# whom of which? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 23, 2001, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whom-of-which/73503 "2001-07-23T03:03:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![racinchikki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/eada6e/32.png) [@racinchikki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/racinchikki)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2001, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whom-of-which/73503/1 "2001-07-23T03:03:30Z")
Now, I’m no grammarian, but I like to think I know my English. I’m currently in the midst of a debate with a friend of mine over the phrase “whom of which.” > [@](#): > > This page is dedicated to my chicklet friend Churp, whom of which was eaten by Jenn “Whom of which”?!?! What the heck? That can’t be grammatically correct, can it? He should’ve written “who,” right? He refuses to listen to any argument I make, because he claims to have heard a local television reporter use the phrase in an interview with him, and all I have to back up my side are my brains and a copy of Gavin & Sabin’s Reference Manual for Stenographers and Typists, Fourth Edition. Please help! ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2001, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whom-of-which/73503/2 "2001-07-23T03:11:15Z")
You are correct, “whom of which” is nonsensical. So is “who of which”. Does your friend take drugs? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![racinchikki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/eada6e/32.png) [@racinchikki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/racinchikki)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2001, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whom-of-which/73503/3 "2001-07-23T03:29:00Z")
No, he’s just a moron. :rolleyes: And I know “who of which” would be just as nonsensical. I mean he should have used “who” instead of the entire “whom of which” phrase. ---
**Author:** ![Schwanzong](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/958977/32.png) [@Schwanzong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Schwanzong)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2001, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whom-of-which/73503/4 "2001-07-23T03:33:57Z")
“whom of which was” can be replaced by “who was” with no loss of meaning. ---
**Author:** ![Beruang](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/77aa72/32.png) [@Beruang](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beruang)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2001, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whom-of-which/73503/5 "2001-07-23T03:41:56Z")
If Churp was indeed a Chicklet ™ (a piece of gum), then “which was eaten…” would be more correct. – Beruang ---
**Author:** ![mangeorge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d78d45/32.png) [@mangeorge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mangeorge)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2001, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whom-of-which/73503/6 "2001-07-23T04:01:02Z")
Your friend’s phrase seemed vaguely familiar to me, so I typed it ("+whom +of +which") into _google_ and got a couple hundred hits. Didn’t see anything about the rules, but there were many examples of usage. Peace, mangeorge ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2001, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whom-of-which/73503/7 "2001-07-23T15:17:46Z")
Racinchikki, you can tell your friend from me that to be grammatical his website ought to say, “This page is dedicated to my chicklet friend Churp, who was eaten by Jenn.” 😉 Anal retentively going the extra mile–English 101 is now in session. 🙂 Eh, just because people use it doesn’t mean it’s not nonsensical. I’ve been speaking English all my life, I read books omnivorously, I scored off the charts on all the verbal tests they give you in school, I probably have a bigger vocabulary than most of the people I know, and I’ve never heard _anybody_ say “whom of which” before. At all. Ever. Or “who of which”, either. Neither phrase is remotely grammatical. Of 258 Google hits, following ManGeorge’s instructions, the following were the only relevant hits on the first three pages (that weren’t just word lists that happened to include the words “whom”, “of”, and “which”). And reading things like the following doesn’t make me believe it’s a hitherto undiscovered proper English usage, but rather just another modern idiocy, like “irregardless”, which although widely used, is also nonsensical. [http://victorian.fortunecity.com/portfolio/487/turtle/](http://victorian.fortunecity.com/portfolio/487/turtle/) > [@](#): > > There is only one other person on my island whom of which has the ability to weave turtles… The correct way to say this would have been: “There is only one other person on my island who has the ability to weave turtles…” [http://www.btinternet.com/~caroline.cmroberts/badgirls/intro.htm](http://www.btinternet.com/~caroline.cmroberts/badgirls/intro.htm) > [@](#): > > The casting of Bad Girls featured some unknown names, new faces, whom of which have certainly made a name for themselves during the past three years. Correct: Either, "The casting of Bad Girls featured some unknown names, new faces, some of whom have certainly made a name for themselves during the past three years. " Or: “The casting of Bad Girls featured some unknown names, new faces, who have certainly made a name for themselves during the past three years.” [http://www.hatteras-island.com/fshstory/messages/6.html](http://www.hatteras-island.com/fshstory/messages/6.html) > [@](#): > > But all the people with exception of someone I love, whom of which is my brother, saw me catch the biggset fish so far in my life. My Dad, My Uncle, Roger who is like and uncle, Big ED. Correct: Either, “But all the people with exception of someone I love, who is my brother…” Or: “But all the people with exception of someone I love,which is my brother…” [http://www.brw-unlimited.com/contact.html](http://www.brw-unlimited.com/contact.html) > [@](#): > > I am a mother of two beautiful girls, Katie (6) and Rebecca (2) whom of which keeps their father and I pretty busy at home. Correct: Either, “I am a mother of two beautiful girls, Katie (6) and Rebecca (2) which keeps their father and I pretty busy at home.” Or, “I am a mother of two beautiful girls, Katie (6) and Rebecca (2) who keep their father and I pretty busy at home.” And of course, it’s “their father and me” not “their father and I”. [http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Prairie/7021/main.htm](http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Prairie/7021/main.htm) > [@](#): > > My father’s family are the Jensens. Whom of which I am the 4th generation born in the U.S.; they imigrated from Scandinavia(Denmark and Norway, to be exact) in the late 1800s. [warning: this website is going to play “Spoonful of Sugar” at you _ad nauseum_.] Correct: “My father’s family are the Jensens, of which I am the 4th generation born in the U.S…” [http://www.i5ive.com/article.cfm/6807/37255](http://www.i5ive.com/article.cfm/6807/37255) > [@](#): > > There is also the town’s first witch accusation- which will eventually lead to the trial and death of an NPC, and shortly following the trial, the convicted will curse the town with a terrible plague which kills off the judge whom of which sentenced the unfortunate girl. Correct: “…with a terrible plague which kills off the judge who sentenced the unfortunate girl.” [http://members.nbci.com/ashwizard/Character\_Profiles.html](http://members.nbci.com/ashwizard/Character_Profiles.html) > [@](#): > > )Some of the original names for the minor characters, I did know…with the acception of Mrs. Ketchum, whom of which I just found out about. Correct: “…with the acception [sic] of Mrs. Ketchum, which I just found out about.” > **[Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos](https://www.yahoo.com/)** > > Latest news coverage, email, free stock quotes, live scores and video are just the beginning. Discover more every day at Yahoo! > [@](#): > > Hi, I never officially introduced myself, but to make along story short, > my name is Suzzanne Sutton, I have two kids, one who is 5 yrs. old whom > of which is has c.p, hypertonic, seizure disorder,g.tube,asthma, whom of > which is son his name is Tyler, and of course, there is (M.I.T.), her > name is Michaela, which she is 2yrs. whom also has a speech problem, and > me I just a mother taking care of our kids, and the back bone of my > support is, my wonderful husband, David without his support I probally > would be a nut case,but thought i would introuduce myself and my family. Correct: “who is 5 yrs. old who has c.p,”. And “whom of which is son his name is Tyler,” probably ought to be taken out altogether, being what we in the language trade call a “sentence fragment”, and the information that the son is named Tyler ought to be combined, as in “my son Tyler, who is 5 yrs. old who has c.p.” [http://www.agt.bme.hu/hof/groups/b/beyond/histbf.htm](http://www.agt.bme.hu/hof/groups/b/beyond/histbf.htm) > [@](#): > > Beyond Force was founded in May 1988 and the people behind the name were Hazor, Urban, Overlord and Gloryboy, whom of which Overlord and Gloryboy were Amiga swappers. Correct: "…of whom Overlord and Gloryboy were Amiga swappers. " [http://labweb.education.wisc.edu/art356/galleries/Fall99/MJpage/background.html](http://labweb.education.wisc.edu/art356/galleries/Fall99/MJpage/background.html) > [@](#): > > MJ was chosen over 15 individuals whom of which are his classmates. Correct: “MJ was chosen over 15 individuals who are his classmates.” [http://home.earthlink.net/~nehver/lycosrp/rooms/wolfsbane.html](http://home.earthlink.net/~nehver/lycosrp/rooms/wolfsbane.html) > [@](#): > > A black dragon, mounted by a wizard hurling fire upon a small figure of a boy, whom of which is hurling his own wave of spells upon the dragon riding wizard. Correct: “…a small figure of a boy, who is hurling his own wave of spells upon the dragon riding wizard.” [http://www.avara.org/misc/vp\_redcapclan.shtml](http://www.avara.org/misc/vp_redcapclan.shtml) > [@](#): > > Most of the older players of Avara, whom of which are very low in numbers, have the same general opinions on clans. Correct: “Most of the older players of Avara, who are very low in numbers…” [http://www.csun.edu/~ect25119/archives/webwork.htm](http://www.csun.edu/~ect25119/archives/webwork.htm) > [@](#): > > I was asked to create the site by one of the owners whom of which was also a good friend. Correct: “I was asked to create the site by one of the owners who was also a good friend.” So, clearly, there’s a small segment of the population that’s using “whom of which” to mean either simply “which” or “whom” or “who”. It’s a kind of redundancy, like “irregardless”. None of the hits were from what I would call “erudite” people, meaning news cites, [salon.com](http://salon.com) articles, scholarly references. I think it’s clear there’s no consensus of educated people out there that this is a good usage. Although this hit was interesting. [http://www.midtesol.org/99confer/mithen.htm](http://www.midtesol.org/99confer/mithen.htm) > [@](#): > > A unit on adjective clauses in an advanced grammar class, a unit theme of ethnicity, and access to residents of a nearby retirement community provide the content and context to learn and practice the complexities of sentence- combining, punctuation, reductions, and “of whom/of which” clauses. Heh. Search engines–they’re only following orders. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![mangeorge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d78d45/32.png) [@mangeorge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mangeorge)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2001, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whom-of-which/73503/8 "2001-07-23T23:50:46Z")
Irregardless of all that, **Duck Duck Goose** , Its a saying thats much well used. Ain’t it? 😃 And thanks. Peace, mangeorge