Precision or pedantry: who, whom, whoever, whomever

[Pure]

Colloquially 'who' can always stand for 'whom.' But for the grammar nuts, here are a few puzzlers:

1.I want to discover who(m) it was that sucked me.
2.I want to discover who(m) I sucked last night.
3.I want to discover who(m) was sucked by me last night.

4.I'd relish getting together again with who(m)ever seduced me last Saturday.
5.I'd relish getting together with who(m)ever I seduced last Saturday.

6.I'm concerned about the integrity of this office, which can be corrupted by who(m)ever controls the political machinery.
7.I'm concerned about the integrity of this office, which was corrupted by who(m)ever Mr. Bonano was able to bribe.
8.I'm concerned about the integrity of this office, which was compromised who(m)ever was seduced by its power.

----
explain yourself, if you like. winner to be announced in a week or two.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I can't sleep, so what else is there to do except drink and talk drunken grammar?

As I recall, who is the subjective form. Who does the acting.

Whom is the objective form. Whom has the action done to him.

If you don't like that subject/object stuff, think of it this way:

Who = He
Whom = Him

So, just as you might ask, "He's there?", the proper form is, "Who's there?"

Just as you would say, "You gave it to him," you might ask, "You gave it to whom?"

Now, our Pure is known as a devilish fellow, one much given to the joys of argument; one who often mistakes the heat of friction for the glow of illumination, and so he offers some devilishly ambiguous contructions:

I want to discover who(m) it was that sucked me.

in which who(m) is acting both as the object of the sentence and the subject of the modifying phrase.

Using the He/Him test and truncating the sentence for clarity's sake (and pouring another brandy with just a splash), we would agree that "I want to discover him..." is better than "I want to discover he...", which suggests that "Whom" is the right choice. But then he compounds the confusion by making the objective pronoun whom the subject of a participial or whatever the hell it's called phrase, "...who sucked me."

Using the He/Him test on this phrase, it should be "...He sucked me," suggesting we use who as the proper pronoun.

Zut alors! A logical contradiction!

Don't be bamboozled! The structure of the sentence takes precedence over the structure of the phrase. In "I want to discover who(m) it was that sucked me," the pronoun is the object. Therefore it should be "whom". Think of it without the rest olf that phrase. Would you say "I want to discover him"? Or "I want to discover He"?

Oh fuck it. We're out of beer. Class dismissed.

<The Doctor stands up, hooks his foot on the blackboard and pulls it down, stomps on it and staggers out.>

 

[Pure]

doc,

alway interesting, your reflections; you might try that example again sober, since I wouldn't want you to get off on the wrong foot!

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I'm as wrong drunk as I am sober.

Here's the best thing I found on it. It's from the Blue Book of Grammar :

WHOEVER and WHOMEVER
Rule 1. First of all, use the ever suffix when who or whom can fit into two clauses in the sentence.
Example Give it to whoever/whomever asks for it first.
Give it to him. He asks for it first.
Rule 2. Because we can substitute him and he in both clauses, we must use the ever suffix. Now, to determine whether to use whoever or whomever, here is the rule:

him + he = whoever
him + him = whomever
Therefore, Give it to whoever asks for it first.
Example We will hire whoever/whomever you recommend.
We will hire him. You recommend him.
him + him = whomever
Example We will hire whoever/whomever is most qualified.
We will hire him. He is most qualified.
him + he = whoever


So I was wrong. Drunk, but wrong all the same.

 

[Pure]

you're just as much fun, inebriated or not

 

[Penelope Street]

Am I going to have to get drunk before this makes sense?

 

[Pure]

hi penny,

it's just a little grammar quiz.

get enough chemicals in ya till its 'sense' or 'point' does not bother you, and give it--and us--your best shot!

 

[drlust]

Grammar quizzes

Jeez. I have enough trouble just getting my students to use the apostrophe appropriately! If I asked them to give me the proper use of who/whom they'd start throwing things at me in class. And, while I'm ranting, can I just say that if I have to grade one more essay with the construction "a women that..." I'm going to go out and buy a rubber stamp that says "WTF?" on it and begin stamping the offending passages in red.

Sorry. It's just that I had to mark three--THREE--such essays last night and so had to stop grading before I began rending.

Allan

 

[Penelope Street]

it's just a little grammar quiz.

get enough chemicals in ya till its 'sense' or 'point' does not bother you, and give it--and us--your best shot!

Ok, I'll play. I'd have chosen who or whom based upon the relationship to the associated verb, which might not be the main verb in the sentence. Such as: If you can't recall whom you sucked or who sucked you, you've more important things to discover than grammar.

 

[Penelope Street]

Jeez. I have enough trouble just getting my students to use the apostrophe appropriately! If I asked them to give me the proper use of who/whom they'd start throwing things at me in class. And, while I'm ranting, can I just say that if I have to grade one more essay with the construction "a women that..." I'm going to go out and buy a rubber stamp that says "WTF?" on it and begin stamping the offending passages in red.

Sorry. It's just that I had to mark three--THREE--such essays last night and so had to stop grading before I began rending.

Allan

Jeez, Allan, you sound like a man that has issues.

 

[drlust]

Issues?

Issues? Moi?

You try grading 35 essays, 30 of which show no respect for anything like grammar, and see if you have issues.

Now it's my turn..."Hey Lisa, this butt plug belongs to who?" Says Lisa, "Whom do you think?"

Allan

 

[Penelope Street]

"Hey Lisa, this butt plug belongs to who?" Says Lisa, "Whom do you think?"

This is from one of the 35 essays?

 

[drlust]

A plug by any other name

Ah Penny, if only students wrote about such things...grading would be much less of a chore. Of course, staying on my side of the desk would be more difficult, no?

And as for my example of Lisa and the plug, I threw it out (after scotch, not brandy) because I was trying to imagine a circumstance under which characters in a story would use butt plug and whom in the same sentence. Sure can't think of one. But at least they'd be using the queen's English...

Allan

 

[Munachi]

that's what you get for speaking english. it has such a vague grammar...

but then, i make enough mistakes in german...

1. Ich möchte herausfinden, wer es war, der mir letzte Nacht einen geblasen hat.
2. Ich möchte herausfinden, wem ich letzte Nacht einen geblasen habe.
3. Ich möchte herausfinden, wer von mir letzte Nacht einen geblasen bekommen hat.
Those are easy in German.

the "who(m)ever" ones I'd structure quite differently in German though... Anyway, I guess I am off-topic.

 

[drlust]

Ja, genau.

German is much easier. As are the Slavic languages.

Allan

 

[Munachi]

hm yes... chci se dopídit, kdo me... erm - in fact they never taught us to say that in czech class...

 

[Pure]

munachi said

//1. Ich möchte herausfinden, wer es war, der mir letzte Nacht einen geblasen hat.
2. Ich möchte herausfinden, wem ich letzte Nacht einen geblasen habe.
3. Ich möchte herausfinden, wer von mir letzte Nacht einen geblasen bekommen hat.


Those are easy in German.//

Pure replies:

I'm lousy in German, but it seems that 'wer' is like 'who and 'wem' is like whom.

If that's the case, and the sentences are equivalent, then your answers to the first three [if you would hazard a guess, based on English German similarities] would be:
1. who, 2 whom, 3, who

Is that right?

---
First three example sentences:
1.I want to discover who(m) it was that sucked me.
2.I want to discover who(m) I sucked last night.
3.I want to discover who(m) was sucked by me last night.

 

[Munachi]

hm... a bit like that... in german we have four cases though (which we don't only differentiate in pronouns but also in nouns) so there is wer, wessen, wem and wen (nominative, genitive, dative and accusative) - wessen is easy, it is like "whose" in english... but i think wem and wen are both whom - or is wen who?

anyway, quoting my dictionary about who and whom:

who interrog pron 1 (used as the subject of a v to ask about the name, identity or function of one or more people): Who is the woman in the black hat? - I wonder who poned this moring. - Who are those men in white coats? - Do you know who broke the window? 2 (infml) (used as the object of a v or prep ): Who did you see at church? - Who are you phoning? - Who shall I give it to? - Who's the money for Compare WHOM

etc. - so after this part I would say that who is equivalent to German wer and wen (i.e. nominative and accusative)

who rel pron 1 (a) (in clauses which define the preceding n): the man/men who wanted to meet you - The people who called yesterday want to buy the house. (b) (in clauses which do not define the preceding n but give further information about it): My wife, who is out at the moment, will phone you when she gets back. - Mrs Smith, who has a lot of teaching experience, will be joining us in the spring. 2 (used as the object of a v or prep (a) (in clauses which define the preceding n, where it can be omitted): The couple (who) we met on the ferry have sent us a card - The boy (who) I was speaking to is the son of my employer. (b) (in clauses which do not define the preceding n, where it cannot be omitted): Mary, who we were talking about earlier, has just walked in. - not at WHOM.

In these cases german would use a different pronoun (wer and the likes are interrogative, but here relative pronouns are needed, I think) - which would be welcher - or more commonly would just use the article, that can also function as a pronoun (I am not sure I get the terminology of all this right, German grammar isn't really my strong thing, or grammar in general)... Either way, in examples under nr. 1 they would stand in the nominative case, in example nr. 2 in the accusative case. so again, it seems that who can be both nominative or accusative...

okay, I will write the part about "whom" in a moment... it's a bit tiring copying dictionary entries...

anyway, I guess I gotta say where this is from:

oxford advanced learner's dictionary, fifth edition, 1995

 

[Munachi]

whom interrog pron (fml) (used as the object of a v or prep) which person or people: Whom did they invite? - to whom should I write?

Now here, in the first example I would use "wen", thus accusative, in the second case "wem", thus dative...

whom rel pron (fml) 1 (used as the object of a v or prep introducing clause that defines the person mentioned): The author whom you criticized in your review has written a letter in reply. - The person to whom this letter was adressed died three years ago. 2 (used esp in formal written English as the object of a v or prep in a clause that refers to but does not define the person mentioned): My mother, whom I'm sure you remember, died recently. - She was betrayed by her daughter, in whom she placed so much trust.

again, for relative pronouns I would use forms of "welcher" or "der" - in 1 in the first sentence accusative, in the second sentence dative, in 2 I would for the first sentence differently, and in the second one I would use dative (but with the verb "vertrauen" - to trust - so in fact it would be not a direct translation either)

NOTE: whom is not used very often in spoken English.. Who is usually used as the object pronoun, especially in questions: Who did you invite to the party?
Whom is necessary after prepositions: To whom should I address the letter?, This pattern is very formal and is used especially in writing. In spoken English we say: Who should I address the letter to?, putting the preposition at the end of the sentence.
In defining relative clauses the object pronoun whom is usually changed to who or that, or left out completely: The family (whom/who/that) we stayed with were very kind. In non-defining relative clauses who or whom (but not that) is used and the pronoun cannot be left out: Our doctor, whom/who we all liked very much, retired last week. This pattern is not used very much in spoken English.

Result: I am now thouroughly confused, and I suppose the rules in English and German are very different so I can't just simply say dative is whom and nominative/accusative is who...

Ah well, would've been nice...

 

[dr_mabeuse]

If you expect me to participate in a discussion of German grammar when I can't even handle English, you're crazy.

Meanwhile, the statment, "It is I" in answer to the question "who is it?" is now considered acceptable by some grammarians, even though it's quite incorrect. It manages to slip under the wire as an idiom, and unfortunatley opens the door for other subject/object confusions like "It is she" rather than "It is her," or "It's they" rather than "It's them." Can "whom is it?" be far behind?

There's also a trend to accept the plural them and they as the pronounal forms of the collectives everyone and anyone, as in the sentence,

Everyone should bring their hat.

Which, strictly speaking, should actually be

Everyone should bring his hat.

The use of the plural pronouns avoids the awkward sex-neutral constructions like his or her or, even worse, "s/he". So I think that's a change for the better.

At one time I was going to teach English. I was even taking education courses and as poart of one course we were required to teach drop-outs sufficient grammar that they could pass the Graduation Equivalency Exam. This was at the end of the period when grammar was simply no longer taught in schools. I forget the brilliant educational theory behind that, but this was about the time they decided not to teach math any more because everyone could use a calculator. Anyhow, grammar hadn't been taught in years, so I was faced with a class of non-readers who didn't know a noun from a verb or a subject from an object.

The first topic we were to cover was use of commas. I had a degree in English, and there's a common misconcpetion that when you have a BA in English, you've been taught grammar in college. Not true. I never had a college level grammar course in my life and don't even think they were offered back then, or if they are now. I learned my grammar in high school from Old School teachers--the kind that still taught penmanship and letter-writing--and from reading and intuitively feeling it.

Faced with having to teach these semi-illiterate kids how to use commas in one week, having to dredge up these vague and hoary memories of dependent clauses and participial phrases and apositives and the like, I just folded. I tried the old, "use a comma where you'd take a breath," and when that got me nothing but blank stares, I just turned tail and walked away. They might as well have asked me to teach these kids quantum mechanics. I really tried for a couple weeks, then I just dropped the class and quit the program. It was just impossible.

I understand they're trying to bring back the teaching of grammar now, but they can't find any teachers who know it well enough to teach it. Colleges have started teaching "rhetoric," in which grammar is included, but I don;t knwo if any of them are oftening straight-out grammar courses.

 

[Pure]

good points dr.

as i said, the word 'whom' virtually disappears in colloquial speech, so the questions are for the literati and obsessive compulsives. issues of commas--based on the 'breath' idea--are fuzzy in everyday speech; for instance I often see,

Jim wanted, a dog.

language does evolve, words change meanings, for instance, the word 'awful.'

constructions too, come and go, and literature people constantly point out that the alleged "Standard English Grammar Rules" of 1875 were not followed by Shakespeare. many 'standard rules' are in fact attempts to import Latin grammar into English.

i believe that there is a pendulum swing back. universities are starting to require writing competence. and while things like periods can be replaced with ... in the journalling assignments of high school, such is not the case for university papers or even business letters and reports.

in our internet age, i've read of the chickens coming home to roost: companies the sell software, or indeed cars, get lot's (!) of emails. they have a great deal of trouble finding people who can answerm by email, in reasonably correct English; first, being grammatical; second, being clear.


IOW, though the 'informalists' are happy to write,
"Jim got, a dog", lots of them look askance at emails (and companies sending them from 'customer service') that read:

"Mrs. Jones,

We have investigated, your complaint."

 

[Munachi]

If you expect me to participate in a discussion of German grammar when I can't even handle English, you're crazy.

sorry, didn#t mean to do that, i just somehow got interested in the comparison...

 

[Penelope Street]

sorry, didn#t mean to do that, i just somehow got interested in the comparison...

The comparison probably is interesting, and even germane, no really bad pun intended.

... the word 'whom' virtually disappears in colloquial speech, so the questions are for the literati and obsessive compulsives.

I agree that one rarely hears whom spoken, which is why I try not to use it in a story unless I want to say something about the speaker, or the narrator.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

sorry, didn#t mean to do that, i just somehow got interested in the comparison...

I'm teasing, love. I was elected President of my German class in high school only because the other kids knew I was so bad with language that I wouldn't be able to tell them to do anythng when the teacher wasn't there, which was the Prsident's main duty. "Lesen Sie ihr Bucher" is about all I remember.

When I was in Europe, most of my attempts to speak any language were met with kindly replies in English, and when I was in France, people used to gather in crowds to hear me try and speak French. Occasionally they'd even bring their friends and make an evening of it.

My total inability in any language but English is a source of deep embarrasment to me, but there it is. I have nothing but the highest admiration for people who are multilingual.

 

[Munachi]

ah okay... well the image of those french gathering around you is kind of funny... but then, i was a constant source of amusement in "my" peruvian village when i tried to speak quechua. people would tell me random (usually rude) phrases that i should say to someone else, and then crack up laughing about it... i think it was mostly the novelty of having a "gringa" trying to speak quechua though.

but i see how it is difficult for english speakers - most people will speak english to you so it is difficult to see why you should speak the other language... even happens to me that they reply in english, i usually try to insist or then just reply in german, but doesn't always work...