Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Traffic Worse, Times Whines | Up From Bankruptcy (For Now) »

Monday, January 29, 2007

Who Knows Whom?

posted by on January 29 at 13:42 PM

I see “who/whom” confusion daily here in the work of otherwise careful writers. So I’m sharing my trick for deciding when to use who vs. whom. It’s an oversimplification for sure, but it works most of the time.

Isolate the clause containing the troublesome “who”/”whom” (or “whoever”/”whomever”); ignore everything else. (Sometimes this means switching word order around. When the word is the object in a question, you may have to restructure the question into a statement, as in example (2) below.)

Substitute “him” and then “he” for of the word in question and see which sounds correct.

If “him” sounds better, then choose “whom”—the “m”on the end of both words is your clue. If “he” sounds better, then choose “who” (no “m”).

For example:

1. I want to know who/whom made this mess.
Simplified: Who made this mess/Whom made this mess
he made this mess/him made this mess
“he” is better = “who” is correct

2. Eli wants to know who/whom you’d like to see in office.
Simplified: You’d like to see he in office/You’d like to see him in office
“him” is better = “whom” is correct.

The key to correctness lies in the fact that “who” is the subject case and “whom” is the object case, just like “he” is subject case and “him” is object case—which is why this trick works.

Still unsure? This page goes a bit more indepth on the topic, and offers two more tricks to help you get it right. Grammar Girl has a sweet little podcast on who/whom, too.

RSS icon Comments

1

Better still, consign whom to the "thee/thou/thine" wastebasket (alongside any other unnecessary pronoun with an archaic King James sound--I'm looking at you, "one") and always use who, which never sounds fussy and is always correct in modern usage.

Posted by Eric F | January 29, 2007 2:23 PM
2

Agreed! But I love "one".

Posted by sniggles | January 29, 2007 2:34 PM
3

Boo! Why not just get rid of "him" and "her," too? We could just say "he" and "she" are "always correct" too! So much easier that way.

Posted by Levislade | January 29, 2007 2:51 PM
4

One might as well use the language correctly, whomever he may be. Degredation in the guise of modernization need not be something up with which one must put.

pwnz0r'd, b1atch!

Posted by pox | January 29, 2007 2:54 PM
5

best comment ever, pox.

Posted by SeattleExile | January 29, 2007 3:02 PM
6

Do what you'd like when you're speaking; "whom" is still very much alive in formal written English.

Posted by Amy Kate | January 29, 2007 3:18 PM
7

I've read Strunk and White a bunch of times and couldn't make this rule stick. Thank you for the handy trick.

Posted by grammar challenged | January 29, 2007 3:24 PM
8

Amy: How about a refresher course on its vs. it's?
This is botched ALL THE TIME, even by intelligent folks.

Hint: it's = it is. Remember learning that in, like, first grade?
Its = the singular possessive.


Posted by segal | January 29, 2007 3:28 PM
9

Segal: Maybe in a few days. I don't think I can get away with too many persnickety posts before people tune me out.

Posted by Amy Kate | January 29, 2007 3:32 PM
10

I won't tune you out. I think I'm falling in love with you.

Posted by pox | January 29, 2007 3:37 PM
11
Posted by SEAN NELSON, EMERITUS | January 29, 2007 3:41 PM
12

Ms. Horn - bless you for this post.

Please add your and you're to the work list, when you have the chance.

Many, many thanks!

Posted by Laurence Ballard | January 29, 2007 4:22 PM
13

Sean, thanks for the example of how "one" is misused. Surely you are the only one whom was reminded of that, but it was a good excuse to reference yourself.

That felt good, I am going to start misusing whom.

One's (my) personal frustration is hearing people meta-accidentally use 'I' for 'me' because one thinks that only ignoramusae say 'me.' But HA! in many cases 'me' is appropriate.

Example: The ociffer, whom was really hot, told Jane and I to get in the car.

The solution, her, is to isolate the clause, then isolate suspect pronoun. What sounds better: "He told me to get in the car" or "he told I to get in the car"?

Problem solved. Thank youm.

Posted by Jude Fawley | January 29, 2007 4:26 PM
14

one can fuck off.

Posted by SEAN NELSON, EMERITUS | January 29, 2007 4:50 PM
15

one jests, obvz.

Posted by SEAN NELSON, EMERITUS | January 29, 2007 4:50 PM
16

I'm with #1.

Whom was dying a nice unremarked lazy death and now you want the zombie to walk again and spread its undead grip upon civilization. Drive a fucking stake into its heart. We don't need it( except maybe in the dative case, "To whom are you speaking")

If you have to go through all the rigamorole to figure it out, you don't need it. Just nasty right-wing English teachers and their drooling mind slaves.

Posted by mirror | January 29, 2007 5:17 PM
17

SEAN NELSON, EMERITUS, to who, exactly, do you refer?

Posted by Jude Fawley | January 29, 2007 5:47 PM
18

Who/whom mistakes don't really get my dander up, but I really wish that people could get it through their fucking skulls that "data" and "criteria" are both plurals.

Posted by My bitch | January 29, 2007 5:50 PM
19

My bitch, that is interesting because that is one mistake that that does not bother me.

Posted by Jude Fawley | January 29, 2007 5:53 PM
20

Jude,

Come to think of it, I don't think those used to bother me either. Then I became a research scientist and had to hear them used incorrectly multiple times per day for years on end. Like a jackhammer to concrete, it was the repetition that wore me down. Coincidentally I'm no longer a scientist.

Posted by My bitch | January 29, 2007 6:32 PM
21

If you have to go through all the rigamorole to figure it out, you don't need it. Just nasty right-wing English teachers and their drooling mind slaves.

One (ha) doesn't need to go through "all the rigamorole" after one has learned the correct usage. It becomes second nature after a while.
Political leanings and drooling and slavery have nothing to do with this.
But if it makes you happy to help accelerate the degradation of the English language, keep on fighting the righteous battle. Your team is actually winning.

Posted by segal | January 29, 2007 7:10 PM
22

I see “who/whom” confusion daily here in the work of otherwise careful writers.

Cough. "Otherwise careful writers"? I'm amazed any time I read two consecutive posts sans spelling or grammar issues.

Posted by Rubberman | January 29, 2007 7:21 PM
23

# 1: I love you.

Old-school prescriptivist grammarians: Please, take an Intro to Linguistics class. Beware the hypercorrectionists!

Posted by rtw | January 29, 2007 8:06 PM
24

By "here" I meant in my position as copy chief at the paper; I agree that our writers could be more careful when they're blogging.

Posted by Amy Kate | January 29, 2007 8:06 PM
25

Eric F, you make me hurt inside. There's a logical reason for every grammatical rule, and if you learn anything about the English language (or a foreign language), it'll be obvious.

I might add that I say this as someone who never studied grammar-- I just read a lot, and if you read decently written stuff, you can tell pretty easily when something sounds right or wrong.

Incidentally, the one I'd like to see treated is the asinine substitution of 'myself' for 'me,' just to sound more intelligent or professional (e.g., please let Johnson or myself know if you have any problems). It just makes you sound like a nitwit.

Posted by Megan | January 29, 2007 8:10 PM
26

language change is naturally-occurring, and there is no point in getting one's knickers in a bunch about rules that are on their way out. things only look and sound "right" or "wrong," depending on popular usage. for instance, the perfectly anglo word "rime" looks "wrong" when spelled in a perfectly anglo way, compared to its greek-looking "right" spelling, "rhyme." but it doesn't matter how it's spelled or why. as long as everyone understands me when i write "rhyme."

as much as i love and use it, i'm pretty sure "whom" is on its way out in american english.

Posted by andy | January 29, 2007 8:46 PM
27

As ever, I turn to my American Heritage Third Edition (which once sat upon my messy, messy desk at The Stranger, but after I stopped being the copy editor circa summer 1993) and read, in the usage note under "who": "And though the distinction shows no signs of disappearing in formal style, strict adherence to the rules in informal discourse might be taken as evidence that the speaker or writer is paying undue attention to the form of what is said, possibly at the expense of its substance."

Posted by Eric F | January 29, 2007 11:44 PM
28

Eric @ 27.

That's what I meant to mean.

I know this thread is dead, but despite my Buffy-the-Whom-Slayer beliefs I want to confess that I just found ANOTHER use for whom that probably ain't going anywhere. I just found myself typing the phrase "a kid for whom math has been a struggle." I can't see using who there but I'm kind of transitional myself.

Posted by mirror | January 30, 2007 9:46 AM
29

Opera is also a plural.

Posted by SEAN NELSON, EMERITUS | January 30, 2007 10:45 AM
30

No it fookin' isn't. Unless you mean, Mozart's opus no. 2 and opus no. 3, then they're opera.

Posted by Eric F | January 30, 2007 1:41 PM
31

Mirror @ 28: The art of writing around problems like that is underrated by grammarphiles. Instead of worrying about who or whom in that sentence, you should worry about the whole sentence's clunkiness, and switch it to "a kid who struggles with math." Remember, the active voice is your friend.

Posted by Eric F | January 30, 2007 1:46 PM
32

Eric @ 31

When I used the phrase "a kid for whom math has been a struggle" I was talking about a specific kid and the time perspective was better. "A kid who has struggled with math" would have worked. Yes. Would have sounded better too and worked better in my sentence because the sentence was long.

UNFORTUNATELY, the Stranger has got me subconsciously thinking about for whom the bell tolls. Dammit.

Posted by mirror | January 30, 2007 3:03 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).