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
Fossils 101 | National Geographic
(gentle music) [Narrator] Like buried treasure, they lie hidden from sight. Echoes of an ancient past, they whisper secrets and tell tales once lost to time. Fossils are remnants or impressions of ancient organisms that are naturally preserved in stone. …
Jamestown - life and labor in the Chesapeake
When last we left our English colonists at Jamestown, things were finally starting to go their way. Lord Delaware had successfully led English forces in their war of extinction against the nearby Algonquin Tribe, the Powhatans. John Rolfe had discovered t…
How to Find a Technical Cofounder - Michael Seibel
One question that we get a lot of at YC is how to find a technical co-founder. This is how I would think through this problem. First, I would start with your friends. Um, how many of your friends do you really enjoy talking to and who know how to write c…
Safari Live - Day 178 | National Geographic
Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen! Welcome again to Juma in the Sabi Sands, Greater Kruger National Park. My name is Steve Falconbridge, I’m joined on the vehicle by Seb and we are out on safari this afternoon. You know I’m not on foot; I’m in the vehic…
Calculations using Avogadro's number (part 2) | Chemistry | Khan Academy
Let’s solve a few numerical on Avogadro number and moles. Here’s the first one: how many glucose molecules are in 2.37 moles of glucose? Let’s quickly remind ourselves what moles are. Moles are like dozens. Just like how one dozen equals 12, a mole repre…
Horrific Freefall into the Deepest Ocean | The Sad Story of Flight 447
What’s happening? I don’t know what’s happening. We’re losing control of the aircraft here! We lost all control of the aircraft! What you’re witnessing is the beginning of one of aviation’s greatest mysteries: a top-notch aircraft, an experienced crew, a…