You notice owls never say whom
Nov. 3rd, 2005 10:55 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
One of the hardest things to understand in usage are the words who/whom, and when to use them. It’s almost impossible to explain to an ungrammary audience, because there’s simply no way to talk about it without getting all “the predicate adjectival objectificational nominative whosit in Whoville” and then everyone’s eyes glaze over and the lesson is lost. I have avoided this for a really long time, because I know of no way to make it easy.
And frankly, if you asked me for a grammar thing to magically disappear, never to be heard from again, I would choose this. Since nearly no one, even seasoned pros, can get the more complex usages (at bottom) right, why even have this idiotic differentiation anymore? There’s no good reason that isn’t about pedantry, and you can try, but you will not convince me that whom isn’t ripe for taking a long walk off the short modern English usage speaking pier.
In most instances, though, you will run across the use of who/whom in sentences like this:
The American Heritage Book of English Usage has this to say about how we decide which form to use: “The traditional rules that determine the use of who and whom are relatively simple: who is used for a grammatical subject, where a nominative pronoun such as I or she would be appropriate, and whom is used as the object of a verb or preposition.” (See what I mean about grammary?) Sentences will often have both a subject (the main thing or person you’re writing about) and an object (often linked up with the word to), which is sort of the person or thing the subject’s doing something with or to. I can’t explain that one, either, without going into a lot of boring detail.
So, we’d normally say: The actor who played Spike was excellent, because the who stands in for the subject of played Spike. We’d also write: Who do you think is the best Mountie? where who stands for the subject of is the best Mountie. But we would say, To whom did you give the Ferrari Testarossa? since whom is the object of the preposition to. Or we’d say: The Section One agent whom the bad guys identified was shot, since whom is the object of the verb identified.
Yikes!
Unfortunately, they have to make this more complicated, and this is why I think whom needs to take a hike. Paraphrasing the AH book again, a sentence such as “I met the drug dealer whom the Miami vice squad had tried to get Mexico to extradite” makes you actually have to sit and parse through the damn sentence before you do anything with it. You have to know from the start that “whom will be the object of the verb extradite, which is several clauses away” as they note. How would an average person do this? Well, they won’t. I wouldn’t even do it right, probably. The only people who are going to criticize you if you get it wrong are pedantic assholes with nothing better to do. Watch out for them, for they are legion in fandom.
AH points out: “In speech and informal writing, people tend to use who, even as the object of a verb or preposition. A sentence such as Who did John say he was going to support? is perfectly natural, despite violating the traditional rules. Using whom often sounds forced or pretentiously correct, as in Whom shall I say is calling? or Whom did you give it to? Nevertheless, many writers adhere to the rules, especially in formal style. These rules apply in the same manner to whoever and whomever.” Couldn’t say it better myself. It’s your choice to go the traditional route, but if you don’t, people beating up on you won’t make you any more inclined to get it right.
ETA:
sdwolfpup reminds me of a common trick a lot of folks are taught: "The way I've always done who and whom is to re-word the sentence with she/her or he/him and depending on which one of those is correct, depends on whether I use who or whom. So for instance, this sentence:
I met the drug dealer whom the Miami vice squad had tried to get Mexico to extradite
I'd change to: "The Miami Vice tried to get Mexico to extradite him" and so I'd use 'whom.' It's not necessarily 'easier,' but it's worked for me so far."
Which is a really good one for the basics. It doesn't work so well for the stuff below, but it should get you through the worst of it. And I also say again, if you make a mistake, the only people who will remind you about are usually snobs you don't need to pay attention to.
And lastly, this is the scariest one of all. It refers to the words when they’re used in restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses. "The relative pronoun who may be used in restrictive clauses, in which case it is not preceded by a comma, or in nonrestrictive clauses, in which case a comma is required.” (You can find out a little about clauses in previous editions of these usage posts.) This means you can say The Watcher who discovers a cure for vampirism will be immortalized, where the clause “who discovers a cure for vampirism” indicates which Watcher will be immortalized, or you could also write The mathematician over there, who solved the bank robberies case, is widely known, where the clause “who solved the bank robberies case” provides information about a person already identified by the phrase “the mathematician over there.
And if you can remember how to do that, gosh darn it, you are a better person than me.
And frankly, if you asked me for a grammar thing to magically disappear, never to be heard from again, I would choose this. Since nearly no one, even seasoned pros, can get the more complex usages (at bottom) right, why even have this idiotic differentiation anymore? There’s no good reason that isn’t about pedantry, and you can try, but you will not convince me that whom isn’t ripe for taking a long walk off the short modern English usage speaking pier.
In most instances, though, you will run across the use of who/whom in sentences like this:
Who do you think is coming through the stargate?
Whom did you give the spell books to?
The American Heritage Book of English Usage has this to say about how we decide which form to use: “The traditional rules that determine the use of who and whom are relatively simple: who is used for a grammatical subject, where a nominative pronoun such as I or she would be appropriate, and whom is used as the object of a verb or preposition.” (See what I mean about grammary?) Sentences will often have both a subject (the main thing or person you’re writing about) and an object (often linked up with the word to), which is sort of the person or thing the subject’s doing something with or to. I can’t explain that one, either, without going into a lot of boring detail.
So, we’d normally say: The actor who played Spike was excellent, because the who stands in for the subject of played Spike. We’d also write: Who do you think is the best Mountie? where who stands for the subject of is the best Mountie. But we would say, To whom did you give the Ferrari Testarossa? since whom is the object of the preposition to. Or we’d say: The Section One agent whom the bad guys identified was shot, since whom is the object of the verb identified.
Yikes!
Unfortunately, they have to make this more complicated, and this is why I think whom needs to take a hike. Paraphrasing the AH book again, a sentence such as “I met the drug dealer whom the Miami vice squad had tried to get Mexico to extradite” makes you actually have to sit and parse through the damn sentence before you do anything with it. You have to know from the start that “whom will be the object of the verb extradite, which is several clauses away” as they note. How would an average person do this? Well, they won’t. I wouldn’t even do it right, probably. The only people who are going to criticize you if you get it wrong are pedantic assholes with nothing better to do. Watch out for them, for they are legion in fandom.
AH points out: “In speech and informal writing, people tend to use who, even as the object of a verb or preposition. A sentence such as Who did John say he was going to support? is perfectly natural, despite violating the traditional rules. Using whom often sounds forced or pretentiously correct, as in Whom shall I say is calling? or Whom did you give it to? Nevertheless, many writers adhere to the rules, especially in formal style. These rules apply in the same manner to whoever and whomever.” Couldn’t say it better myself. It’s your choice to go the traditional route, but if you don’t, people beating up on you won’t make you any more inclined to get it right.
ETA:
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
I met the drug dealer whom the Miami vice squad had tried to get Mexico to extradite
I'd change to: "The Miami Vice tried to get Mexico to extradite him" and so I'd use 'whom.' It's not necessarily 'easier,' but it's worked for me so far."
Which is a really good one for the basics. It doesn't work so well for the stuff below, but it should get you through the worst of it. And I also say again, if you make a mistake, the only people who will remind you about are usually snobs you don't need to pay attention to.
And lastly, this is the scariest one of all. It refers to the words when they’re used in restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses. "The relative pronoun who may be used in restrictive clauses, in which case it is not preceded by a comma, or in nonrestrictive clauses, in which case a comma is required.” (You can find out a little about clauses in previous editions of these usage posts.) This means you can say The Watcher who discovers a cure for vampirism will be immortalized, where the clause “who discovers a cure for vampirism” indicates which Watcher will be immortalized, or you could also write The mathematician over there, who solved the bank robberies case, is widely known, where the clause “who solved the bank robberies case” provides information about a person already identified by the phrase “the mathematician over there.
And if you can remember how to do that, gosh darn it, you are a better person than me.