yego.me
💡 Stop wasting time. Read Youtube instead of watch. Download Chrome Extension

Who versus whom | The parts of speech | Grammar | Khan Academy


3m read
·Nov 11, 2024

Hello grammarians! Welcome to one of the thorniest fights in English usage today: the question of whether or not you should use "who" or "whom" in a sentence as a relative pronoun.

So there's this basic idea that "who" is the subject form, and "whom" is the object form. This means that if we're talking about someone who is the doer, then we say "who," as in "the spy who loved me," as opposed to someone who is the dewy, the object, as in "the spy whom I loved."

You see, because in this sentence "who" is the subject, and in this sentence "I" is the subject, "me" is the object, and "whom" is the object. I loved whom? In this sentence, I am doing the loving; in this sentence, it is the spy who is doing the loving. That's the basic rule.

However, this does not adequately reflect the way our culture actually uses and has used "whom" or "who" for some time. In many cases, it has become permissible to use "who" as an object. Let me show you what I mean.

The thing to remember is that the basic rule is a one-way street, because the way language is changing, "whom" is on its way out. I imagine in another 50 to 75 years, we won't be using it at all. Is that sad? Sure, a little bit. I mean, I'm sad that nobody ever uses the pronoun "husso," as in "who so pulleth this sword from this stone is rightwise born king of England." We don't use that anymore; it's old-fashioned.

Now we say "whoever," and that's okay. So we know that the basic rule is that you use "who" as a subject and "whom" as an object, but you can also now use "who" as an object. The only thing you can't do is use "whom" as a subject. That's the thing you need to remember: "whom's" use is not expanding; it is contracting. "Who" is taking over some of "whom's" duties.

Let's go back to that spy example. Here are the four possible options: "the spy who loved me," "the spy whom loved me," "the spy who I loved," and "the spy whom I loved." Of these, only the second is incorrect because we're trying to use "whom" as a subject. In the case of "the spy who I loved," where "who" is being an object by the informal rules of our grammar today, this is fine. Either of these is fine; the only one that's not fine is "the spy whom loved me," because this language change is going in one direction: towards "whom" being used less often.

So "whom" never expands from its original position; "who" does. The next time you're puzzling over what to do in the event of the sentence "Who are you talking to?" and whether or not this pronoun here should be "who" or "whom," it's really an issue of tone rather than correctness because both possibilities are equally understandable.

Yes, technically, if you wanted to be very correct, you would say "Whom are you talking to?" or "You are talking to whom?" because "whom" is the object of this preposition—it's "to whom," and therefore we would use the object form. You find that when you separate it out in this question, when you put the two at the end and the "whom" question particle at the beginning, this "m" just kind of falls away.

We're more likely to use "whom" when it's immediately preceded by a preposition, but otherwise, it's probably more likely going to be "who," which is why it's not that big of a deal to say "Who are you talking to?" It's not technically correct, but it's been used for so long that it's fine.

"You are talking to who" is a little bit more formal of a construction and therefore you would probably want to use "whom." Saying "you are talking to who" is not as common.

So, in this wild swamp of rule-breaking, there is one hard grammar rule to pay attention to, and it's just never use "whom" as a subject. The role of "whom" in our constellation of pronouns is decreasing, not expanding. "Who" is taking over "whom," and since "who" is the subject, "whom" is not moving into that space. "Whom" is the object pronoun, and you use it when you're feeling fancy.

You can learn anything. David out.

More Articles

View All
Science and Comedy - Perfect Together | StarTalk
Star Talk would not be Star Talk were it not for the tandem comedic elements that we weave into the science that we are otherwise conveying. What you will notice from Seth McFarlane, if you only catch the highlights of his comedic life, you may only have …
Getting Started with Khan Academy for Remote Learning
Hey everyone! This is Jeremy Schieffling with Khan Academy. Super excited to be joining you this evening for our session on getting started with remote learning. Just to sort of set the tone for the evening, we know that there’s some challenging times out…
Homeroom with Sal & María Elena Salinas - Thursday, August 13
Hello, Sal here from Khan Academy. Welcome to our homeroom live stream! We have a very exciting guest today. Uh, but before we jump into that conversation, I will give my standard reminders to folks. One, uh, just a reminder that we are a not-for-profit …
Reacting to Myself: Living On $1.6 Million A Year In Los Angeles | Millennial Money
What’s up, you guys? It’s Graham here, and wow, what a time to be alive! We have officially entered the matrix. This is because I was just featured on the show Millennial Money by CNBC Make It. For those that are not aware of the significance of this, let…
Sharks at Night: Incredible Underwater Footage | Short Film Showcase
[Music] [Music] First movie I ever saw was Jaws. What I saw was a man-eating shark. The fear turned into fascination. What I learned was it’s the world’s biggest lie. These animals aren’t what anyone thinks they are. They really are exquisite; some of the…
2020 Berkshire Hathaway Annual Meeting (Full Version)
Well, it’s uh 3:45 in Omaha, and this is the annual meeting of Berkshire Hathaway. It doesn’t look like an annual meeting; it doesn’t feel exactly like an annual meeting, and it particularly doesn’t feel like an annual meeting because, uh, my partner 60 y…