This is topic Grammar Question in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=036955

Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
 
I'm curious as to what the rules are for correct usages of the word "whom" rather than "who". Would someone be so kind as to expound them to me in (intelligible to the layman) detail?

I've realized that the only rule I'm following is whether or not it sounds stupid to me. Which probably makes me right alot of the time, but not consistently, since I'm simply following a rule that I've assimilated unconsciously through reading.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
The complete explanation:

http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20021113.html

The short rule:

quote:
if you can replace a word with "he" or "she," then it is the subject of the sentence and you should use "who." If you can replace the word with "him" or "her," it is the object and you should use "whom."

 
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
 
I'm pretty sure you use whom when it follows a preposition.
 
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
Whom is the objective. Who is the subjective. If someone is doing something, they're a who. If someone is having something done to them, they're a whom. A good test is the "he/him" (or she/her) test. Make the question a statement (turn it around.) For example, to find out whether you've got the person you want on the phone, you want to know whether to ask "Who am I speaking to?" or "To whom am I speaking?" So, turn it around: "I am speaking to he" or "I am speaking to him"? In this case, it's obviously "him", therefore, whom. (If it turns out "he", it's a "who", "him", it's a "whom".)

But in casual usage, "who" is most often used even when it really should be "whom", and no one really minds much.
 
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
 
Indirect objects!
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Slowpokes. [Razz]
 
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
You use "whom" when you want to sound snooty or like you know the rules of English better than the person you are addressing (or rather, to whom your remarks are addressed). Example: "Whom do you think you are?"

You use who when you want to show anger or overt contempt. Example: "Who do you think you are?"
 
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
 
Thanks everyone.

[Laugh] Bob
 
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
lol

In that case, Bob, you'd use "whom" to show that you want to sound snooty but don't know how. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
[Big Grin]
 
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
 
Him: To whom are you referring?
Me: I'm referring to her.
Her: Whom, me?
 
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
 
Whom's on first!
 
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
Every time you use whom incorrectly, God kills a kitten.

Please, think of the kittens.
 
Posted by aretee (Member # 1743) on :
 
[Laugh] JonBoy
 
Posted by Starr R (Member # 8361) on :
 
quote:
Please, think of the kittens.
[ROFL]
Jon Boy's comments always crack me up.
 
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
 
Hmmm...
 
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
 
Simpler than your explanation, Dagonee:

Who - subject; whom - object.
 
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
 
Whom do my Royal Subjects think they are, throwing rotten tomatoes at my golden carriage as I tour their bucolic hovels?


Works for me! [Wink]
 
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
 
Actually, it should be who in that case. "it is he", not "it is him", "I am he", not "I am him" so "who do my Royal Subjects think they are".

Ha!
 
Posted by firebird (Member # 1971) on :
 
No comma. Just the way I was taught.

But ... one of English's strengths is it's ability to remain comprehendible even when it is spoken or writen badly. One of the reasons it has survived and thrived for so long.

It'll always change and adapt ... so I'm not too mcuh of a stickler!
 
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
 
quote:
But ... one of English's strengths is it's ability to remain comprehendible even when it is spoken or writen badly.
Ah! Meta-proof!
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Simpler than your explanation, Dagonee:
Who - subject; whom - object.

Less complete, yes. Simpler, no. You assume knowledge of a particular point of grammar, namely, the difference between object and subject. I quote a technique for implementing that rule.
 
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
 
Exactly. I never went to an English school, and therefore never learned English grammar, and I didn't pay attention to the rules in my French classes either. My knowledge of grammar is almost exclusively instinctive. Were you to ask me what the difference between a subject and an object were, I would have a little trouble answering.
 


Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2