# a quien mi padre



## Quiendijo

Hola 

No sé si el uso de 'whom' está correcto en esta frase.

Pedro es el amigo* a quien mi padre* le cuenta todos sus secretos.

Pedro is the friend *to* *whom my father* tells all his secrets.

Gracias


----------



## Dosamuno

Yes, it is correct.
*Whom* is used when the relative pronoun is the direct object.
In this circumstance, "to" is optional:

Pedro is the friend *to* *whom my father* tells all his secrets.
Pedro is the friend *whom my father* tells all his secrets.


----------



## Quiendijo

Great! I didn't know the preposition was optional in this example.

Could you provide me of an example in which the preposition ('to' or any other one) is compulsary?


----------



## Bevj

No estoy de acuerdo con Dosamuno.
Si vas a usar 'whom', que por cierto hoy en día es correctísimo pero muy formal, el 'to' me parece totalmente imprescindible en este ejemplo..


----------



## Dosamuno

_A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language_, 6.35:

—In informal English, there is a tendency to avoid _whom_ altogether, and to replace it with _who_.  In formal style, …the tendency is to use _whom _in accordance with the traditional prescriptive rule that _who _is for subject and subject complement forms and _whom _is for other functions.

When the relative pronoun is object, we meet the following possibilities:
This is a person_ whom _you should know.
_                          who
                          that
                          (null)_

If the relative pronoun is a prepositional complement, we meet a further possibility, that of the preposition followed by _whom_:
This is a person_ to whom _you spoke.
_                               whom you spoke to.
                               who
                               that
                               (null)_

Bev,

Whether the preposition is _prescindible _depends on the verb.
With “talk to” or “listen to” you need the preposition somewhere:

I listen to Bev.
Bev is the person *to whom* I listen.
Bev is the person I listen *to*.

With “tell” the “to” is _prescindible.

“_My father tells all his secrets to Pedro.”
_“_Pedro is the friend *to* *whom my father* tells all his secrets.”
“Pedro is the friend *whom* my father tells all his secrets.”
Or even, “Pedro is the friend my father tells all his secrets.”


----------



## Bevj

We will have to disagree 
My father tells _his_ _secrets_ *to *Pedro.
He does not tell Pedro.

I would also say (less grammatically) that he is the one my father tells his secrets *to*.


----------



## Dosamuno

Bevj said:


> We will have to disagree
> My father tells _his_ _secrets_ *to *Pedro.
> He does not tell Pedro.
> 
> I would also say (less grammatically) that he is the one my father tells his secrets *to*.




You may also say "My father tells Pedro his secrets".
However, you may not say "My father explains Pedro his secrets."

Some verbs fit into the Subject-verb-indirect object-object format like "tell", "send", "give", or "show".
Some do not, like "say", "explain", or "describe".
Verbs that *do* fit into the S-v-i.o.-d.o. format may also be used without "whom".
Pedro is the person (to whom, whom) my father tells secrets. 
Dosamuno is the person (to whom, whom) Bev sent the flowers.


----------



## Dosamuno

“In identifying relative clauses, we often leave out the relative pronoun if it is the object of the verb in the relative clause.  This is extremely common in conversational English.”

_“He’s a _*man people like*_ at first sight.”

Practical English Usage_
Michael Swan

"Pedro is the friend *to* *whom my father* tells all his secrets." is an identifying relative clause.
Thus we may also say or write, "Pedro is the *friend father tells* all his secrets."

Pedro is the friend *to* *whom my father* tells all his secrets.  
Pedro is the *friend whom my father *tells all his secrets.
Pedro is the *friend my father tells* all his secrets.


----------



## Bevj

I am not learned enough in grammar to put forward an academically-based rejoinder, but without the 'to', the sentence sounds so wrong and ugly that I can't get my head round it. I can honestly say I have never heard this construction used.  

Pedro is the *friend father tells* all his secrets 
Pedro is the *friend whom my father *tells all his secrets 
Pedro is the *friend my father tells* all his secrets.


----------



## Magazine

I was looking at this article and thought this was a really interesting point of view, 




> Furthermore, use of _whom_ in a sentence such as “It was Smith and Jones whom we had to contend with” is a hypercorrection. (“It was Smith and Jones who we had to contend with” is correct, though the sentence is better with the pronoun omitted: “It was Smith and Jones we had to contend with.”) Append a phrase containing the same pronoun to realize how awkward this form is. (“It was Smith and Jones whom we had to contend with, whom some among us feared.”)
> ...The fusty _who/whom _distinction is fading in conversational usage, and it is my fervent hope that the use of _whom_ except in unambiguous “to whom” constructions will likewise atrophy.
> I’ll let legendary language maven William Safire have the last word: Of this issue, he said, in effect, when the question of whether to use _whom _or _who_ arises, revise the sentence so that you don’t have to puzzle over which form is correct.





We often have discussions about issues on the general English-Spanish forum which have a grammar rule but nobody (ever) uses it. I am a grammar freak, I really am, but I find that the most important issue is to speak correctly and , most importantly, idiomatically, in any language. If a native speaker says, this is really odd and I would never say this...I guess they have a good reason. I do so all the time. 

Books are full of rules. I , as a teacher, have to teach some of them nobody ever uses....but I tell my students so. I don't want them to sound like foreigners, which is ultimately what happens if we stick to some of the given rules in language or words mentioned in dictionaries even though nobody ever colloquially uses them. 

To go back to the sentences above: 



> Pedro is the *friend father tells* all his secrets
> Pedro is the *friend whom my father *tells all his secrets
> Pedro is the *friend my father tells* all his secrets.



I believe that _technically _the sentences are actually correct. However, if they sound awkward and weird to the upmost to a well spoken native speaker, something must be off here. 

I would not omit the preposition in _any_ of the sentences . 

_

_


----------



## gengo

Bevj said:


> Pedro is the *friend father tells* all his secrets
> Pedro is the *friend whom my father *tells all his secrets
> Pedro is the *friend my father tells* all his secrets.



All of those sentences sound fine to me, although not all equally so.




Bevj said:


> My father tells _his_ _secrets_ *to *Pedro.
> He does not tell Pedro.



I'm not sure what you mean there.  Surely you say things like "I told Pedro my name," and do not insist on "I told my name to Pedro."  If so, what is the difference in the sentence above?


----------



## Dosamuno

Could you provide me of an example in which the preposition ('to' or any other one) is compulsary?
[/QUOTE]

1.  Quiendijo is the friend* to who(m) I explained* the problem.
2.  Mafalda is the friend* for who(m)* I’d do anything.


_Explain , _and verbs like explain (_describe_ or _say_, for example) can’t be used in the S-V-I.O.-D.O. structure.  They must be used with _to_.


----------



## Jektor

Dosamuno said:


> Pedro is the friend *whom my father* tells all his secrets.
> .


That sounds weird to me. I would never say that.
.


----------



## Bevj

Now that another BrE speaker has come along, I suspect that this is an AE/BrE difference.


----------



## Dosamuno

Michael Swan is British.
"Whom" is seldom used is everyday speech.
It is used in business letters and other formal writing.

And, in both speech and writing, as Swan observes,
“In identifying relative clauses, we often leave out the relative pronoun if it is the object of the verb in the relative clause. This is extremely common in conversational English.”  

This is not "An AE vs BrE difference".


----------



## Bevj

Of course the question is largely academic because 'whom' is hardly ever used in conversation any more.
However, and despite Swan's nationality, it seems significant that to you AE speakers, leaving out 'to' is not a problem, while to us BrE speakers it sounds totally wrong.
As said, we will have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Dosamuno

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory'," Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't— till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"

"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.

"When _I_ use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you _can_ make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master-that's all."

_Through the Looking Glass, _Ch. VI


There are rules which generate the structure of English sentences.
It's not just a matter of opinion.
Of course, like Humpty Dumpty, one may choose to ignore them.


----------



## Jektor

There is a long thread on this who/whom/to whom here - it looks to me like another BE/AE thing:  
forum.wordreference.com - whom-did-you-give-to-whom-did-whom-did-you-give-to.3154356/
.


----------



## Dosamuno

Hi Jektor:

Interesting discussion on that thread.
Thanks for mentioning it.

With all due respect, I still insist that this is not a matter of BRE vs. AE.
I taught English in the U.S. and in Spain.
All the grammar books I've used, British and American, agree about _whom _in formal contexts,
the omission of _to _in informal speech, and the elimination of the relative pronoun in certain circumstances, as Michael Swan explains.  I don't mean to be a pedant, but all three versions below of the OP's original sentence are correct and are used—whether or not some people have ever heard of them and whether or not they hurt some people's ears:

Pedro is the *friend who my father tells* all his secrets. 
Pedro is the *friend (to) whom my father *tells all his secrets.
Pedro is the *friend my father tells* all his secrets.


----------



## Quiendijo

Dosamuno said:


> Pedro is the *friend my father tells* all his secrets.



Hola Dosamuno. En este ejemplo, ¿no deberíamos terminarlo con 'to'?
Pedro is the friend my father tells all his secrets _to._


----------



## gengo

Quiendijo said:


> Hola Dosamuno. En este ejemplo, ¿no deberíamos terminarlo con 'to'?
> Pedro is the friend my father tells all his secrets _to._



I'm not Dosamuno, but both versions are correct and in use.  I have a slight preference for the version with "to," but it's not a matter of right or wrong.

_1. I tell Pedro my secrets.
2. I tell my secrets to Pedro._

Both of the above are correct, so in the sentence you give, adding "to" means that you are implying "to whom," and not adding "to" means that you are using #1 above.


----------



## Quiendijo

Thank you gengo! It's clear now


----------



## Quiendijo

Magazine said:


> Books are full of rules. I , as a teacher, have to teach some of them nobody ever uses....but I tell my students so. I don't want them to sound like foreigners, which is ultimately what happens if we stick to some of the given rules in language or words mentioned in dictionaries even though nobody ever colloquially uses them.



Concuerdo contigo, pero debes tener en cuenta que muchos de nuestros alumnos toman exámenes donde la gramática es muy estricta. Por lo tanto, hay que enseñarla como tal y hacer las aclaraciones pertinentes sobre su uso. Por ejemplo, estoy trabajando sobre "Orgullo y Prejuicio" que está lleno de 'whoms'. Tengo que explicar como se usa, no puedo ignorarlo.


----------



## Dosamuno

Quiendijo said:


> Hola Dosamuno. En este ejemplo, ¿no deberíamos terminarlo con 'to'?
> Pedro is the friend my father tells all his secrets _to._





Quiendijo said:


> Hola Dosamuno. En este ejemplo, ¿no deberíamos terminarlo con 'to'?
> Pedro is the friend my father tells all his secrets _to._



I agree with Gengo.

Pedro is the friend my father tells all his secrets _to. _

Also:

Pedro is the *friend who my father tells* all his secrets.
Pedro is the *friend (to) whom my father *tells all his secrets.
Pedro is the *friend my father tells* all his secrets.


----------



## Quiendijo

Thank you Dosamuno


----------



## Jektor

.
For anyone interested, there are many more Word Ref threads about "whom" and "to whom":
forum.wordreference.com - q=whom



Quiendijo said:


> Concuerdo contigo, pero debes tener en cuenta que muchos de nuestros alumnos toman exámenes donde la gramática es muy estricta. Por lo tanto, hay que enseñarla como tal y hacer las aclaraciones pertinentes sobre su uso. Por ejemplo, estoy trabajando sobre "Orgullo y Prejuicio" que está lleno de 'whoms'. Tengo que explicar como se usa, no puedo ignorarlo.
> .


@ Quiendijo: I trust your students realise that the English of "Pride and Prejudice" uses many old-fashioned (1813) expressions which would sound strange in modern English.  The text is available free on the Gutenberg.org site:
gutenberg.org - pride-and-prejudice.html
gutenberg.org- ebooks/1342-pride and prejudice 
.


----------



## Quiendijo

Jektor said:


> Quiendijo: I trust your students realise that the English of "Pride and Prejudice" uses many old-fashioned (1813) expressions which would sound strange in modern English



Yes Jektor, they do realise, but it doesn't mean that they don't want to know the meaning of words such as 'whom' and how to use them. They're curious 

Thanks


----------



## ewie

_Pedro is the *friend who my father tells* all his secrets.
Pedro is the *friend whom my father *tells all his secrets.
Pedro is the *friend my father tells* all his secrets._

All three of these are categorically and unutterably *wrong* in BrE.

_Pedro is the *friend to whom my father *tells all his secrets._

This is correct – but unidiomatic – in BrE.  Jane Austen might have said it ~ if her dad had had a friend called Pedro.


----------



## gengo

ewie said:


> _Pedro is the *friend who my father tells* all his secrets.
> Pedro is the *friend whom my father *tells all his secrets.
> Pedro is the *friend my father tells* all his secrets._
> 
> All three of these are categorically and unutterably *wrong* in BrE.



It would be interesting, and possibly helpful, if you told us _why_ you say that.  In the first one, "who" is being used in place of "whom," which is extremely common in colloquial speech, although technically incorrect.  However, I don't understand what you find so wrong about the second and third.  No one has answered my question about whether the structure "I tell Pedro my secrets" is considered incorrect in BrEn, although I find it hard to believe that it would be.  If that structure is correct, then #3 above would certainly be correct, and #2 should also be acceptable, since the "to" of "to whom" is not always required.


----------



## Dosamuno

ewie said:


> _Pedro is the *friend who my father tells* all his secrets.
> Pedro is the *friend whom my father *tells all his secrets.
> Pedro is the *friend my father tells* all his secrets._
> 
> All three of these are categorically and unutterably *wrong* in BrE.
> 
> _Pedro is the *friend to whom my father *tells all his secrets._
> 
> This is correct – but unidiomatic – in BrE.  Jane Austen might have said it ~ if her dad had had a friend called Pedro.





_"Whom _is not very often used in informal English;  we usually use _who _instead, especially with questions.

*Who*_ are you going with?_
*Who *_did they arrest?
Tell me _*who *_they arrested?

Whom _can be used in a more formal style, and it is necessary after a preposition.

_Whom did they arrest? _(formal)
*With whom*_ are you going?_ (very formal)

_Practical English Usage_, 135.3
Michael Swan

(Michael Swan is a British grammarian)


Also:

“In identifying relative clauses, we often leave out the relative pronoun if it is the object of the verb in the relative clause. This is extremely common in conversational English.

_'He’s a _*man people like*_ at first sight.'"

Practical English Usage_
Michael Swan

(See #8 and also #5)


----------



## Dosamuno

gengo said:


> It would be interesting, and possibly helpful, if you told us _why_ you say that.  In the first one, "who" is being used in place of "whom," which is extremely common in colloquial speech, although technically incorrect.  However, I don't understand what you find so wrong about the second and third.  No one has answered my question about whether the structure "I tell Pedro my secrets" is considered incorrect in BrEn, although I find it hard to believe that it would be.  If that structure is correct, then #3 above would certainly be correct, and #2 should also be acceptable, since the "to" of "to whom" is not always required.



Gengo, I can assure you that British children say to their parents, "Tell me a story" just as their American counterparts do.


----------



## ewie

Dosamuno said:


> Gengo, I can assure you that British children say to their parents, "Tell me a story" just as their American counterparts do.


 


gengo said:


> It would be interesting, and possibly helpful, if you told us _why_ you say that.


Because they require the presence of _to_ in BrE.
Why? I don't know: they just do ~ that's how BrE works in this regard.


----------



## Jektor

ewie said:


> _Pedro is the *friend who my father tells* all his secrets.
> Pedro is the *friend whom my father *tells all his secrets.
> Pedro is the *friend my father tells* all his secrets._
> 
> All three of these are categorically and unutterably *wrong* in BrE.
> 
> _Pedro is the *friend to whom my father *tells all his secrets._
> 
> This is correct – but unidiomatic – in BrE.  Jane Austen might have said it ~ if her dad had had a friend called Pedro.
> .


.
I agree.
.


----------



## Marsianitoh

British children say " tell me a story",  you can "tell something to someone" or " tell someone something". The problem in the case of these relative clauses is that  the " thing" object comes right next to the verb ( ...he tells all his secrets) and therefore for British speakers the " person" object must have the preposition " to".
Americans accept "Pedro is the friend (whom) my father tells all his secrets" because they interpret it comes from " my father tells a friend all his secrets" ( no preposition there, no preposition in the relative). British speakers don't do such thing, for them it has to be " Pedro is the friend to whom my father tells all his secrets" or " Pedro is the friend who my father tells all his secrets to" or " Pedro is the friend my father tells his secrets to" ( just as Swan says, omitting the relative pronoun in identifying object relative clauses, but not the preposition, he doesn't mention omitting the preposition). For them as the "thing" object is next to the verb,  the "person" object needs a preposition, the relative sentences without " to" sound to them as wrong as saying " my father tells all his secrets a friend".


----------



## Dosamuno

1.  All four co-authors of _A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language_, cited in post #5, are British scholars.  Look them up:
Randolph Quirk
Sidney Greenbaum
Geoffrey Leech
Jan Svartvik

Note that the title of the book is  _A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language_, not  _A Comprehensive Grammar of the American Language._

2.  _A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language _features a section contrasting British and American usage.  It mentions nothing about the use of prepositions in relative clauses.

3.  As the quotation in #5 makes clear, all three sentences,

_Pedro is the _*friend who my father tells*_ all his secrets.
Pedro is the _*friend whom my father *_tells all his secrets.
Pedro is the _*friend my father tells*_ all his secrets._

are acceptable according to these British grammarians.


4.  In section 617 of _Practical English Usage_, Michael Swan (another British grammarian) explains that “many verbs can be followed by two objects.  Generally the indirect object refers to a person, and comes first.”

He adds that the list of verbs include, _“bring, offer, send, buy, owe, show, cost, pass, take, give, pay, tell, leave, promise, write,, lend, read, make, refuse.”_

He also notes, in the same section, that “the indirect object can also be put after the direct object with a preposition, usually _for _or _to._

5.  Thus, one can infer that, when embedding a sentence containing one of these verbs into an identifying (descriptive, restrictive) relative clause, there are several choices— which Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, and Svartvik enumerate, and which are cited in post 5.


There are differences in usage based on region, education, and context.  _Whom _is still used in business letters and other formal situtions, but rarely in informal daily conversations.  _Who _is not usually used with a preposition.

But according to a prestigious grammar book of reference,  a book of almost 1800 pages, written by four* British *scholars, the three sentences that ewie, Jektor, and Marsiantoh reject as non-British usage, are acceptable.

I'm through with this thread.


No disrespect is intended toward ewie, Jektor, or Marsianitoh whose posts are always interesting and informative.


----------



## ewie

Dosamuno said:


> 3.  As the quotation in #5 makes clear, all three sentences,
> 
> _Pedro is the _*friend who my father tells*_ all his secrets.
> Pedro is the _*friend whom my father *_tells all his secrets.
> Pedro is the _*friend my father tells*_ all his secrets._
> 
> are acceptable according to these British grammarians.


 Which part?


----------



## Marsianitoh

I don't see where any of these grammarians say that the preposition can be omitted when the relative pronoun is a prepositional complement.
They mention the possibility of omitting the relative, the formality of using whom, the option of preposition stranding but they don't mention omitting the prepositions.
You can argue that in the case of " tell" ( and other ditransitive verbs I guess) the indirect object  is not necessarily a prepositional complement , a sentence like my father tells a friend ( who/whom) all his secrets, is perfectly correct,  therefore " Pedro is the friend {who/whom/ 0} my father tells all his secrets" should also be correct, and apparently that's true for American English.
On the other hand, even if they use sentences like " my father tells a friend his secrets" or " my father tells his secrets to a friend" interchangeably, when it comes to relative clauses with these verbs, British speakers always consider the relative pronoun as a prepositional complement. That is, for them the only acceptabke relative clauses in our example  result from  joining " Pedro is a friend" and " my father tells all his secrets *to* a friend"( not " my father tells a friend all his secrets) and for them the preposition is compulsory.  Why? Who knows! But all this is not incompatible with what the grammarians cited above say.
Edit: what about other verbs , would you Americans accept as correct" Mary is the girl { who/whom/ 0}  I gave the flowers" ? And what about questions? By the same token " who did you give the flowers?" should be as correct as " who did you give the flowers to?" in this thread Who did you give the book (to)?an American says the question without "to" is incorrect.


----------



## Jektor

.
Quote from a UK poster:


Hermione Golightly said:


> *Who* did you give the letter *to*?  -  Normal standard.
> *Whom* did you give the letter? - Surely this can't exist? *We need to keep the preposition "to".*
> *To whom* did you give the letter?  - Very formal or old-fashioned BrE.
> *Whom *did you give the letter *to*? - I don't like this mix at all!  Choose the first or the third.
> *Who* did you give the letter?  -  We can't leave out 'to'.
> .


forum.wordreference.com - to-whom-did-whom-did-you-give-3154356/post#16672552
.


----------



## Jektor

.
Quote from a UK poster:


PaulQ said:


> "*Who/whom (and whose/which)" requires a preposition as a dative grammatical case marker* to distinguish the direct (accusative) or indirect (dative) object. This is not necessarily true of other pronouns where the case is shown via syntax.
> 
> That is the man whom (direct (accusative) object) I saw yesterday.
> That is the man *to* whom (indirect (dative) object) I gave the money.
> That is the man *for* whom (indirect (dative) object) I baked the cake.
> .


forum.wordreference.com - to-whom-did-you-give-3154356/post#16673064
.


----------



## Magazine

39 replies on who is right. 

Interesting discussion, even though, in my book, all of you are right.

Reminds me vividly of a discussion on the ""Qué tan grande es..." vs "Qué grande  es" or other curiosities in other Spanish speaking countries  and Spaniards.
My first thought was ¿¿¿excuse me?? 

Anyway, I could give dozens, maybe hundreds of examples where one country says something which for another country, if used,  is simply _wrong_. So I have opted to accept these differences, tell you the truth, I wasn't even aware of before writing on this forum.

I lived in England, for me the option without to is simply wrong. It isn't? Ok with me, but I am not going to use it.


----------



## gengo

Marsianitoh said:


> You can argue that in the case of " tell" ( and other ditransitive verbs I guess) the indirect object  is not necessarily a prepositional complement , a sentence like my father tells a friend ( who/whom) all his secrets, is perfectly correct,  therefore " Pedro is the friend {who/whom/ 0} my father tells all his secrets" should also be correct, and apparently that's true for American English.
> On the other hand, even if they use sentences like " my father tells a friend his secrets" or " my father tells his secrets to a friend" interchangeably, when it comes to relative clauses with these verbs, British speakers always consider the relative pronoun as a prepositional complement. That is, for them the only acceptable relative clauses in our example result from joining " Pedro is a friend" and " my father tells all his secrets *to* a friend"( not " my father tells a friend all his secrets) and for them the preposition is compulsory.  Why? Who knows! But all this is not incompatible with what the grammarians cited above say.



Excellent summary.  It's interesting that the only explanation that I have found satisfying so far was given not by a Brit but by a Spaniard.  Sometimes a non-native speaker can see things more clearly than we natives.



> Edit: what about other verbs , would you Americans accept as correct "Mary is the girl { who/whom/0}  I gave the flowers"?



Yes, all three.  The 0 option sounds best, but the others are possible.  And personally I prefer adding "to" at the end, which seems to be in agreement with the BrEn usage, except that I also consider the other versions acceptable.  However, "to give" is different from "to tell," so my acceptance of these forms without the preposition is much weaker than it is for "to tell," which does not always require a preposition.  So I'd say that your above examples would be very colloquial, and maybe even non-standard.



> By the same token "who did you give the flowers?" should be as correct as " who did you give the flowers to?" in this thread Who did you give the book (to)?an American says the question without "to" is incorrect.



I disagree with that American.

To whom did you give the book?  (100% correct, but almost never used)
Whom did you give the book?  (much less correct, although I'd still say it's acceptable)
Who did you give the book?  (incorrect, but very common)
Who did you give the book to?  (incorrect, but very common)

Of the last two, the last is far more common, but I wouldn't blink at hearing the other version.


----------



## ewie

gengo said:


> To whom did you give the book?  (100% correct, but almost never used)
> Whom did you give the book?  (much less correct, although I'd still say it's acceptable)
> Who did you give the book?  (incorrect, but very common)
> Who did you give the book to?  (incorrect, but very common)
> 
> Of the last two, the last is far more common, but I wouldn't blink at hearing the other version.


By my definition this is the only one that's both correct and idiomatic in BrE.  Correct and idiomatic because ~ 999 times out of 1,000 ~ that's exactly the question we'd ask.  _Whom_ has become so rare in BrE that you hardly ever hear it in speech.


----------



## Bevj

ewie said:


> By my definition this is the only one that's both correct and idiomatic in BrE.  Correct and idiomatic because ~ 999 times out of 1,000 ~ that's exactly the question we'd ask.  _Whom_ has become so rare in BrE that you hardly ever hear it in speech.



I agree and maintain that this is a clear BrE/AE difference.  Text books do not always reflect normal, every day usage.


----------



## Marsianitoh

gengo said:


> Excellent summary.  It's interesting that the only explanation that I have found satisfying so far was given not by a Brit but by a Spaniard.  Sometimes a non-native speaker can see things more clearly than we natives.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, all three.  The 0 option sounds best, but the others are possible.  And personally I prefer adding "to" at the end, which seems to be in agreement with the BrEn usage, except that I also consider the other versions acceptable.
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with that American.
> 
> To whom did you give the book?  (100% correct, but almost never used)
> Whom did you give the book?  (much less correct, although I'd still say it's acceptable)
> Who did you give the book?  (incorrect, but very common)
> Who did you give the book to?  (incorrect, but very common)
> 
> Of the last two, the last is far more common, but I wouldn't blink at hearing the other version.


Thanks! Good to know! Some of my students attend private lessons with American teachers but  up to now when they wrote some of those sentences I would inmediately correct them adding the preposition when in fact the sentences are correct in American English.


----------



## gengo

Marsianitoh said:


> Thanks! Good to know! Some of my students attend private lessons with American teachers but  up to now when they wrote some of those sentences I would inmediately correct them adding the preposition when in fact the sentences are correct in American English.



Well, at least acceptable and in use, if not entirely "correct."  Also, I revised my post somewhat above.  See the middle portion where I mentioned the difference between _to tell _and _to give_.


----------



## Marsianitoh

gengo said:


> Well, at least acceptable and in use, if not entirely "correct."  Also, I revised my post somewhat above.  See the middle portion where I mentioned the difference between _to tell _and _to give_.


Thanks again!


----------



## Dosamuno

Dosamuno said:


> This is not "An AE vs BrE difference".


----------

