and serves only to make the speaker sound pretentious by appealing to arcane rules of grammar. That said, there's no reason not to know "whom" and how it's used. It comes up all the time in scholarly work and older writing, so it's helpful to know how the word works. But is it a dead word in the practical, everyday sense? Absolutely.
I was about to shout IT'S WHO, NOT WHOM when I saw the headline "Whom is dying?" before realising that it was actually referring to the word whom. I clearly need some sleep.
Let's remove the word syzygy from the dictionary. I'm 76 years old, and this is the very first time I've used it.
Aw contrary, Mark Baker. Sometimes bad grammar simply comes from ignorance. Perhaps you aren't really paranoid. Maybe the Marxists are after you.
"Au contraire", C.W. It's French.
What the crap?
Seriously, you have got to be kidding me. Who vets these articles?
What does it have to do with whether a person is "there" or not? It's objective case versus subjective case. Period. This is complicated only by whether the "who/whom" begins certain other kinds of phrases or clauses:
I gave the paper to whoever was at the front gate. ("Whoever" is the subject of "was" in the noun clause that functions in total as the object of the preposition; "whoever" is, by itself, not an object.)
But: I gave the paper to whom it belonged.
Or: I gave the paper to the person who asked for it. (Another noun clause, with "who" as the subject of the verb "asked.")
You must talk to her. But: You must talk to "she who must be obeyed." Simple object versus noun clause functioning in total as object.
So yeah, the clauses can get a little esoteric. But for God's sake, it has nothing to do with physical presence. What the hell was _that_?!
I agree with BN – whomever that person might be!
One thing I HATE is hearing incorrect grammar. It literally hurts my ears….such as, "there's" a lot of things… I "seen" the car… "from who" is the package? I hear incorrect grammar from newscasters and journalists now too. I use "whom" all the time and have never had a problem with correct usage. I also think that simply relaxing the grammar of a language, speaking incorrectly, is part of a deteriorating culture, so I would prefer to keep the rules.
Well said Ms Krista,.
I am in complete agreement. The misuse that irks me the most is "The team are on a winning streak" instead of "The team is on a winning streak". That's another topic for discussion!
Another thing bothering me is the change of verb. I ask someone if they have got the keys. They reply "I do." Should they not reply "I have."? Or is the "do" to add emphasis? But they are changing the verb from "I have got" to "I do have", which sounds a bit American, doesn't it? ( I was shocked to hear one say "I do got" on one occasion!)
Where's the blog about proper noun-pronoun agreement?
"The word can make sentences sound more formal, but if used incorrectly whom makes a SPEAKER sound insincere when THEY'RE trying to sound smart."
Boom. Roasted.
The "Word Nazis" in the current administration (FLOTUS, for one) wants to "ban" the word "bossy", because of the negative feelings that it evokes. Should the phrase "dumbing down" be banned, as well? When Hillary Clinton coined the phrase "vast, Right-wing conspiracy" back in the nineties, she was telling us what the Liberal establishment's true intentions were. Obamacare, extra-Constitutional, executive orders, Common Core's non-standards — how "vast" do you want? Eliminating (essentially banning) words from the dictionary, is just one of the ways these Marxist's use, to stop dissent of any kind. One might think that these comments don't have anything to do with dropping the word "whom" from it's legitimate usage. I would beg you all to think again!!
I would beg you to crawl back under your rock.
You can't remove a word from a language or dictionary; but I see whom becoming more archaic since it's hard to distinguish whether we actually know someone or not.
I thought I knew the ins and outs of whom, but the presence condition surprised me. It definitely sounds right to my ear.
I think the question of striking whom pertains not to the dictionary but to these grammar nerds who want to ding people when they veer from 'correct' usage. I like to point out that language doesn't come from grammatical authorities, it comes from usage. If a significant body of people are using words in a certain way, it is correct in my view, at least within that colloquial frame.
English standardization has done a lot of harm, like when they decided that words like 'knight' must use the same spelling even when the sound altered from the direct pronunciation.
Queen of England: I think it's "I wonder who wrote the article?" Not "whom" in that case. Not sure if you were being facetious. The author was actually a little unclear that there are two distinct conditions that must be satisfied. Whom is the objective pronoun AND the person must not be present.
We hate it
I am also fighting a losing battle, but I always use 'whom' in business correspondence and, because I was raised that way, when I speak (although when I speak I will say, "Whom are you giving that to?". The drop-off rule is simple to understand, and it's amazing now how many non-native speakers are not being taught who/whom in English classes. I think it's a sad indicator of how lazy we have become. On another note, I will not say "that is I" but, when writing, will say, "it was I who suggested that you drop by our office." I don't think that there is any excuse for being lazy. When you study a foreign language you really see how your own works. In Russian, you have to say, "It is I" and if you say the accusative "It is me" even the most uneducated person will look at you as if you were a Martian.
Whom cares?
Play nice now, Who-wan.
Did you know I'm Mexican?
Think of it in a 5-case system and it's easy –
Nominative and Vocative: Who ("Who are you?")
Accusative: Whom ("To whom did you throw the ball?")
Dative: Whom ("With whom did you come?")
Genitive: Whom ("Of whom are you a guest?")
Keep it or don't keep it; but use it correctly if you please.
Good work, OP.
Is the prase "Of whom are you a guest?" a correct English phrase? I am not talking about the word "whom" in that phrase, I am talking about the entire phrase and its syntax, which I find questionable. Wouldn't saying "Whose guest are you?" be more correct syntactically?
Perhaps a native English speaker can elucidate the above, as English is my second language.
I think "Of whom are you a guest?" is probably correct but you are also right that it is a questionable use in this day and age. Your English is better than a lot of native speakers I know, Geo.
Thanks Alec. I've been living in English Canada for a long time, so I've been compellled to speak English well, yet English will always be my second language:)
This is a good article to explain how to use "whom" properly, but the question "should we keep it or ditch it" is silly. What do you mean, ditch it? Start publishing dictionaries without the word "whom" in them? I can't begin to guess how many words in the English language are used very rarely, but that doesn't mean we should strike them from the record. Keep such words in all the dictionaries and whether or not people want to learn and use rare words is up to them.
I think a bigger problem is many people are trying to sound smart by saying "myself" instead of "me" but they're doing it wrong. Being a grammar-loving dork, this is like nails on a chalkboard to me… Author, if you haven't done so already, please write a blog about the proper use of "myself!"
Being a high school English teacher, I have often taught the difference between "who" and "whom," mostly in vain. I am, however, having a more and more difficult time penalizing a student for writing a sentence such as "Who are you going to invite to your party?" as opposed to the correct, "Whom are you going to invite to your party?" I still am going to go after students who misuse "literally" and "infer" when they mean "imply," but I am seriously thinking of not making a big deal over the use of "who" instead of "whom." They should learn the difference between the two, and they should learn not to write sentences such as "To whom are you going to give that pizza to?" But, I am getting a bit winded marking them down for merely using "who" when "whom" is correct. The English language, like everything else, is evolving and the "m" in "whom" will soon be a vestigial letter, the equivalent to our missing tails.
I understand your point, in the grand scheme of things, 'who are you going to invite…' is not an egregious error, and it is not my place to tell an English teacher how to mark his students' writing.
But my observation, most HS grads have a pretty poor vocabulary, for example, most dont know what 'feign' means,and grammar isnt taught systematically (i.e no.breaking down of a sentence, pointing subject, object etc). Any idea why?
Yes, keep whom in the dictionary. It does not have to be used a lot to be meaningful. There still is a place for it.
I had a training class in the late 90s by a company named The Grammar Group. Here is the tip they offered on how to remember when to use who vs. whom:
If you can answer the question using "he" or "she," then you use who. Ex: "Who gave you that ugly sweater?" Answer: "He/she gave me this ugly sweater.
If you can answer the question using "him" or "her," then you use whom. Ex: "You gave that ugly sweater to whom?" Answer: "I gave the ugly sweater to him/her."
Never had a problem using the words in their proper context since. I probably wouldn't have had a problem in the first place if it could have been presented to me in such a simple way.
I don't think we should retire words/grammar just because our culture is becoming lazy and crude.
This is completely unrelated, but I'm going to scream if I have to hear one more parent or child at my kids' school say "I seen" instead of "I saw." Just had to get that off my chest.
D. V. Brown
Be thankful that you do not live where I do as you would have to cope with the daily torture of hearing " I done seen….." and, one of my personal favorites, "I'm going get my hairs cut".
I'd personally be upset if 'whom' were removed from the language. I make a point in using it correctly, to exhibit my prowess. Heh, I kid, but seriously.
I suppose we'll always have For Who The Bell Tolls … Whom, for WHOM the Bell Tolls … sorry.
Anyway, I'm more concerned about the death of subjunctive mood.
I wonder whom wrote this article?
in re Zeffur (3/17/14) Lets reduc evrthin n simpl it so talk short n effctv. Who cares abt beuty n form – im to laze. Tnx
I'm still waiting for them to bring back "cankedort."
Should a whoddunit mystery actually be a whomdunnit?
Nope. Whodunnit to whom would be correct!
"Use who when you would use he; use whom when you would use him"
THANK YOU, Anonymous!!! That's the simplest explanation I have ever seen! I know what a subject and an object are, but I don't really want to have to dissect my sentence as I'm speaking. This, I can remember. I hope.
i Tink tere shoald onlee bee 5 woerds in teh engrish dictonari:
This is the first time I have visited Dictionary.com and read an article like this. I am impressed and will return often. This article and some of the comments have corrected me and helped me feel more confident in speaking. So in this, and so many other things in our society today, I say do not delete or "dumb down" but teach, teach, teach.
To me, it's just easiest to remember that 'whom' is used when it's the object of a preposition. If one learns the way to spot a prepositional phrase (and that isn't difficult), the rest is as easy as … well, it's easy! Some examples:
to whom
of whom
about whom
in whom
concerning whom
obliging whom
maintaining whom
The fact that you use whom and whomever after a preposition is true EXCEPT in cases in which an entire clause is the object of the preposition: "I give thanks to whoever did this." HE or SHE or THEY did this, not HIM or HER or THEM did this.
all i can say is that in elementary and high school, I honestly don't think we ever covered it lol
There are much more words disappearing now days
How about those ebonics?
All I can say is that about fifty years ago, Mrs. Harrison required that our eighth grade class memorize the 1936 edition of the "Plain English Handbook," and during that year and the next four years of my secondary schooling, the Mrs. Gates, Cook, Billingsley and McGuire drilled, drilled, drilled and drilled us again to test our retention of the grammar and useage rules in that dear handbook. At my advanced age I can't imagine that I am capable of NOT using "who" and "whom" correctly – or at least as the handbook prescribed. (I have no idea what useage is deemed correct today – nor am I particularly interested.) I still have my copy so if I'm ever uncertain, it is always near to hand.
The English language is dying a slow death, not just the use of "whom." It should be kept in our vocabulary.
I disagree with the given focused usage of "whom" (refers to one not involved in the conversation). Would it not be correct to say, "You are he about whom we were talking" (although it sounds awkward and there are other ways to phrase it)?
In every one of your examples, "whom" is part of a prepositional phrase (which, if English is similar to Russian or German, is the accusative case). Even with "To whom it may concern," "whom" is in the accusative case because it is the attached to "to."
My vote is to keep "whom" in the dictionary. It doesn't have flaws, lazy people do.
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of words in the English language that are so rarely used. But that doesn't mean that they cannot be used or that we should get rid of them. I personally use "whom" as a writer, and it really isn't difficult to understand the difference between them. We live in a world today where misuse is becoming 'common sense,' and we should not give in to that stupidity; rather, we should keep our language how it is and perhaps actually teach people to use it correctly?
From Wikipedia's article on the 4th Earl of Sandwich:
"In February 1748 he became First Lord of the Admiralty, retaining this post until June 1751. By 1751 Newcastle, who had previously admired Sandwich for his forthright and hardline views, had increasingly begun to distrust him and his relationship with The Duke of Bedford WHO Newcastle regarded as a rival. Newcastle engineered the dismissal of both of them, by sacking Sandwich. Bedford resigned in protest, as Newcastle had calculated, allowing him to replace them with men he considered more loyal personally to him."
Shouldn't it be WHOM? Sure, "whom" is in Intensive Care Unit.
I took this excerpt from Wikipedia's article on John Montagu, 4th Earl of Sandwich:
"In February 1748 he became First Lord of the Admiralty, retaining this post until June 1751. By 1751 Newcastle, who had previously admired Sandwich for his forthright and hardline views, had increasingly begun to distrust him and his relationship with The Duke of Bedford who Newcastle regarded as a rival. Newcastle engineered the dismissal of both of them, by sacking Sandwich. Bedford resigned in protest, as Newcastle had calculated, allowing him to replace them with men he considered more loyal personally to him."
So, there you see "Bedford WHO Newcastle regarded as a rival". Shouldn't it be WHOM?
i think it probably should be whom, because the pronoun is used in apposition to the noun (bedford) which is the object of the preposition 'with.'
Interestingly enough I was attempting to write a legal letter today, and there were five different circumstances requiring the proper usage of this word. I find it extremely annoying that it seems to be acceptable to end a sentence with a preposition. Must we totally annihilate the English language to conform to spell check? Is there an end? I hope there remains to be an occasional situation requiring an actual human brain.
I was always taught not to end a sentence with a preposition, notwithstanding spellcheck!
"Whom" shall stay in the english language because taking it out would just show you laziness .
I have a better idea. Instead of removing "whom" from the dictionary, we ought to remove the people who use "whom" incorrectly. Then for Whom the Bell Tolls would be an appropriate tribute.
Why should we deplete the English language of a perfectly correct and integral part of speech regardless of the decline in usage. those who do not use it are either negligent or ignorant.
I don't believe anyone is thinking about dropping "whom" from a serious dictionary! How would the future readers look up the word when they come across it in books?
Technically, shouldn't it be "Ask not wham the bell tolls, it tolls for thee". "Wham" is the obsolete dative form of who. Nobody misses it a bit. Let "whom" die out also as there is no loss of understanding.
Ditch whom. We should always strive to simplify life whenever we can. No one 'normal' speaks in old English anymore. Shockingly, we aren't at a loss in our ability to communicate because of having ditched many phrases from old English.
Who is shorter & certainly sufficient for effective communication. If I say "Who are you referring to" or "To whom are you referring", there is no significant advantage to the recipient of my message. Who cares if I'm referring to someone present or absent?? The message recipient certainly isn't confused by what I am asking. If direct English is simplier, faster, & just as clear as formal English, then also ditch the rule that says we can't end a sentence with a preposition. I seriously doubt most people will care if the rule is eliminated. Once again, it simply just makes communicating 'properly' more difficult for people.
And while you are at it—eliminate the phrase "Believe you me…" from the entire English language! I once had an English teacher who spoke like that. How superfluous. She could have more easily said "Believe me." and left "you" understood, as is often done in English.
I think that it should absolutely remain. It holds the same weight as the words "me", "her", and "he". Saying, "Who did the bus hit?" is like saying, "The bus hit I/he/her."
I think "whom" should be kept. Now that I UNDERSTAND what it means. I totally love the word. It's awesome. I'm gonna use it.
Must we strip away anything that makes us work a little harder? Laziness is a lame excuse to drop a word from the English language. I'm so grateful that my parents never talked down to us kids, or used simple words that would never elevate a meaning or encourage us to "look up" a word we didn't understand, thus building a better vocabulary and means to express ourselves. The proper use of a language is an art form in my mind. 'Whom" may represent a subtle shift that may not be easily grasped. But let's not give up so easily…help keep standards up. And,
"Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee."
Considering the sad struggles with using the pronouns 'me' and 'I' in today's society, I find it unsurprising that 'whom' is disappearing.
Whom should be kept.
I would like to address the other issue briefly mentioned, that of not ending a sentence with a preposition. I suspect this rule comes from Latin and Latin based languages. These languages prefer the syntax "For what are you looking?" instead of the more direct English version, "What are you looking for?" Of course the former is only a rough translation of the Latin "Quid quaeritas" in which there is no "for". The "for" is contained in the the verb "quaeritas" so there isn't an issue of not ending the sentence with a preposition. Is the former convoluted phrasing "For what are you looking?" really preferable to the simpler and more direct "What are you looking for?"
I don't think that the question should be whether or not we should expel 'whom' from the dictionary. Rather, should we expand the definition and use of 'who'? On that, I would vote 'yes' lest we continue to nurture our social bias through the words we use.
Please keep 'younker'. It sounds awesome. Also 'frigorific' is pretty awesome too.
The word "whom" should remain in the English language, even if oft understood by the hoi polloi. It is what separates the literate from the idiot.
Continued …
Here's the other case:
— Who(m) should come with us?
Does "I" work?
— I should come with us?
yes ("I should come")
Does "me" work?
— Me should come with us?
no ("Me should come")
So "me," the subjective case is correct, corresponding to "who"
— Who should come with us?
Nice article, but the explanation of which to use is not especially clear. It's easier to substitute "I" or "me" to see which to use. "I" is the subjective case, which corresponds to "who." "Me" is the objective case, which corresponds to "whom." For instance:
Give it to who(m)?
To who(m) should I give it?
Does "I" work?
Give it to I?
To I should I give it?
Does "me" work?
Give it to me?
To me should I give it?
So use "whom."
E.g.(exampli grati) 'For whom the bells toll' is correct. Should you drop 'whom' and insert 'him', it sounds correct.and is correct. Otherwise, use 'who'. I hope this helps. Truly, quite easy. Ineluctable problems do surface occasionally…..
Very simple. Who is a subject. Whom is an object. If this does not explain the difference, then your English teachers failed you.
From WHOM did you get the isea of removing WHOM from the Diction….
Nicholas, you are incorrect. Whom is used for ALL objects in English, whether direct (analogous to accusative case), indirect (analogous to dative case), or prepositional. You example sentence should read, "Who is taking whom to whom?"
The article confused the matter way more than necessary and added rules that simply aren't correct. If you know what an object is, then you'll know when to use whom. Whom is simply the objective case of who.
There's no need to bring up whether a person is "present in the conversation"; that's irrelevant and will often lead to incorrect results. Seriously, where did you come up with that? There's not even any need to bring up grammatical cases, which don't strictly apply in English.
"Whom" is basically equivalent to "him" or "her" or even "me."
We need it. At least, I do. I'm a student and vote to keep it. Since it's a grammar rule that actually makes sense (use who when you would use he, use whom when you would use him), I would like it to stay.
I think we should just all learn to speak Russian
Can you please teach us to learn the language
We should really just keep the word. Or, at least I think that we shouldn't delete the word
Do away with the pronoun whom? Ridiculous. Next you will be doing away with him and me. These are objective pronouns, and since people speak thousands of words every day, why not learn to use them correctly? Does anyone remember the old black and white TV series where in the opening scene the butler answered the door and asked, "Whom shall I say is calling?" Wrong!
So "Doctor Who" is, depending on context, a grammatically correct phrase after all! Woohoo!
Unless "Doctor" is a verb, then your commentary should read, "Woo-Whom".
I'd like to explore the psychology behind those who are active and vehement proponents of the mercilessly removing a word from language. What type of person feels this strongly about the deletion of a word rather than simply not using it? Exactly what experience does one have to experience with Whom to demand its strict and immediate withdrawal from the dictionary? Surely there are other things in this world that can be showed the same passion for removal. I imagine hunger, poverty, child abuse and AIDS to be a bit more deserving of one's energy than seeing to it that Whom no longer has representation by the English language. Furthermore, bypassing this word will not allow it to die. Whom simply refuses to go away due to the fact that To Whom It May Concern is number one when it comes to introducing a letter to a recipient whose name is unknown, or to a series of recipients of whom no name is known. If you can come up with a better introduction to replace it then I imagine you will be lauded and then just may possess the power to murder words your indolence won't allow you to use at will.
There has already been good argument by fellow users to "KEEP WHOM"…
Use of who and whom is different. It should certainly not be removed. Just because use has dropped doesn't mean it is no good. People don't use it because they perhaps find it confusing to use… and that is.
I strongly think that it should be kept. If one knows English grammar well, one knows its importance and usefulness. Although the word itself may not be used commonly, there are instances in which its use can't be replaced for sentence construction.
I am a complete literature nut! I love classics, including the Shakespearean pieces, which use old English. That being the case, I say we keep "whom" as a word…you never know by whom it is used.
Let whom live
Keep whom. I agree with Joel Mitchell, just because people are using slang a lot more these days and do not use words correctly is no reason to get rid of a lovely word. While some are going to speak intelligibly, a few people still understand the correct usage of this word and indeed use it. It is nice to still have at least a few formal words that exist in the English dictionary.
KEEP IT…..Please we must do better and we can't always have our way specially when we to lazy to use the in it's right usage.
Is it "Whom is dying?" when you are simply referencing someone you do not know? I thought the rule was that if you answer a "who" question, you would need to use the pronoun "he, but if you answer a "whom" questions you need "him."
For example: "Who is going to the party?" "He is. John is going."
Versus: "To whom did you give the present?" "To him. I gave the present to him."
Therefore, wouldn't it be "Who is dying?" Because "he" is dying, not "him."?!
I 'fess up. I'm a stickler, one of those people who would have been an English teacher had I not been a journalist. Therefore, couldn't resist pointing out the grammatical error in your opening graph, in the sentence: "… whom makes a speaker sound insincere when they're trying to sound smart."
"A speaker" is singular. "They're" is plural. Thus, you meant to say: "… whom makes a speaker sound insincere when HE OR SHE IS trying to sound smart."
As for "who" and "whom," I generally try to avoid usages requiring "whom." They simply sound too stilted.
For all you folks who want to eliminate "whom," how would you reconcile the Hemingway classic: "For WHOM the Bell Tolls?"
I always think of the difference between 'he' and 'him' as analogous to 'who' and 'whom'. I never say, "me and him went… " when it's easy to remember, "he and I went…" So, "Who is my friend?" is easy to remember rather than, "Whom is my friend?"
I vote for allowing English to evolve and just letting this word die.
Big T, I agree to some extent that whatever you want to say is correct. Language is, in fact, an art form just like painting or sculpting. Like any art form, however, there are social and practical lines on what is better or worse. Analogously, if you were making a canoe, you could make it however you wanted and name it whatever you wanted, but if you made it a perfect cube, it probably wouldn't well serve the purpose of transporting people through water and if you named it The Little Titanic, you might have a hard time getting rid of it. If you're just making a canoe for display or talking with your friends, do whatever you want; I like to make fun of 'hither' and 'thither' like in, "Is it just me, or is it getting hot in hither?"
Linguist Presently Known as OED, I'm glad that you argued that. I think you're probably right and my only argument is that I like it in the dative case and not the accusative; I'm seeing, looking closer, that these terms aren't typically used in english and most people probably can't distinguish between them. I would like to have THIS argument with a lot of people because to me "whom are you taking?" sounds archaic where "who are you going with?" sounds 'derpy.' Certainly, I also think that dative and accusative should be taught because they are important in many other languages.
Regardless, I hope all of the discussion on this fora like this makes it clear that we are not done with 'whom'.
The author incorrectly states "Whom comes into the conversation when you realize that the person you're talking to didn't come to the party alone." I found that very odd. It should read "Whom comes into the conversation when you realize that the person to whom you're talking didn't come to the party alone. " LOL.
Additionally, someone indicated it was OK to end a sentence with a preposition. Double LOL.
I am actively encouraging the demise of 'whom'. Its time has passed, its functionality obsolete, and it serves no valid purpose as far as clarity goes. When someone uses 'who' in every case, it is in no way unclear. It is time to let it die. I refuse to use it, and when challenged, I say 'That's intentional. It's time for 'whom' to be laid to rest once and for all.'
I fully agree with Snetterton!
The way I was taught:
Who and Whom are like He and Him, She and Her, They and Them.
You get the idea. When in doubt, I test the sentence substituting He or Him. It's a quick way of clarifying the correct usage.
I think the word whom should be kept.
Best explanation of "whom" in history.
Your article starts off promising, but doesn't explore the reason why the use of "whom" seems to be fading.
Also, what style manual are you using? You write:
It's the difference between the accusative form, 'whom' and the nominative form, 'who.'
What was the purpose of your commas? If any punctuation needed, why not parentheses? Why single quotes? No double quotes were used before this. (????)
Still, you do make a strong case for keeping "whom" alive based on its unique functionality. But even copy editors should use another copy editor.
"Whom" should stay! There are many words like "whom" that I was never educated on when schooling. More often than not I find myself repeating the same sentence up to three separate times in a row just to clarify my point because most people don't seem to understand the point I'm trying to make. No word should be lost or removed from the dictionary, only expanded upon, for this reason. Sometimes all it takes is looking at the same sentence in a different fashion to truly understand the point that the writer/speaker is trying to get across. If we weren't so poorly educated in our own native language then I believe many disagreements would never take place to begin with.
In the world of "him and I", whom is not forgotten it is none existent
Accusative and nominative form you trying to say something? Pal.
I am really bad at English grammar.
But I still use the word whom, and I probably use it
wrong 50 percent of the time.
So I guess I am part of the 50 percent that still likes
to use whom incorrectly.
If people use it wrong, that's O.K..
Whom am I to judge?
I'm 13 & I don't use "whom" all that often, but it is definitely a useful word, and we should keep it in the dictionary. Even if it's just used in a formal context.
Whom should DEFINITELY remain in our vocabulary. Our society, as a whole, has become too lazy and impatient in this ever-expanding computer age. Also, American kids aren't being taught grammar anymore, at least not the ones I've encountered. Along with not knowing the difference between who/whom, they didn't know when to use better/the best or worse/the worst (the latter is used when there's three or more). I used to teach grammar as an English as a Second Language (ESL) teacher and MY students were taught the difference: whom follows prepositions and/or replaces OBJECTS of the sentence such as him, her, them etc. All one has to do is replace whom with the object and if it doesn't work, then it's who; IT ISN'T ROCKET SCIENCE!! Unfortunately, I didn't know this explanation until I took a grammar course as a senior in college 30+ years ago. What I just stated is a VERY SAD commentary about the state of pride in our own language!!
@Nicholas Yikes!
«Just remember that it doesn't behave the same way as him; you don't say, "whom did you meet?" or, "whom are you taking?" but you would say, "whom did you meet with?" and "whom are you going with?"
And a sentence is a fine thing to put a preposition at the end of.»
In colloquial, or informal English, you are right. However, in standard, or grammatically correct English, we use the objective case and ask: "Whom did you meet?"and "Whom are you taking?" Just because there is a question mark at the end of the sentence, we do not use the interrogative who (who, then, is a subject pronoun).
The accusative is used for direct objects or objects of prepositions. It is easier to see (or hear) the use of whom with prepositions or with the dative case (indirect objects usually preceded by at or to). In English, we use the term objective case for the accusative case and the dative case (which are Latin terms).
A native speaker who has grown up speaking grammatically correct English hears this automatically and does not need lengthy grammar explanations.
I think the word "whom" should be kept in the dictionary. If used properly, it sounds positively lovely in a sentence. You also sound smarter than the average human when you use it in the correct way. I'm only a teenager, but I use the word "whom" on a daily basis, and I use it correctly. If people are still using the word, why even consider taking it out of the dictionary? I'm sure even if it was removed people would still use it, but by the time I have grandchildren it would be just a word that the older generation uses. Why remove a perfectly fine word if there's not logic in removing it?
While I agree with the usage corrections here, I want to point out the inconsistency in the first sentence: "Over the past 200 years written use of the pronoun whom has declined by half, and half again over the last 50."
Since the past 200 years includes the last 50, the decline over the past 50 can't be greater than the decline over the past 200. Perhaps that illustrates a decline in the ability to use numbers logically.
Just remember that it doesn't behave the same way as him; you don't say, "whom did you meet?" or, "whom are you taking?" but you would say, "whom did you meet with?" and "whom are you going with?"
And a sentence is a fine thing to put a preposition at the end of.
No where I come from! "With whom did you meet?" and "With whom are you going."!!
Never end a sentence with a preposition!
As we've become a culture more concerned with convenience than eloquence, we've really "dumbed down" the language with which we use to communicate with one another. Emails and text messages require that people communicate plainly and concisely. However, when people become so used to reading and writing automatically and mindlessly, the artistry of language suffers! I read somewhere that the literature that most people read today is on a middle school level (such as Harry Potter or the da Vinci Code), and I think that this reflects a culture that cares only about immediate gratification and not about the complexity and depth that characterized the classic novels that used to be best sellers, like Dickens or Tolstoy. I think that preserving "whom" is one way to preserve literature in general!
What makes me crazy? Especially with "journalist" on the tube.
Pronouncing the "T" in often. It should be pronounced often, not ofTen.
Or am I wrong? I could be. It's happened in the past.
Whom seems to ring most correctly as the adjacent object of a preposition, but that's just me. ;-] Thanks for adding clarity to this one; now let's nail "comprised of", an perversion of the language that makes me shudder every time I hear it…!
'WHOM' is irreplaceable.
Thank you Will. That made simple to remember!
Mr. Will… That is exactly the method I use. It get's one to the correct answer, easily, without having to either know, or understand why.
Chris, you can only think of one person whom you've heard whom from; people are who, other things are that… unless you're Gotye.
I don't usually correct people on who vs. whom but that doesn't mean that to be correct is to be incorrect.
'Whom' is dative and not accusative which makes it harder than 'him'.
"He is taking him to him"
(n) (a) (d)
"Who is taking who to whom?"
Typically, if a preposition applies to it, it is dative. This should be taught in school but if you don't want to use it, don't.
The writer makes a good case for retaining "whom" in the lexicon. However, the writer also alludes to the silly notion that ending a sentence with a preposition is somehow incorrect. For the most the many-century history of the English language, ending a sentence with a preposition was quite acceptable. This changed in the early 20th century when self-appointed experts suddenly deemed it to be unacceptable. This is nothing more than pretentious nonsense and I'm quite confident as to which word I can choose to end my sentences with.
I'm a kid, so maybe that explains why I don't really get the difference between who and whom, nevertheless I do sometimes realize when it is misused. I personally don't have any opinion on whom being done away with. Who ever mixes who and whom up? I don't. If whom is dying, I can't really do anything about it, though some people can help a word withstand the disheveled way of the world.
In addition to spelling correction could correct use of word and sentence structure correction be programed in the email, facebook and other informal communication methods. With user option.
I'm a kid, so maybe that explains why I don't really get the difference between who and whom, nevertheless I do sometimes realize when it is misused. If whom is dying, I won't and can't do anything about it. However, people who are inspired every day
You hit the nail on the head, regarding incorrect usage of "whom". This is a clue to those of us who understand its correct usage, as to who is educated and who is ignorant of its usage.
I'm not so sure it's important to note that "whom" refers to someone new to the sentence; in each of your examples, "whom" was clearly the object — of the sentence or of a preposition.
My opinion is that we should keep this word around; if we lost it, we'd end up using "who" in place of "whom", and that can in some cases lead to confusion.
Using phrases like "interrogative and related pronoun for the dative case" does not simplify this matter at all, it merely gives headaches to non-English majors. As an English teacher, I've found this definition easiest:
If "HE" and "HIM" can be used easily, so can "WHO" and "WHOM."
WHO is used in sentences where HE would fit.
WHOM is used in sentences where HIM would fit.
With WHOM did you come? I came with HIM.
WHO is here? HE is here.
I would not say "I came with HE," so I don't say "With WHO did you come?"
I would not say "HIM is here," so I do not say "WHOM is here."
If you're not certain if you should use WHO or WHOM, then reorganize the sentence as an answer. If you would use HE, then WHO is correct. If you would use HIM, the WHOM is correct.
Simply put, "whom" is the interrogative and relative pronoun for the dative case. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dative_case
It's sad to say but I can only think of one person that I have heard whom from the past ten years and it was out of context.
Of course Mark Pocock is correct for the very reasons he and others have expressed.. We keep "whom". It would also be nice to recapture the true meaning of words like " cool" 'rad' "hot" just once in a while.
It's heartbreaking to me to see at times that some of the people commenting here know more about these words than article's writer. This lack of research seems to constitute many impatient journalists in the word field today. Although, people may go to school, not everyone retains what they learn and continues to learn. That's why, as a writer, I think it's important to visit here frequently to learn new words and refresh old ones. However, how can any writer accurately do this continuing education by reading an article from an iffy source or reading an article from a supposed authority "to whom" proper information has not been given nor anything more than a sensational and intriguing title has been bestowed? This doesn't go for simply this article, but many articles I've read on here. Nevertheless, I am pleased to see so many other word buffs speaking up for what they know to be truth. Please don't let writing be lost to LOLs and OMGs, the dross of a constantly-evolving, quick-paced language of the modern world. Everyone can learn to write. Not everyone can be a writer. Someone please tell 92.5% of bloggers and modern journalists out there this.
Personally, I like the word "whom". When I was a kid, if my mother were ever to mention selling something, my father would ask "to who?" and my mother would chime in, "to WHOM!" I learned that little bit of dialogue which I repeat, from time to time, with glee.
What I don't understand is why you bothered to mention that the object needs to be absent in order to be covered my "whom". The way I learned it, "whom" was simply the objective form of the unknown person. If you don't know who the person is, you don't know whether or not they are present, so you can't limit your use of "whom" only to those who are absent. For another example, a speaker can address a group of people to find out which one of them received some information: "He told whom?" (I wonder if the speaker could ask "He told whom of you?"; that sounds awkward to me but seems technically correct).
"Whom" should definitely stay in the dictionary. It is true that the word is used less often, but it is still a part of our language. I see it more in written works than I hear it in day to day speech, but it is not extinct. Not everyone knows the difference anymore, and would rather rephrase a sentence to using "who" instead of "whom," and avoid it altogether. For example, one might not say "With whom did you come?" and may say instead "Who did you come with?" to avoid misuse, even though this ends the sentence with a preposition. It may not be as often used, but "whom" is still a word worthy of English usage, if nothing else as an available tool to avoid ending sentences with a preposition.
Two educated, successful well dressed friends Who & Whom walked into a bar. Who sat at the bar, while Whom went to the men's room. Friendly bartender asked "Who are you with". Who replied, Whom. Bartender, a English major college dropout was offended with the snarky reply and delayed his order.
Who decided to go to the loo after Whom sat down at the bar. When the Bartender came over to Whom and asked "who is that guy?", Whom replied yes. The mildly ticked off Bartender asked again politely " whom are you with?". Whom replied "No, Who."
The Bartender exploded: "I want you both upper class snobs out of this blue collar bar, RIGHT NOW".
After this incident Who and Whom parted ways.
I apologize for any grammatical errors in rendition of this true story. English is only my first language.
Who cares? Mostly the types of people whom we have met in Grad School. It sounds snarky in conversation to use 'whom.' It's 'irregardless' we should kill, I think.
there is something rotten in the state of denmark
Dear Don Fritz,
You are right, language tends to simplify over time. I'm sure many of us have read or heard of John McWorter of Columbia University – he of the linguistic arts, and in particular creole languages, who did a very good "The Great Courses" program which is available at many libraries. He made a persuasive case that we lose words, or inflections, or case nouns, over time because they are superfluous – people like simple, not complicated. You have captured Professor McWorther very well.
I remain happy to retain the distinction between who and whom. Am I a dinosaur? Probably – in a hundred years. For now, let's sound educated. For surely, that is a lost art.
I think the word (whom) should stay in the dictonary.
this comment section…makes me sickly
In spite of all that has been said (at great length) above, I still maintain that we really don't need multiple forms of any pronoun to make meaning clear in a well written sentence. Since we do not have for English an equivalent of the French Academy to determine what goes and what stays in an official version of the language, none of us in this august group will be able to rule on the question anyway. And I would maintain that "whom" is on the way out, however much it will sadden those who love the music of the language. Time will tell, as it always has in English. Gone like all those other pleasing forms that English inherited from the Germans. I was reminded at Evensong on Sunday night of another lovely departed usage: "He remembering his mercy HATH HOLPEN his servant Israel." (Magnificat: Book of Common Prayer). What melody is there in that beautiful form! Sorry, Old Girl, that you are on the way to the dusty archive.
some of y'all are fanatics
Whom: is this rare pronoun really dead?
This pronoun [whom] is NEITHER rare, NOR is it ever interchangeable with [who].
A prior poster (Bill Brautigam, the son of an English teacher, who SHOULD have known better) offered a sequence of pronouns, and a music jingle to assist in the memorization of that sequence. Regrettably, that sequence was flawed. The CORRECT sequence would have been [first person singular, second person singluar, third person singular, followed by first person plural, second person plural, and third person plural]: I; You; He, She, It; We; You; and They. The sequence of first person, second person, and third person is critical to adhere to when learning the English language.
Your explanation of whom (objective case pronoun) is really great – but not very practical (sorry). I find that if you just remember "whom" always follows a preposition, it's much easier to use.
Recall that a proposition is any word that completes the sentence, "The mouse ran [blank] the box." So, our mouse can run under, over, in, out of, above, below – you get the idea. Now, it's fairly easy to remember to say "to whom" and "from whom" and "for whom" and "with whom" and thus sound intelligent, not to say sophisticated.
And who wouldn't want that?
I am so disappointed with the author of this article. There are so many user comments on this article that apparently don't realize the author is wrong. This is 5th grade grammar; I thought this mistake is so basic, it's disheartening.
On the other hand, we are exposing some urban legends of English grammar. Apparently, a lot of people had the same misconception that Hotword did – just looking at the comment wall. While I will never say the article is commendable; it may prove useful.
@Lynnesha, "whom" in your sentence is not the subject of the sentence, it is the object of the prepositional phrase "with whom".
My confusion is with "they" to refer to a single person. Does that make me an us?
Wow! so many comments. So, which one of them is a correct one? I am also having difficulties in using "whom" properly. Thanks!
It is even easier than that.
'Who' and 'whom' are always used in questions. To decide if you should use 'who' or 'whom', think about the answer to the question . . .
Where the answer would be 'he', use 'who'.
Where the answer would be 'him', use 'whom'.
For example . . .
Who did that? He did it.
To whom does it belong? It belongs to him.
If a preposition is used, whom is correct. So how many know what a preposition is?
My confusion is with "persons" for more than one person. What's happened to "people"?
Keep whom! Grammar makes the world go round!!
Andrew, you've got it all wrong! When the subject of the sentence is doing nothing, you use whom. When the subject is doing something, i.e., antecedes a verb, it's who. Leaves me pondering the question: "With whom did you come?" since the person with who you are speaking would have done an action with the other(s) in question.
I agree that the article is misleading. The reality is actually very simple, which is why I am often bewildered at the lack of grammatical comprehension from people who are, in other disciplines such as Maths and Science, demonstrably intelligent. I'm convinced it amounts to an intransigence, almost a presumption, on their part that they are above the constraints of language—though, as linguists know, there is always a balance to be struck between prescriptive and descriptive forms of analysis. Its simplicity offends them; but, just as strands of DNA constitute the building blocks of life, so the rules governing syntax and accidence enable us to communicate and, in some cases, produce great literature.
To clarify this particular rule, 'who' (the subject/nominative) and 'whom' (the object/accusative/used for all oblique cases which in English require prepositions such as of, for, by and with) are either relative pronouns—the man, 'whom' I just saw, is my uncle—or interrogative pronouns—'who' made that noise? The latter is the one which necessarily precludes knowledge of identity. How is that confusing, I ask myself!
I believe my familiarity with two languages (Latin and French) whose nouns and adjectives, in varying degrees, undergo quite a lot of inflection according to the case, number and gender has rendered me more sensitive to the few case distinctions that English does throw up. It also makes me more passionate about retaining them, 'whom' being a perfect example. Would we willingly forfeit 'me', 'him', 'her', 'us' or 'them'? No, that would be ludicrous. 'Whom' is not an arcane word the only advocates of which are the self-appointed 'grammar police'. It is an indispensable pronoun, to which the same criteria should be applied. Granted, one can often substitute 'who' and make oneself understood, but that merely reflects the clemency and flexibility of English. Don't take it for granted. Moreover, there is no reason to abandon 'whom' altogether and thus impoverish the language. In many cases, it still provides a useful degree of clarity.
To be honest, I think alot of people have been just saying how to use it, the question was not how but if we should keep using it. I'm pretty sure the writer does know, as he does mention the objective and subjective case, however he is just using an example to say why he beleives it should stay, which people may or may not agree with.
I do not think that 'whom' should remain apart of the English language, the reason it is so largely misunderstood is because English has largely lost its case system, yes it remains in a few personal pronouns but otherwise is irrellevent to English grammar on a whole. Naturally languages evolve over time and I think yeah not largely used words should stay but out-dated grammar should go. 'Whom' does not hold key to understanding, word order is more important in English. People like to hold on to things because they are traditions but do not seem to look at whether it is good or benificial to people as a whole.
I personally don't use it accept in 'To whom it may concern' I do know when to use it but I find it unnatural.
I vote this blog article as the most misleading blog post on grammar I have read this year. I cannot believe that dictionary.com has not yet offered an apology for the nonsense published.
There are numerous correct examples and explanations of the simple rules governing the use of "whom" among the 194 comments made on this blog so far.
Perhaps dictionary.com would like to collate these into some sort of order and publish a well thought-out post whose contents are correct?
When I was in primary school in the 90s, 'whom' was still taught and used. I thoroughly disagree with this article. The writer is wrong. It's also a shame to consider discontinuing the use of a very useful pronoun simply because people in this age do not know how to use it.
In 7th grade my English teacher taught us how to use "whom" . Basically, when you ask a question, if the answer is "him or her" then you use "whom" . So you wouldn't use it like this "Who called you?" "He called me" because you use "he". But you use it for example when you ask "Whom was it for?" , the answer being "it was for him." Simple to remember, whom for him and who for he. I never forgot this &I take pride in using "whom" correctly, only take a quick second to double check if I use it right
I'll keep it. I'll use it. Done, and done.
Typical lack of quality. Dictionary.com, you really need to smarten up on your editorials, for they currently turn the site into a bad joke.
Cool. Whom may that dude be? LOL
This article is thoroughly American:
Not only do you question whether it would be advisable to rob the English language of the last vestiges of proper grammar, you prove by your article that you do not even know the beginnings of the subject you write about.
Your explanation of the usage and purpose of "whom" is nothing but ridiculous.
You simply do not know what you are writing about, but you do it in a loud voice, in a prominent position, and you expect others to take you seriously
As I said: VERY American.
Please excuse the rest of the English speaking world for being disgusted.
Good luck in your further career!
As Calvin Trillin once put it, "Whom is a word that was invented to make everyone sound like a butler." I say, let's bury it, and good riddance.
Rock on whom!!!
I address all formal emails and letters with "To Whom It May Concern". To be honest, I don't think replacing the "whom" with "who" would give such a formal greeting. I do not believe whom should be removed simply because most people do not know how to use it correctly. In fact, I believe that gives teachers more of a reason to teach more about the word and how to use it appropriately.
Take it out and take out Him and Her, too.
Whom is easy to use. Use Whom where you can use Him, and use Who where you can use He.
It should most certainly be kept! Why should we who have a respect for English be affected by those who don't? The latter would probably never crack a dictionary to find the word, anyways…
I make a point of using whom where it should be used. So, yes, it should be kept. Moreover, perhaps it's time that English was again correctly taught, to ALL school age children, as it should be spoken, and written . . . not as a PC afterthought.
It's all about advantages and disadvantages of new technologies. Laziness from cutting syllables and letters in text messaging is about to submerge us into an illiterate world of communication. For instance, I see two major weaknesses in posts that some people write everyday – merging away from the main topic and writing things that are not English. You know you'll need it to ace exams like the GRE if you plan to push for higher education.
Every language obey to grammatical rules, even though some of them evolve over time. You say it right: "who" is used as subject and "whom" as object. Who are we to delete the work of a man whom people still admire?
In this sentence, "whom" would sound awkward if it were "who"
"Whom" sounds very nice when you place it where it belongs, after the name of persons or your pet. Let's cheer it and let's start competing with the Asians for a spot at Yale, Harvard, etc. Foreigners are more likely to obey the English grammatical rules than Americans (that's my bias).
If you had a chance to watch Cathy Couric's interview with the Dean of Yale University last week, you would have an idea about how grammatical errors are a huge part of a candidate's application being rejected.
As long as we keep using "who", "whom" will always be alive, because the pronoun "who" cannot substitute for it; otherwise, it would sound very awkward.
im overwomed
A professor once told my class:
We should keep whom!
"-because it is a rule, and people need to be educated in order to uphold this rule.", said the Grammar police. How about this. We keep the word "whom", so everyone who feels "Ignorance is the problem.", can cope. I'm just asking that we make the letter m silent in the word "whom".
I love to use both. Basically, they are two different words. They are different in meaning, usage and application. However, not using the word "whom" does not make any difference either. One can easily replace it with any word that best applies to the idea or thought. Jumbling words that best fit anyone's idea can be fun. It gives perks to anybody's thoughts.
Sia: "Hmm…I was always told that if you wanted to check who/versus whom – 'If the sentence makes sense with he, then you want who. If it makes sense with him – then you want whose.' I was never told how to deal with 'his' though."
I think you mean 'If it makes sense with him, you use whom.' Whom is the objective case, equivalent to him. His is possessive, so this is where you would use whose. Hope that makes sense.
Whose decision is it to remove any word from the dictionary, anyway? I, along with both my children enjoy grammar and are forever shaking our heads when we see grammatical errors in letters, magazines, etc. Having good grammar is very rare these days and I don't believe removing a word merely because it isn't being used is justifiable. As mentioned previously, if people would just improve their grammar, this question wouldn't have been asked in the first place.
'With who did you come?' sounds wrong. The reason is that it is wrong.
Whom should have died during the industrial revolution, it's far to dainty and effete for modern society. Whenever I hear it I picture a bunch of dandies in powdered wigs and petticoat breeches. The only people clinging to this awful word are peevish grammarians and English teachers.
I say let it die. The who/whom distinction isn't sufficiently significant to justify the inefficiency it brings to communication. (I feel the same way about noun genders in French, etc.)
Progress is usually perceived as blasphemy by most of the status quo.
Die, whom will not. Listen to my words, this language will.
I don't think the word "whom" should die out of usage… I use it a lot in the novel I am currently writing, and I wouldn't want my book to be denied for having too many grammatical errors. Long live "whom"!
Whoo Whom!
"Whom" should absolutely be kept. Once one masters (it's almost like "one") the correct use, it is a great way to express your nerdiness.
Of course we should keep it! It's terrible that spelling and grammar have become so neglected. Grammar in the education system seems to have faded to the point that how much education one recieves on grammar is entirely dependent on which teachers one gets, and not on the school districts curriculum or standardized testing.
Preserve the dignity of English!
Let's go back to diagramming sentences. Then I think we would all get the difference between who and whom!
To whomever and whomsoever it may concern
You are guilty of ex-whom-ing a perfectly good and quite currently used word that requires no ex-whom-ation.
Just because you have not registered its regular use in your life, the circles that you frequent and the articles that you read and write does not mean that this word is not used quite frequently in the lives etc of others!
Using your yardstick as a measure of the liveliness or demise of a word a person born in England who travels to South America and lives for 50 years as the only foreigner with tribe of indigenous people who are totally unknown to the rest of the world could say "English is dead!" ………..
But for that to be true even just in that person's life they would have to think and speak completely in some other language without ever remembering a single English word and even then the statement would be only relative to that particular person's own personal experience.
Therefore your article is pure conjecture and totally related to your own particular experience, thoughts and consciousness within the current space and timeline you exist within.
It's nothing to do with mystery. It's just this: if you'd say 'him' rather than 'he', then you should say 'whom' rather than 'who'. It's that simple.
"He asked me a question">>>"Who asked you?"
"I asked him a question">>>"Whom did you ask?"
I'm very happy for some people to stop using it, as it's always useful to know who the stupid people are.
I was taught that "whom" is the "who" that follows a preposition; to whom, with whom, above whom, etc.
absolutely keep it — the language is rapidly deteriorating — first it was throwing out adverbs, now it is misuse of apostrophes, lack of spelling and ignorance of any grammar, usage or senten