# What happened to "whom"?



## Geoff Jordan

Comments, please.

The man with whom you spoke lied. 

The man who you spoke to lied.

Who did you speak to?

I want to speak to the man who you spoke to.

Whom did you speak to?

The man of whom I speak is a liar.


----------



## nelliot53

Geoff Jordan said:


> Comments, please.
> 
> The man with whom you spoke lied.
> 
> The man who you spoke to lied.  *The man whom you spoke to lied.*
> 
> Who did you speak to?  *Whom did you speak to?*
> 
> I want to speak to the man who you spoke to.  *I want to speak to the man whom you spoke to.*
> 
> Whom did you speak to?
> 
> The man of whom I speak is a liar.


 

Let's wait for other opinions.


----------



## Geoff Jordan

nelliot53 said:


> Let's wait for other opinions.


 
The question is: Who uses "whom"?  Is it disappearing as the object pronoun or just used with prepositions, or what?


----------



## Outsider

Geoff, prescriptively speaking "whom" should be used in all those sentences, but in practice many people say, and sometimes write, "who" instead.


----------



## Geoff Jordan

I agree - "whom" is 'correct' in all sentences.  But my question is: Is "whom" disappearing?  For this we need someone with access to a good data base and a concordancer.


----------



## Lagartija

Geoff Jordan said:


> The question is: Who uses "whom"?  Is it disappearing as the object pronoun or just used with prepositions, or what?


What I learned as the "proper" construction: "To whom did you speak?"
We were taken to task in English class if we put the preposition at the end: "Whom did you speak to?" 

Remember, "---for whom the bell tolls.... it tolls for you."


I guess for me, if it has a preposition, then use whom.  If it doesn't.... such as in, "who uses the word whom anymore?" Then use who.


----------



## Soy Yo

"Whom" in general speech is considered in some constructions artificial and "stuffy" sounding.  In writing, I believe most people who are worry at all about grammar try to word things so that "whom" is maintained (or else they avoid constructions where "whom" should be used).

This reminds me of a joke that one of my college Spanish teachers told the class.

A guy says to a girl: "With whom are you going to the dance on Saturday night?

Seeing that he is of the stuffy sort, she explains: "Well, it's certainly not going to be with youm!"

Oh, well, it was funny at the time.


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

Soy Yo said:


> "Whom" in general speech is considered in some constructions artificial and "stuffy" sounding.  In writing, I believe most people who are worry at all about grammar try to word things so that "whom" is maintained (or else they avoid constructions where "whom" should be used).



Even as a language teacher and linguist, I virtually always use 'who' in all contexts, because 'whom' sounds pretentious in modern English. I'd only make an occasional exception for the sake of euphony.


----------



## TheMexican

gwrthgymdeithasol said:


> Even as a language teacher and linguist, I virtually always use 'who' in all contexts, because 'whom' sounds pretentious in modern English. I'd only make an occasional exception for the sake of euphony.


 
 I'm studying linguistics and we discussed the same in my English class. Whom is definitely losing the battle. I just make sure that my written English is correct, I don't worry too much about it in speech. When in Rome...


----------



## panjandrum

Whom is still alive and well in written and spoken English.
Some, aspiring to greatness, will say whom when who would do.

Others will struggle from time to time and change the sentence rather than commit themselves in doubtful cases (I wonder who that might be - or should that be whom? ).

But in normal conversation it seldom appears.
As one who writes formally a little too often for his own good, I confess to using whom in a casual conversation while under stress for other reasons - and to watching with amusement the reaction of the couple sitting beside me in the doctor's waiting room


----------



## Geoff Jordan

I wonder if you'd agree that "whom" will probably survive with prepositional help.  To whom it may concern,...


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

TheMexican said:


> I'm studying linguistics and we discussed the same in my English class. Whom is definitely losing the battle. I just make sure that my written English is correct, I don't worry too much about it in speech. When in Rome...



There's nothing inherently wrong about writing 'who' when 'teachers' say you should write 'whom'. It's not up to them (unless they're marking your papers!).


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

panjandrum said:


> Whom is still alive and well in written and spoken English.
> Some, aspiring to greatness, will say whom when who would do.



It's alive, but definitely not well in written English. It survives in spoken English only in the mouths of pedants!


----------



## jimreilly

It would be nice if it went away--who needs it?


----------



## Geoff Jordan

gwrthgymdeithasol said:


> It's alive, but definitely not well in written English. It survives in spoken English only in the mouths of pedants!


 
That's a bit strong!  As I said, or wrote anyway, "whom" is still commonly used after prepositions, even in spoken English, isn't it?


----------



## gwrthgymdeithasol

Geoff Jordan said:


> That's a bit strong!  As I said, or wrote anyway, "whom" is still commonly used after prepositions, even in spoken English, isn't it?



Yes, it was meant humorously -- no offence meant 

After prepositions it's still quite common, I agree; but not in colloquial English -- because 'who' is usually 'fronted' and the preposition shunted to the end of the clause.


----------



## Alicky

jimreilly said:


> It would be nice if it went away--who needs it?


 Jim darling,your sentence is wrong. It is _Whom needs it?_


----------



## mjscott

Alicky said:


> Jim darling,your sentence is wrong. It is _Whom needs it?_


 
Nope, *Who* needs it? is correct. 
*Who* is the pronoun in the subjective case.
*Whom* is the pronoun in the objective case.


----------



## Hitch57

Using "whom" is pretentious! To avoid sounding pretentious, use "who" instead. Few persons use "whom" anymore.​


----------



## jimreilly

Alicky said:


> Jim darling,your sentence is wrong. It is _Whom needs it?_



No, I'm going to follow those rules--it should be "Who needs itm"!

(Nice to be called "darling", by the way......)


----------



## rsweet

This kind of conversation makes me sad. Why? It's not that I think people should be overburdened with grammar rules. It's not that I think "whom" doesn't a bit stuffy. 

I'm sad because bit by bit the rules and practices that add precision to language are eroding, and meaning is blurring more and more. The purpose, after all, of words is to *mean something*! I think it's important, at least in written English, to keep track of subjects and objects, of who is doing what to whom.


----------



## ScienceDay

rsweet said:


> This kind of conversation makes me sad. Why? It's not that I think people should be overburdened with grammar rules. It's not that I think "whom" doesn't a bit stuffy.
> 
> I'm sad because bit by bit the rules and practices that add precision to language are eroding, and meaning is blurring more and more. The purpose, after all, of words is to mean something! I think it's important, at least in written English, to keep track of subjects and objects, of who is doing what to whom.



We don't have a subjective vs. objective distinction with the pronoun "it". Rather, we use "it" for both the subject and the object. Similarly, "whom" is unnecessary. "Who" alone is good enough. We don't need "whom" anymore than we need a distinct objective "it" pronoun.


----------



## chesty

Hello. 

I agree with you rsweet. It does seem sad to be losing precision.

If it's any consolation to you, sometimes the world looks nicer in soft focus.


----------



## rsweet

Very well put, chesty. Thank you.


----------



## jimreilly

ScienceDay said:


> We don't have a subjective vs. objective distinction with the pronoun "it". Rather, we use "it" for both the subject and the object. Similarly, "whom" is unnecessary. "Who" alone is good enough. We don't need "whom" anymore than we need a distinct objective "it" pronoun.



Well put, and exactly the point of my earlier use of "itm". People who support the "rules" sometimes do so in the name of consistency, order, and precision, but of course traditional language practices are far from orderly, and the rules themselves, just to maintain their status as "rules", often have to allow for many exceptions. And precision often depends on tone of voice and context.

I'm really not sure that "whom" is disappearing (perhaps in my age group it isn't!), but if it goes I will cheerfully wave at it as it disappears.


----------



## Mike

I'm not particularly into dropping whom just so it's easier or less clunky. If you want to leave it out, fine with me, but don't be surprised if someone comments on the fact it's not grammatically correct.

Here's an excellent thread regarding the English language and whether we should dumb it down a bit.

Cheers

Mike


----------



## Alicky

mjscott said:


> Nope, *Who* needs it? is correct.
> *Who* is the pronoun in the subjective case.
> *Whom* is the pronoun in the objective case.


 
OF COURSE IT IS WRONG!! I was joking!!!


----------



## Alicky

jimreilly said:


> No, I'm going to follow those rules--it should be "Who needs itm"!
> 
> (Nice to be called "darling", by the way......)


 
Darling, I hope you realize I was joking Of course it is who.
But I agree. Not one of my english-speaking friends use "whom". Maybe it is an age group  issue. As time goes by (lovely song by the way) words dissapear or lose their previous meaning.


----------



## driFDer

The ONLY time I use "whom" is when writing a formal letter.  Whether it be to a employer, manager, or any other "business" related people, to which I don't know my letter will concern.  I always started the letter with "to whom it may concern."  Other than that, I never use it.


----------



## Soy Yo

Even though it looks like "whom" is losing out... I still cringe when I hear a news reporter on one of the national networks sau between you and I.


----------



## Outsider

It's not surprising at all that "whom" is on its way out of the English language, as "who" is the only interrogative pronoun that is still declined. I think there's a natural tendency to make it more like the other interrogative pronouns.


----------



## MiamianIsraeli

This has a chain-like effect. In order to use who we have to also occasionally end our sentneces with prepositions as in "who are you waiting for," another violation of grammatical rules. Where does this end?


----------



## ireney

For some reason I don't see the argument about whether "whom" should be kept or not as the same as "who needs so many rules"?

While, when to use "whom" and when "who" follows some grammatical (or syntactical, depends on your point of view) rules, the simplification of a language by means of abolishing a/some word(s) has a lot to do with matters of vocabulary.

I am biased in cases such as the one of "whom" since my native language makes use of cases and I find their use  a good way to be exact even if it seems complicated.
Furthermore I don't mind if a language is complicated if that's the price for exactness as long as there's a simpler form for everyday communication (it's better to have an exact if also complicated language form to discuss a logical paradox and a simple uncomplicated one to shout "Stop! Red light!") so my opinion is not worth much but I still feel sad seeing that "whom" seems to be taking the road "whose" has already taken.


----------



## ScienceDay

MiamianIsraeli said:


> This has a chain-like effect. In order to use who we have to also occasionally end our sentneces with prepositions as in "who are you waiting for," another violation of grammatical rules. Where does this end?



No, you are confusing English with Latin. Ending a sentence with a preposition is a violation of grammar rules in Latin, not English. Why is it that so many people confuse English with Latin? It's perfectly fine to end a sentence with a preposition in English, while not in Latin.


----------



## john_riemann_soong

Actually, this is why one should teach English elementary school students full-fledged French, where the "qui/que" is more prominent ...


----------



## panjandrum

The posts discussing whether or not sentences are a good thing to end a sentence with have emigrated to a thread about ending sentences with prepositions. 
Help with prepositions!

Please keep this thread on the topic of who/ whom.

Panj
(Mod)


----------



## jimreilly

Mike said:


> I'm not particularly into dropping whom just so it's easier or less clunky. If you want to leave it out, fine with me, but don't be surprised if someone comments on the fact it's not grammatically correct.
> 
> Here's an excellent thread regarding the English language and whether we should dumb it down a bit.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Mike



The phrase "dumb it down" is often offensive, as it is here. For one thing, those of us arguing against "whom" do not necessarily lack intelligence. For another thing, language usage often has more to do with issues of class, social attitudes, and education than with intelligence. I have some reasonably intelligent friends who use language in ways that break the "rules". Sometimes their creative use of the language is delightful.

Instead of "dumb it down", why not use "simplify"?


----------



## john_riemann_soong

> I have some reasonably intelligent friends who use language in ways that break the "rules"



Case in point: Jabberwocky 

"Whom" has seemed rather natural for me - once one learns a language that makes a prominent distinction in case, it becomes rather intuitive. It in fact looks rather clunky without the object-marker.


----------



## Outsider

The trouble is that English no longer makes a prominent distinction of case.


----------



## john_riemann_soong

Which is why I think monolingualism is a vice: at least, everyone should be working on a second language, it makes one realise these distinctions more (even learning Chinese, one would sudden treat morphemes a little differently).


----------



## mplsray

Geoff Jordan said:


> I wonder if you'd agree that "whom" will probably survive with prepositional help. To whom it may concern,...


 

In his book _Dos, Don't, and Maybes of English Usage,_ Theodore Bernstein proposed that _whom _be limited to use immediately after a preposition, where it still sounds natural, while _who _would be used in every other circumstance where traditional grammar would call for _whom._ He proposed this as a formal change in English usage, but since there is no English-language academy, there's no effective way of getting the rule widely accepted, not as a formal change anyway. Of course, usage is heading the language in that direction.


----------



## Outsider

That would create an oddity. There would be no other word in English with a special form to be used after prepositions only, except "who".


----------



## ireney

mplsray said:


> In his book _Dos, Don't, and Maybes of English Usage,_ Theodore Bernstein proposed that _whom _be limited to use immediately after a preposition, where it still sounds natural, while _who _would be used in every other circumstance where traditional grammar would call for _whom._ .



I don't see the logic behind it. If "who" takes the place of "whom" in general, if by "who" we also mean "whom" then it will surely mean "whom" after a preposition also.


----------



## jimreilly

Since when do normalcy/oddity and logic/illogic regulate language usage?


----------



## ireney

jimreilly this is an academic proposal; any change to the language that comes from usage can be as illogical or odd as it likes but this is not the case.


----------



## mplsray

ireney said:


> I don't see the logic behind it. If "who" takes the place of "whom" in general, if by "who" we also mean "whom" then it will surely mean "whom" after a preposition also.


 

The logic behind Bernstein's proposal--and this will also answer *Outsider's* comment that "That would create an oddity"--is to reconcile formal rules with how the language is actually used by educated speakers. His rules describe how I use the word _whom, _for example. The oddity, in other words, is one which already exists.

I can think of only one exception where my usage would not follow Bernstein's proposed rule: An emphatic question with _who _at the end, as in _He gave it to *who!?*_


----------



## Outsider

mplsray said:


> The logic behind Bernstein's proposal--and this will also answer *Outsider's* comment that "That would create an oddity"--is to reconcile formal rules with how the language is actually used by educated speakers. His rules describe how I use the word _whom, _for example. The oddity, in other words, is one which already exists.


Usage is not uniform, though. Many people just say "who" always.


----------



## jimreilly

mplsray said:


> The logic behind Bernstein's proposal--and this will also answer *Outsider's* comment that "That would create an oddity"--is to reconcile formal rules with how the language is actually used by educated speakers. His rules describe how I use the word _whom, _for example. The oddity, in other words, is one which already exists.
> 
> This is rather well said, mplsray (us mpls folks have to stick together). I'm not sure I would limit myself to "educated" speakers, since the difficulties of defining "educated" are appreciable. Does life constitute education--i.e. does my early learning of English from my parents and peers constitute "education"? Or, if it's "formal education" one is after, there's another set of problems....
> 
> Also, don't some language changes (e.g. _who/whom_?) start with less (formally) educated people, to be taken up later by some of the elite? and resisted by some others? Do we not validate those changes until the "educated" folks take them up?


----------



## ellas!

I agree with everyone else who said that "whom" sounds pretentious. It sounds overly posh and old-fashioned, and I don't know many people who say "whom" often.I wouldn't even know when to use it lol.


----------



## Outsider

A web search gave me:

- 2.210.000.000 hits for *"to who"*

- 174.000.000 hits for *"to whom"*

The _vox populi_ dictates that "whom" be put out of its mysery.


----------



## lix

Someone told me once that 'whom' is used only when accompanied by a preposition. And I like it. I use it quite often, actually, but I agree it sounds pretentious in a conversation amongst friends. Just adding my two cents.

But it's pretty, don't let it disappear! *pets _whom_*


----------



## mplsray

jimreilly said:


> This is rather well said, mplsray (us mpls folks have to stick together). I'm not sure I would limit myself to "educated" speakers, since the difficulties of defining "educated" are appreciable. Does life constitute education--i.e. does my early learning of English from my parents and peers constitute "education"? Or, if it's "formal education" one is after, there's another set of problems....
> 
> Also, don't some language changes (e.g. _who/whom_?) start with less (formally) educated people, to be taken up later by some of the elite? and resisted by some others? Do we not validate those changes until the "educated" folks take them up?


 

The reason it's _educated people_ is that the concept of standard language is intimately entwined with education. Consider the following definitions for the adjective _standard:_

From the _Microsoft Encarta College Dictionary_


> *standard* [...] _adj_ [...] *3 GRAMMATICALLY CORRECT* regarded as correct or acceptable by the majority of educated speakers of or authorities on a language


 
And the following comes from _Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary,_ 11th ed.: 


> *2standard *_adj_ [...] *4 :* substantially uniform and well established by usage in the speech and writing of the educated and widely recognized as acceptable <~ pronunciation is subject to regional variations>


 
Each dictionary has an entry for _Standard English_ as well, in each case referring to the educated, as in the following from Encarta's definition: "well established by usage in the formal and informal speech and writing of the educated."

I agree with you about the difficulties of defining what constitutes an educated person--For me, high school would be sufficient, but others I've discussed this with think _educated person_ must refer to someone with a college education. Despite the difficulties, modern dictionaries, grammars, style guides, and sociolinguistic works which intend to focus on Standard English treat _standard_ as being the usage of educated people. So when you're looking up something in the dictionary, trying to determine if it is standard, dialectal, or slang, the result you find will have been written by a lexicographer who thinks of standard usage as the speech and writing of the educated.

As for your point that "some language changes (e.g. who/whom?) start with less (formally) educated people" before going on to standard usage, I agree.


----------



## john_riemann_soong

ellas! said:


> I agree with everyone else who said that "whom" sounds pretentious. It sounds overly posh and old-fashioned, and I don't know many people who say "whom" often.I wouldn't even know when to use it lol.



You need a better circle of friends.

j/k


----------

