# the girl who/whom I saw



## domingoolivares

Buenas,

En los siguientes ejemplos me gustaría saber si es intercambiable el "whom" por el "who" y si signifaría lo mismo?

- She is the girl *whom/who* I saw at the party last night
- The woman *whom/who* you saw yesterday is my teacher
- The boy *whom/who* the policemen rescued from the boat was terrified

Gracias,


----------



## Vicario

domingoolivares said:


> Buenas,
> 
> En los siguientes ejemplos me gustaría saber si es intercambiable el "whom" por el "who" y si signifaría lo mismo?
> 
> - She is the girl *whom/who* I saw at the party last night
> - The woman *whom/who* you saw yesterday is my teacher
> - The boy *whom/who* the policemen rescued from the boat was terrified
> 
> Gracias,



Si quieres hablar bien y dar una buena impresión en Inglaterra, usarías 'whom' en tus frases.  Son complementos directos del verbo (the policeman rescued the boy etc.).  Es una lástima que 'whom' desaparezca poco a poco de la lengua hablada y que casi todo el mundo diría 'who'.  Pero 'whom' es correcto.


----------



## Borges

You use _who_ when you are referring to the subject of a clause and _whom_ when you are referring to the object of a clause. She is the girl who ...
The woman whom you saw ...
The boy whom the policeman rescued....


----------



## Borges

Vicario, I think the first one is who not whom.   I'll just say that for native speakers these are VERY often gotten wrong.  Unfortunately, I can't exclude myself from the 
error prone*.   *


----------



## domingoolivares

Pero entonces, como aclaración ¿estarían bien expresadas las tres frases con "who"?


----------



## Vicario

domingoolivares said:


> Pero entonces, como aclaración ¿estarían bien expresadas las tres frases con "who"?


----------



## Vicario

No.  Si quieres hablar/escribir bien, usa 'whom'.


----------



## Borges

domingoolivares said:


> Pero entonces, como aclaración ¿estarían bien expresadas las tres frases con "who"?



No.  I believe the last two require "whom".   I will say again however, that very few Americans would even notice in spoken speech if you say "who" in all three sentences.  Maybe more native speakers can chime in here but if you say "whom" in spoken speech it almost draws your attention and you think "Wow, they are speaking very grammatically."


----------



## Vicario

Borges said:


> No.  I believe the last two require "whom".   I will say again however, that very few Americans would even notice in spoken speech if you say "who" in all three sentences.  Maybe more native speakers can chime in here but if you say "whom" in spoken speech it almost draws your attention and you think "Wow, they are speaking very grammatically."


----------



## Vicario

No.  All three require 'whom'.  I thought you liked Downton Abbey over there!  It's that kind of context you might hear it in most, but it is correct, honestly.


----------



## St. Nick

If the relative clauses were non-restrictive, e.g., _'The boy, whom the police had rescued  from the boat, was terrified,'_ the use of _"whom"_ would be easier to digest.  But, because all three of the relative clauses are restrictive in your examples, the pronoun _"whom"_ ends up sounding clumsy. Employing the relative pronoun _"that"_ makes life a lot easier when the subject of the sentence plays both a subjective and an objective role within the same structure.


----------



## Borges

Vicario said:


> No.  All three require 'whom'.  I thought you liked Downton Abbey over there!  It's that kind of context you might hear it in most, but it is correct, honestly.



Ooops!  I think you are right.


----------



## Vicario

Yes, you're right.


----------



## Vicario

Vicario said:


> Yes, you're right.



I meant that "that" would sound more natural.  I'm now waiting for someone at Downton to say 'gotten'.


----------



## Istriano

> The normal practice in modern English is to use *who* instead of *whom* (and, where applicable, to put the preposition at the end of the sentence):  _ *who* do you wish to speak to?_;  _ *who* do you think we should support?_ Such uses are today broadly accepted in standard English.


Source: Oxford Dictionary of English
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/who?region=uk#who__10




> *Whom *is a more formal word than *who *and is not commonly used in ordinary speech and writing, where it can seem awkward and unnatural.



Source: Merriam Webster's Learner's Dictionary 


http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/whom


----------



## Jim2996

Dear dominoolivares,
Let me approach it this way.  Do you understand the difference between "they" and "them" as in

*They gave them the book.* or
*They gave it to them.*

It's the difference between subject/object. It's also the same difference with

*Who gave whom the book?* or
*Who gave it to to whom?*

It's really not that difficult—except few native speakers make this distinction.  Perhaps it was a distinction that was once made, at least by educated speakers.  Perhaps is is one of those distinctions that the grammar police once tried to enforce (the war is now obviously lost). Perhaps it's a distinction that is worth making.  For some, it is a distinction that can be made when useful, but nothing is worst than using "whom" when "who" is the correct choice, at least for us with sensitive ears.

Regarding your specific sentences.  

*She is the girl whom I saw*. (Answers the question _Whom did you see?)
_*She is the girl who saw me. * (_Who saw you?)_

*She is the girl who I saw. *(Most everyone accepts this as standard, or, at least, everyday usage.)
**She is the girl whom saw me. *(Ouch!!!, this hurts my ears.)

I also want to second St. Nick's suggestion that you use "that."  "Whom" can sound either snobbish or educated, depending on your listener.


----------



## Wandering JJ

As St Nick wrote, the best option is 'that' rather than 'whom', since the clauses are all limiting (restrictive).


----------



## inib

And another option is to completely omit the relative pronoun. _(She's the girl I saw.../The woman you saw.../The boy the policeman rescued...)_ I find this totally acceptable, but I suppose some natives will object.


----------



## Wandering JJ

inib said:


> And another option is to completely omit the relative pronoun. _(She's the girl I saw.../The woman you saw.../The boy the policeman rescued...)_ I find this totally acceptable, but I suppose some natives will object.


This native agrees with you completely.


----------



## Vicario

Wandering JJ said:


> This native agrees with you completely.



So does this one, although just because some rules aren't obeyed doesn't make them disappear!


----------



## Amante

One of the few times that *whom *is used these days is :  the person with *whom* I was speaking, but you could just as easily say the person I was speaking with.  It's easier and far more commonly used.


----------



## Wandering JJ

Amante said:


> One of the few times that *whom *is used these days is : the person with *whom* I was speaking, but you could just as easily say the person I was speaking with. It's easier and far more commonly used.



Remebering, of course, that 'speak with' is North American usage; 'speak to' is British English.


----------



## FromPA

Vicario said:


> Si quieres hablar bien y dar una buena impresión en Inglaterra, usarías 'whom' en tus frases.  Son complementos directos del verbo (the policeman rescued the boy etc.).  Es una lástima que 'whom' desaparezca poco a poco de la lengua hablada y que casi todo el mundo diría 'who'.  Pero 'whom' es correcto.


It’s not a shame at all. It’s just way too hard to figure out the grammatical analysis on the fly while you are speaking. The only time I might use whom is immediately following a preposition (my personal usage rule).  I only bother to do the analysis in formal writing.


----------



## Forero

_Whom_ is objective case. Modern English has no accusative, dative, instrumental, prepositional, or ablative case.

_Whom_ is appropriate for direct and indirect objects and for objects of prepositions. It is never appropriate as a subject.

In the sentences in #1, I would either omit the relative pronoun altogether or use _whom_.


----------



## Wandering JJ

Hi Forero,
OE had four cases: nominative, accusative, genitive and dative – no instrumental or prepositional (as found in Russian, for example) nor an ablative case (as in Latin, for example).
Just a reminder that, in BrE, grammarians prefer 'that' as the relative in #1 as it introduces a restrictive clause. In practice, as you also suggest, we would probably omit the relative pronoun in the examples given.


----------



## Forero

Wandering JJ said:


> Hi Forero,
> OE had four cases: nominative, accusative, genitive and dative – no instrumental or prepositional (as found in Russian, for example) nor an ablative case (as in Latin, for example).
> Just a reminder that, in BrE, grammarians prefer 'that' as the relative in #1 as it introduces a restrictive clause. In practice, as you also suggest, we would probably omit the relative pronoun in the examples given.


If we are talking about Old English, I believe it did have an instrumental case originally.

But I was just saying that Modern English _whom_ is objective case, suitable for any kind of object. It is not "dative".


----------



## Wandering JJ

Forero said:


> If we are talking about Old English, I believe it did have an instrumental case originally.


Good point. By the time I was born, the instrumental case had largely merged with the dative case.


----------

