WHO or WHOM? A 90% Trick

Self | 30APR03 | bannie

[bannie]

In a recent thread, we discussed teachers' various abilities/inabilities. With the banter about math "blocks," I had to start calling people on the frequent mis-usage of the pronoun "that."

I teased others--and I hope the understood my playful intent! Even true mathematicians can make simple mistakes in math. Likewise, even true grammarians can make simple mistakes in grammar. I only made note because of the subject of the thread (An English teacher who was having trouble passing a required math test).

In the thread, I mentioned that I could give a quick-fix lesson on how to determine whether one should use the pronoun "who" or the pronoun "whom."

The Rule:
WHO = SUBJECTIVE
WHOM = OBJECTIVE
or...
While "who" holds the grammatical position of a SUBJECT, "whom" holds the grammatical position of an OBJECT.
Subject = the "doer." Object = the DIRECT OBJECT or the INDIRECT OBJECT or the OBJECT of a preposition...the "do-ee."

THE TRICK:

IF replacing the who/whom in question with HE--simply because it SOUNDS BETTER--use WHO.

IF replacing the who/whom in question with HIM--simply because it SOUNDS BETTER--use WHOM.

IE:
With the question:

To who/whom should I give the "Offed by a Clinton" Award?

Try replacing the space with each, "he" and "him."
Although it's not totally "sensical," the better sounding choice is...

To HIM should I give...

(more clearly, Should I give the "Offed by a Clinton" award to HIM?
SOOOOOooooo...since "HIM" = "WHOM,"

the correct "who/whom-ness" of the question should be:

To WHOM should I give...?

IE:
Who/Whom was the oldest goat in the pool?

Try replacing the space with each, "he" and "him."

It makes much more sense to the ear to replace the who/whom with:

He was the oldest...

than with:

Him was the oldest...

SOOOOOoooooo....since "HE" = "WHO"...

The answer is...WHO was the oldest goat in the pool?

[Erasmus]

Wrong. Split infinitives are naughty. Nevertheless, "to go boldly where no man has gone before" sounds just plain silly, even though it is correct.

I think they should have used the poetic sounding "Boldly to go where no man has gone before."

(As Kirk sneaks into the ladies' room ;^)

[aruanan]

I once wrote a Snobol program which corrected text based on the rule "I before E except after C or when spoken as A as in neighbor, sleigh, aweigh, inveigh, ...."

Or in seize, seizure, seismology, seige.

[bannie]

Whom cares?

Apparently not youm.

There was this thread a couple of nights ago...we talked about...oh, nevermind...You had to be there.

[texasbluebell]

You're welcome!

I thought it was good too.

That apostrophe business really bugs me...

[rwfromkansas]

More grammarians are saying split infinitives are okay from what I remember my teachers saying in high school a couple years ago.

[Revolting cat!]

So why do you think the newspaper editors tolerate (promote?) the form "there are a lot of gizmos" (saw it on Tuesday in the Wall Street Journal.) I know that certain slightly perhaps incorrect usages become accepted over time (can't think of examples just now), but this one is blatently wrong isn't it? What do the standard editor manuals say on the subject, I wonder?

[Revolting cat!]

blatantly

[rwfromkansas]

She is subjective, while her is objective.

Thus: It is "This is she," not "This is her."

Why? You have to twist it around a bit and it says "she is this," so it is subjective.

[-YYZ-]

There are no hard and fast rules in the English language. While it is possible that one might speak completely in accordance with some set of grammatical rules, I'd be willing to be that even the best educated in grammar occasionally make use of idioms that are grammatically incorrect.

It's funny, actually - on the one hand I love to see the english language used properly, words spelled correctly, proper grammar and punctuation, but on the other I know that my knowledge of these subjects is less than perfect, and exposure to the real world of brainless newspaper writers, TV announcers (and writers), the internet and my co-workers is constantly introducing grammatical and puncuation errors into my speech and writing.

I suspect as we proceed into the future, many of these problems will be removed for us as the language continues to be dumbed down. "Whom" will probably follow other archaic words (like whence and thence and hence and whither and thither and thrice and whilst) into the dustbin of history, leaving "who" to be used as both subject and object.

Oh, and on the subject of "its" and "it's", I remember that "its" is the possesive because it follows the pattern of the other possesive pronouns "his", "hers", "yours", "theirs" and so on.

[The Grammarian]

It probably depends on whether you are in favor of prescriptive or descriptive grammar.

[Dead Dog]

Thanx Bannie, my grammar sux.

[asformeandformyhouse]

While we're on this kind of thing, does anyone know the code to remember the planets?

Probably already answered but:

Mavis Visits Every Monday Just Stays Until Noon Period

[gaspar]

Wrong. "A lot of" is a prepostional phrase, no different than "a congeries of", "a mess of", "a gaggle of", etc., etc., etc.

[maxwell]

much worse confusion of 'him and me' vs 'he and I.'

Yeah that one always bites my Republican a$$. And it's always the brassy loudmouth self-important pseudo-intelligentsia types who err on that one, in my experience...

[gcruse]

You'd think it was rocket science. Maybe it's the way their brains are wired.

[maxwell]

"They" are doing the reminding, and "they" = "who".

Nah... "They" are reminding you of "whom". "Who" may be reminiscent of "them", but ultimately "they" and "who" and "you" are separate but equal remindatory entities under the law, Amen.

Okay, definitely time for a beer... Or five...

[Revolting cat!]

Nope again. There is one lot of two or more widgets, but there are many widgets. Why don't you provide a reference to support your argument, as I did in post # 80.

[maxwell]

Yeah well, I tend to putz through life being seriously disturbed about alot of sh!t... Its vs. it's, he-'n'-I vs. him-'n'-me, "err" vs. "airrrrrr", 10:30 breakfast food cutoff at Mickey D's, SUV drivers, 55 mph left-lane-runners, people not returning my emails, people returning my emails too much, nobody making coffee when the damn pot runs dry, ancient drunk dudes from New York swinging their swanky Lexi right smack in front of my motorcycle, my boss breathing down my neck, my boss gone when I wanna talk to him, crappy radio reception, cheesy pest control commercials, folks who yak to the 7-11 cashier when I'm in a rippin' tearin' hurry, 7-11 being smack dab all out of taco-cheese taquitos, accidentally buying Pepsi Twist, spending ten minutes looking for the house keys 'cause I put 'em in my pants pocket and forgot, continually forgetting to buy toothpaste, continually forgetting to do laundry or pay bills or put on deodorant, b!tch-b!tch-b!tch.

(I'm writin' my dissertation, canya tell... ;)

[maxwell]

Before I butt the hell out, I gotta say I agree with the 'cat. "Alot" is an informalism and should be squelched mightily.

[Revolting cat!]

One more:

"9. In sentences beginning with there is or there are, the subject follows the verb. Since there is not the subject, the verb agrees with what follows."

(Do I get your editor job at the Wall Street Journal?)