Catie Holdridge
The question of whether to use who or whom may seem abstract, or pertinent only to the pompous. But, technically, it’s no different from differentiating between she and her, he and him, or they and them.
Subject and object
What we’re essentially looking at is the difference between the subject and object in a sentence. (Quick reminder: the subject is the ‘doer’ in the sentence; the object is the person or thing on the other end of whatever the doer is doing.) Who is used for the subject (equivalent to she, he or they); whom for the object (like her, him or them).
Working out the who and whom
Therein lies the secret to working out when to use whom rather than who. Just try replacing the who(m) with she/he or her/him. If she/he works – it’s who. If her/him fits, it’s whom. This may involve flipping the sentence around a little. Like so:
Who(m) are you giving that lovely reindeer jumper to?
Are you giving that lovely reindeer jumper to him/her? = whom
Who(m) is to be the recipient of those delightful Frosty the Snowman socks?
Is she/he to be the recipient? = who
Mum is going to throw a nutcracker at who(m)ever polished off the Advocaat.
She/he polished off the Advocaat. = whoever
The last one may have led you astray. Surely Mum is aiming her nutcracker at her/him? But in sentences with multiple clauses, the who(m) introduces a dependent clause (the part of the sentence that can’t stand alone). For these, you separate off the part of the sentence beginning with who(m), and work it out from there. One more then:
There’ll be no turkey for who(m)ever Mum deems to be the culprit.
Mum deems her/him to be the culprit. = whomever
Who/whom or ho hum?
So, after all that, are we fighting a losing battle? Who really cares? Surely it must be very rare that the missing m actually causes any confusion.
Certainly some people would be happy to see the word go. In his book Troublesome Words, Bill Bryson recounts how Theodore M Bernstein – a one-time editor of The New York Times – wrote to 25 language-usage experts about the future of whom in 1975. Of the 25, 15 thought it should be scrapped.
And yet: whom is still with us. It may be wobbling, misplacing its glasses atop its own head and using a motorised chairlift to get up stairs, but it’s holding on. And while it does, let’s show it some respect.
As ever, writing is much less forgiving than speech. It will be only the serious pedant who picks you up on a mis-spoken who (though gawd bless their gusto). But for the page, it’s worth knowing and observing the difference. Otherwise, be prepared to answer to those who do play by the rule (and know that those who do, tend to play to win).
The distinction between who and whom may seem abstract, or pertinent only to the pompous. But, technically, it’s no different from differentiating between she and her, he and him, or they and them.
Subject and object
What we’re essentially looking at is the difference between the subject and object in a sentence. (Quick reminder: the subject is the ‘doer’ in the sentence; the object is the person or thing on the other end of whatever the doer is doing.) Who is used for the subject (equivalent to she, he or they); whom for the object (like her, him or them).
Working out the who and whom
Therein lies the secret to working out when to use whom rather than who. Just try replacing the who(m) with she/he or her/him. If she/he works – it’s who. If her/him fits, it’s whom. This may involve flipping the sentence around a little. Like so:
Who(m) are you giving that lovely reindeer jumper to?
Are you giving that lovely reindeer jumper to him/her? = whom
Who(m) is to be the recipient of those delightful Frosty the Snowman socks?
Is she/he to be the recipient? = who
Mum is going to throw a nutcracker at who(m)ever polished off the Advocaat.
She/he polished off the Advocaat. = whoever
The last one may have led you astray. Surely Mum is aiming her nutcracker at her/him? But in sentences with multiple clauses, the who(m) introduces a dependent clause (the part of the sentence that can’t stand alone). For these, you separate off the part of the sentence beginning with who(m), and work it out from there. One more then:
There’ll be no turkey for who(m)ever Mum deems to be the culprit.
Mum deems her/him to be the culprit. = whomever
Who/whom or ho hum?
So, after all that, are we fighting a losing battle? Who really cares? Surely it must be very rare that the missing m actually causes any confusion.
Certainly some people would be happy to see the word go. In his book Troublesome Words, Bill Bryson recounts how Theodore M Bernstein – a one-time editor of The New York Times – wrote to 25 language-usage experts about the future of whom in 1975. Of the 25, 15 thought it should be scrapped.
And yet: whom is still with us. It may be wobbling, misplacing its glasses atop its own head and using a motorised chairlift to get up stairs, but it’s holding on. And while it does, let’s show it some respect.
As ever, writing is much less forgiving than speech. It will be only the serious pedant who picks you up on a mis-spoken who (though gawd bless their gusto). But for the page, it’s worth knowing and observing the difference. Otherwise, be prepared to answer to those who do play by the rule (and know that those who do, tend to play to win).
Image credit: evrymmnt / Shutterstock
Subscribe
Expert advice to your inbox
