posted
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.
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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
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.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?"
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
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!
Posts: 571 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Bob
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
