# Tough grammar question **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 24, 2001, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tough-grammar-question/89331 "2001-10-24T16:30:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Greg\_Charles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/839c29/32.png) [@Greg\_Charles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Greg_Charles)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2001, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tough-grammar-question/89331/1 "2001-10-24T16:30:44Z")
“I’ll give the ticket to whoever needs it.” or “I’ll give the ticket to whomever needs it.” Which is right? Maybe both are wrong. Unless I get some good advice from the TM, I might have to change it to, “I’m just keeping the damn ticket for myself!” ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2001, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tough-grammar-question/89331/2 "2001-10-24T16:36:19Z")
Knock, knock. Who’s there? To. To who? To _whom_. from merriam-webster online: Main Entry: whom·ev·er Pronunciation: hü-'me-v&r Function: pronoun objective case of WHOEVER ---
**Author:** ![Scarlett67](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scarlett67/32/7387_2.png) [@Scarlett67](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scarlett67)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2001, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tough-grammar-question/89331/3 "2001-10-24T16:38:36Z")
Your first choice is correct. In this case, the choice of “whoever” is based on the fact that it is the subject of the clause “whoever needs it.” That clause in turn, **in its entirety,** is the object of the preposition “to.” So (yes, I know it’s confusing) you would say, “To whom shall I give this ticket? I’ll give it to whoever needs it.” And bless you for being so generous. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![plnnr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@plnnr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/plnnr)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2001, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tough-grammar-question/89331/4 "2001-10-24T16:38:46Z")
Both “whoever” and “whomever” are pronouns, “whomever” being the objective case of “whoever.” “…to whomever…” is correct. ---
**Author:** ![Scarlett67](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scarlett67/32/7387_2.png) [@Scarlett67](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scarlett67)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2001, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tough-grammar-question/89331/5 "2001-10-24T16:42:49Z")
No, no, no! “Whoever” is correct. This is one of the most commonly confused grammatical issues. Wish I had time to find an online cite. Would one of the other grammar mavens please step in? ---
**Author:** ![KneadToKnow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kneadtoknow/32/3999_2.png) [@KneadToKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KneadToKnow)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2001, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tough-grammar-question/89331/6 "2001-10-24T16:45:01Z")
Once again, **Scarlett67** has it right. **Ethilrist** and **plnnr** … I’m so disappointed. ---
**Author:** ![KneadToKnow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kneadtoknow/32/3999_2.png) [@KneadToKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KneadToKnow)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2001, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tough-grammar-question/89331/7 "2001-10-24T16:47:36Z")
No cite needed, **Scarlett67**. Just replace one object with another and see how much disappears: Wrong answer I’ll give the ticket to Jack needs it. Right answer I’ll give the ticket to Jack. ---
**Author:** ![Greg\_Charles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/839c29/32.png) [@Greg\_Charles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Greg_Charles)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2001, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tough-grammar-question/89331/8 "2001-10-24T17:03:11Z")
I knew I could count on the SDMB for a quick answer. I also knew I could count on a battle, however this one seems fated to die quickly, thanks mostly to Scarlett’s\* superior weaponry. In the interest of further roiling the waters, I’ll ask when is it grammatically correct to use “whomever”? Is, “I’ll give the ticket to whomever,” correct? If so, it is interesting that adding “needs it” changes the case. - Scarlett67 as in born in '67. Hey me too! Are you single or planning to be? My whole life I’ve dreamt of meeting a woman who knew her nominative and objective cases apart. ---
**Author:** ![JeffB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jeffb/32/188_2.png) [@JeffB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JeffB)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2001, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tough-grammar-question/89331/9 "2001-10-24T17:05:22Z")
Even though no cite is needed, here’s one anyway – it’s even the same example – from [The Mavens](http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=19970711) > [@](#): > > An extreme example, showing why this can cause so much confusion, is the correct “I’ll give it to whoever wants it,” where “whoever” is called for since it’s the subject of “whoever wants,” even though it immediately follows the preposition “to,” which would seem to require “whomever.” ---
**Author:** ![Scarlett67](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scarlett67/32/7387_2.png) [@Scarlett67](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scarlett67)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2001, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tough-grammar-question/89331/10 "2001-10-24T17:09:56Z")
**KneadToKnow** , thanks for the backup! But I think your example needs a little fleshing out to be perfectly clear to folks who might still be lost: Who needs the ticket? Jack needs it. He needs it. I’ll give the ticket to whoever needs it. To whom will I give the ticket? To Jack. To him. **Greg,** I think you’ve got it! “I’ll give the ticket to whomever” is correct. And sorry, no, I’m spoken for. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![JeffB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jeffb/32/188_2.png) [@JeffB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JeffB)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2001, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tough-grammar-question/89331/11 "2001-10-24T17:21:12Z")
Once again, **Scarlett67** is correct. Your two examples “I’ll give the ticket to whoever needs it” and “I’ll give the ticket to whomever” actually have very different meanings, so it’s not surprising that removing the “needs it” changes the “whoever” to “whomever.” A larger question is whether these different forms really serve that much of a purpose. We have managed pretty well since we got rid of “thou” and “thee.” It appears that the distinction between “who” and “whom” may be on its way out as well. Two usage guides available at [Bartleby.com](http://Bartleby.com), [The American Heritage Book of English Usage](http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/078.html) and [The Columbia Guide to Standard American English](http://www.bartleby.com/68/15/6515.html) mention how the distinct between “who” and “whom” has blurred more (though even Shakespeare sometimes interchanged the two). ---
**Author:** ![Greg\_Charles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/839c29/32.png) [@Greg\_Charles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Greg_Charles)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2001, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tough-grammar-question/89331/12 "2001-10-24T18:22:26Z")
Sigh, well it never hurts to put the offer on the table. I’m trying to figure out if, “I’m spoken for,” is some kind of pun. Thanks Jeff for that link, and Ethilrist, even though you were ultimately proven wrong, I still appreciate the knock, knock joke. ---
**Author:** ![Cardinal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cardinal/32/4000_2.png) [@Cardinal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cardinal)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2001, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tough-grammar-question/89331/13 "2001-10-24T18:35:10Z")
Well, on the theory that you grammar guru types will be checking back on this thread, I have a new question. I’m tutoring a girl in the SAT II Writing test, and we have a problem. “If Tom Cruise _was_ an actor in the Golden Age of Hollywood, he would have given different types of roles.” I’m aware that this is wrong. However, should it be “were” or “had been”? I’m convinced it should be “had been”, but I need a really solid reason. My logic has been that since we are not discussing a situation that could be generalized to Tom’s life overall, or that could be conceivably true now, we need to use “had been.” We could say “If Tom were a better actor, he might be given different roles”, but this refers to a situation that is generalized across his possible current state. Any comments? ---
**Author:** ![Scarlett67](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scarlett67/32/7387_2.png) [@Scarlett67](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scarlett67)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2001, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tough-grammar-question/89331/14 "2001-10-24T18:56:45Z")
First, just let me say that reading this thread has put a line from _Heaven Help Us_ in my head (if you’ve seen the movie, you know which one, but I’ll enlighten those **who** [tee-hee!] haven’t): “To WHOM, Brother! . . . To WHOM, Brother! . . . [repeat]” **JeffB** , thanks for the excellent cite! **Greg,** um, no I don’t think so. If there’d been a pun available, I’d have put one in! **Dave S,** these are your two possibilities: “If Tom Cruise had been an actor in the GAOH, he would have been given different types of roles.” (subjunctive mood: statement contrary to fact, occurring in the past) “If Tom Cruise were an actor in the GAOH, he would be given different types of roles.” (subjunctive mood: statement contrary to fact, occurring in the present) The subjunctive, which expresses a statement contrary to fact or a wish, confuses a lot of people because it looks like past tense. “If I were beautiful, I wouldn’t be standing here talking to you.” Present tense, subjunctive. I’m not beautiful, but I wish I were. “If I had been beautiful when I was young, I would have married a prince.” Past tense, subjunctive. I was not beautiful when I was young (statement contrary to fact). I hope this helps. I’m not totally up on grammar terminology, but I do know where to (painfully) look it up. As a freelance copyeditor, I edit “by ear” using my apparently natural sense of grammar, which has been augmented by brushes with education. ---
**Author:** ![smaft](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c2a13f/32.png) [@smaft](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smaft)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2001, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tough-grammar-question/89331/15 "2001-10-24T18:57:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Greg Charles \* > Scarlett67 as in born in '67. Hey me too! Are you single or planning to be? My whole life I’ve dreamt of meeting a woman who knew her nominative and objective cases apart. Wait! I was born in '67, am single, and know my nominative and objective cases! Oh, you said “woman”. Nevermind. Hmmm, unless…um, no, of course not. ---
**Author:** ![Greg\_Charles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/839c29/32.png) [@Greg\_Charles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Greg_Charles)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2001, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tough-grammar-question/89331/16 "2001-10-24T21:03:04Z")
I’ve always been confused about, “if I was …” vs. “if I were …” I remember learning that the subjunctive “were” should be used in cases where what was being expressed was clearly infeasible. “If I were a bell, I’d be ringing.” On the other hand, “was” could be used when the condition could conceivably come true. “If this car was red, it would be worth more.” That seems to add whole judgement element and make grammar even more ambiguous than it already is. Pointless banter follows: Scarlett: it’s just that the “spoken for” in a thread about grammar seems to have the elements of a pun. Dave S.: hey someone’s been here as long as I have, and has even fewer posts. Cool! smaft: At this point, I’m not ruling anything out. Since I live in San Diego though, if I start going that way, I’ll probably get Esprix to show me the ropes. ---
**Author:** ![Scarlett67](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scarlett67/32/7387_2.png) [@Scarlett67](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scarlett67)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2001, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tough-grammar-question/89331/17 "2001-10-24T21:38:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Greg Charles \* > \*\*I’ve always been confused about, “if I was …” vs. “if I were …” I remember learning that the subjunctive “were” should be used in cases where what was being expressed was clearly infeasible. “If I were a bell, I’d be ringing.” On the other hand, “was” could be used when the condition could conceivably come true. “If this car was red, it would be worth more.” That seems to add whole judgement element and make grammar even more ambiguous than it already is. > \*\* I’ll try to help. Your second example is actually an improperly formed subjunctive; the car is not red, so we have a statement contrary to fact. The judgment comes with deciding whether you have a true subjunctive or a _ **conditional** _—a “fact” whose truth is unknown. > [@](#): > > Conditional: If he was lying, we couldn’t tell. (We don’t know whether he was lying or not.) > > Subjunctive: If he were lying, his ears would turn red. (He’s not lying, and I know because I’ve seen his ears turn red when he does lie.) So, to clarify your second example: > [@](#): > > Subjunctive: If this car were red, it would be worth more. (However, it’s calf-shit yellow, and so it’s worth about 15 bucks.) > > Conditional: If this car was red, the body shop did a great paint job. (You can’t even tell through this white paint what color it used to be, not even if you crawl under it and look in the trunk!) Wanna talk about “lie” and “lay” next? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![KneadToKnow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kneadtoknow/32/3999_2.png) [@KneadToKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KneadToKnow)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2001, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tough-grammar-question/89331/18 "2001-10-25T02:41:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scarlett67 \* > Wanna talk about “lie” and “lay” next? 😉 Whoa! When did this become a flirt thread? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Neurodoc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/848f3c/32.png) [@Neurodoc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurodoc)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2001, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tough-grammar-question/89331/19 "2001-10-26T04:09:30Z")
The mistaken use of “whom” in cases wheere “who” should be used is an example of the grammatical error of “hypercorrection.” Reword the sentence and you will see whether the nominative sense of the pronoun is called for. Just make the relative pronoun clause independent. “I gave the ticket to who needed it” would be correct. Think about how wrong it would sound if you said: “Whom needed it.”