# Who and Whom **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 26, 2012, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-and-whom/632686 "2012-08-26T04:48:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Dr.Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2012, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-and-whom/632686/21 "2012-08-26T15:33:07Z")
> [@Bozuit](#): > > To me, this alone refutes any notion of the “death” of whom. It is dead in the spoken language. Children learning English at their parents’ knees do not learn “whom.” It’s not dead in the written language, but that’s a different animal. ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2012, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-and-whom/632686/22 "2012-08-26T15:33:26Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > [If ‘whom’ were still in active use, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.](http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/005054.html) Actually, it is _ **precisely because whom is still in active use** _ that we have this discussion. As I noted in the post above, object case marking is still productive AFTER PREPOSITIONS with the _who/whom_ distinction. This why few people would ever say, “Give the doll to she.” For the same reason, many people still employ the object case marking of _whom_–_ **after prepositions** _, in _natural, unaffected speech_. As even the Language Log quote admits, it often remains in clause-initial contexts, and that’s _because of the preposition_ (_For Whom the Bell Tolls_, _To whom it may concern_, etc.). Indeed, it is probably _only_ because of the case awareness which prepositions bring–even in natural, spoken discourse–that _whom_ is still around. So you’re going to have to deal with that (and it’s a much larger phenomenon) before you can “banish” _whom_ to satisfy a simplistic and convenient ideology. ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2012, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-and-whom/632686/23 "2012-08-26T15:41:19Z")
> [@Dr.Drake](#): > > Children learning English at their parents’ knees do not learn “whom.” _Most_ don’t, but some still do, because I believe enough parents still use it with their children in certain contexts. (I realize that’s not easy to document.) It surely will fade away eventually, but it’s going to require time, rather than a proclamation. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2012, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-and-whom/632686/24 "2012-08-26T15:48:45Z")
> [@guizot](#): > > _Most_ don’t, but some still do, because I believe enough parents still use it with their children in certain contexts. (I realize that’s not easy to document.) It surely will fade away eventually, but it’s going to require time, rather than a proclamation. Of course there are individual exceptions, but there is no living dialect of spoken English where children regularly learn “whom” as a part of their native language. Plenty of people (me included) learn and use it as a part of educated speech, and some of those people no doubt use it with their children, but I’m afraid it is much deader than “thou” and “thee” (which are still genuinely a part of some English dialects), or “hit” for “it.” Obviously, as long as there’s even a single individual who uses it in speech for whatever reason, it’s not completely dead, but I’m not sure if corpses continually resurrected from written literature ought to count as “alive”. Edit: I say “there is no living dialect” as if it were a fact. Watch someone prove me wrong. As far as I know, there is no living dialect, even though I’m aware of other living dialects with archaic features in the declension of English pronouns. I’m pretty sure, though. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2012, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-and-whom/632686/25 "2012-08-26T15:58:08Z")
> [@Dr.Drake](#): > > Edit: I say “there is no living dialect” as if it were a fact. Watch someone prove me wrong. I can’t imagine whom. ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2012, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-and-whom/632686/26 "2012-08-26T16:35:21Z")
> [@Dr.Drake](#): > > Of course there are individual exceptions, but there is no living dialect of spoken English where children regularly learn “whom” as a part of their native language. Plenty of people (me included) learn and use it as a part of educated speech, and some of those people no doubt use it with their children, but I’m afraid it is much deader than “thou” and “thee” My point simply is that it isn’t as “dead” as some may think (or would like to think). We have to recognize the reality of how people actually speak. To be certain, many people do in fact use _whom_ in affected, unnatural, or hyper-corrective ways, so it’s fun to say things like “_whom_ is dead.” But actual natural use still shows that that isn’t really true. People don’t learn language only from their parents. TV, for example, can play a role, and lead native speakers to instill language into speech later in life for various reasons–to achieve different registers, for example. Natural speech in contexts such as these can have that effect: [QUOTE=Fox News, 02/12/2011] **WALLACE** : You were there. **BARBOUR** : But the straw poll was taken before I spoke. They shut down the straw poll on Friday. I spoke Saturday. And so I was in the position of Palin and Huckabee. I didn’t – for the purposes of the straw poll, I didn’t get to speak which is fine. I mean, they got to have rules and that’s fine with me. I enjoyed getting to speak to that audience. It’s an audience of a lot of young people, **some of whom** came up to me after and said, gee, I tried to vote for you today, but they told us we couldn’t vote any more. **WALLACE** : OK. What about the frontrunners though… [/quote] [QUOTE=”Tell Me More,” Jul. 13, 2010] **Interviewer** : Do you think that’s a fair understanding of your role there? **Christian Adams** : Well, first of all, there’s plenty of other people that know what I’m saying is the truth, some **of whom** are under subpoenas. So it’s not all about me. Secondly, if anyone looks at my employment records, my reviews, all of which are posted at Pajamas Media… [/quote] And while it’s usually because it follows a preposition, sometimes it still happens without the preposition: [QUOTE=“Meet the Press,” 01/22/2012] **Interviewer (Gregory)**: But do you think that a candidate, a nominee Gingrich could also beat President Obama? **Governor Chistie** : Listen, could he? Sure. **Gregory** : You don’t sound as convincing, though. Certainly not about Romney, **whom** you support. But… **Governor Christie** : What, I answered, I answered your question. [/quote] All I’m pointing out is that this kind of language is prevalent enough for _whom_ to linger and lead to questions such as that in the OP. It’s not accurate to say it’s dead. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2012, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-and-whom/632686/27 "2012-08-26T16:45:06Z")
> [@](#): > > And while it’s usually because it follows a preposition, sometimes it still happens without the preposition: Isn’t “about” a preposition? ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2012, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-and-whom/632686/28 "2012-08-26T16:54:02Z")
**guizot** , I think you’re so focused on the word “dead” that you’re missing my point, which is about the difference between the colloquial language and the formal literary register. ---
**Author:** ![tapu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@tapu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tapu)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2012, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-and-whom/632686/29 "2012-08-26T16:54:12Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > “Excuse me, where’s the library at?” > “It’s, like, all about books and stuff, man.” That would be the univ of california santa cruz response ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2012, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-and-whom/632686/30 "2012-08-26T19:27:17Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > “Whom” should be the “correct” pronoun, but it sounds like you got a stick up your ass if you use it. I could not have said it better. It is one of the more useless distinctions in the English language. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2012, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-and-whom/632686/31 "2012-08-26T20:08:37Z")
> [@Hari\_Seldon](#): > > It is one of the more useless distinctions in the English language. I don’t know whether it’s useless or not, but it’s not just the English language that makes that distinction. I know German has different words for “who” and “whom”—but then, German has different versions of the definite and indefinite articles for different cases. Just be glad you don’t speak a language that has 16 different words for “the.” ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2012, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-and-whom/632686/32 "2012-08-26T20:15:39Z")
> [@Dr.Drake](#): > > **guizot** , I think you’re so focused on the word “dead” that you’re missing my point, which is about the difference between the colloquial language and the formal literary register. I understand that difference–moreover, I realize that usually the points which formal grammarians harp on often are in fact purely relegated to formal literary register. But I don’t consider the examples above to be formal literary register, or anything close. I think _whom_ is an unusual case where that difference isn’t so clear cut. ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2012, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-and-whom/632686/33 "2012-08-26T20:18:53Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Isn’t “about” a preposition? Yes, but _whom_ in that sentence isn’t an object of _about_. It’s an object of the verb _support_, which doesn’t collocate with any preposition at all here. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2012, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-and-whom/632686/34 "2012-08-26T20:27:09Z")
> [@Bozuit](#): > > To me, this alone refutes any notion of the “death” of whom. It’s a fossilized usage. A number of dead terms live on in fossils, like the ‘to’ and the ‘fro’ in ‘to and fro’. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2012, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-and-whom/632686/35 "2012-08-26T20:35:00Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > It’s a fossilized usage. A number of dead terms live on in fossils, like the ‘to’ and the ‘fro’ in ‘to and fro’. Fossil is a bad analogy, since it’s generally something dead or buried. Hence the locution: Living Fossil. Either that or vestigial would be what you are thinking. I will occasional use “whom” in speech. Not often, but sometimes. I certainly wouldn’t consider someone to have a stick up his ass if he did. Different people speak differently. TomAYto, ToMAHto. ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2012, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-and-whom/632686/36 "2012-08-26T20:51:03Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Fossil is a bad analogy, since it’s generally something dead or buried. Well, I guess you could call it a “stock phrase,” or something like that. **Derleth** ’s point is that it only occurs in a very specific, formalized circumstance, so it’s not a good example of what I’m trying to show, namely how _whom_ persists in speech despite all odds. Because I agree that we really don’t need _whom_, and things would be a lot easier if we could just get rid of it. But the fact is that people continue to say it naturally in certain grammatical contexts–and not only in formal literary usage. Is this conversation with Will Oldham considered to be formal literary register, on the radio show “Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me”? [QUOTE=”Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me,” May 26, 2012] **PETER SAGAL** : So how did that happen? Did Johnny Knoxville just get in touch because he’s a fan of your music and… **WILL OLDHAM** : No, it was actually my dad was a fan of the " Jackass " movies, or the first one. And he passed away and I went to see the second one with a good friend of his, **with whom** he’d seen the first one. And then there was a guy in town who works on the " Jackass " movies who was working on the third one. And I just thought, oh my goodness, you know, what better tribute to my father than to… whatever they would force me to get into. [/quote] Believe me, I personaly don’t like dealing with _whom_ either, and wish it would just go away–but it won’t. ---
**Author:** ![Bozuit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/edb3f5/32.png) [@Bozuit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bozuit)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2012, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-and-whom/632686/37 "2012-08-26T21:00:17Z")
The thing is that, despite some quite generalizing claims that it’s not used, I _do_ use the word in most situations where it’s correct and I expect others to use it too, at least any situation that’s somewhat formal. I do have a stick up my arse a little bit; I like to use English correctly if I can. And it’s no more a “useless distinction” than the analogous he/him and she/her. It might be unnecessary, but so are so very many other elements of the English language. ---
**Author:** ![Chefguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chefguy/32/138_2.png) [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2012, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-and-whom/632686/38 "2012-08-26T21:33:10Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I can’t imagine whom. Or whom the fuck cares enough. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2012, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-and-whom/632686/39 "2012-08-26T22:24:18Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Fossil is a bad analogy, since it’s generally something dead or buried. It’s a fairly standard usage in this context; [here’s another example.](http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-fet1.htm) [Even Wikipedia has a page on this.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_word) As for my earlier post: ‘Whom’ is only mostly dead, then, I suppose. My point is that banging on about it as if not using it in the traditional way is incorrect grammar is rather pointless. There is no hope of reviving it from fossilization, even if the fossils are preserved for centuries to come. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2012, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-and-whom/632686/40 "2012-08-26T23:51:46Z")
Calling _whom_ as “fossil word” implies that it _used_ to be in common use but has become obsolete. Do you have any evidence that “whom” _used_ to be part of anyone’s natural speech, in situations where it isn’t anymore? I’ll grant that I rarely hear anyone say “about whom,” “to whom,” “for whom,” “with whom,” etc. But I _never_ hear anyone say “to who,” “for who,” “with who,” etc. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-and-whom/632686.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-and-whom/632686.md?page=3)