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
Bill Belichick & Ray Dalio on Toughness: Part 1
When we were talking before, we were talking about, um, the different elements and systemizing it. Um, for example, you describe the different types of toughness. Um, the person gets hit this way has got a certain type of toughness. This you probably gave…
Welcome to Intro to Computer Science! | Intro to CS - Python | Khan Academy
Welcome to KH Academy’s intro to computer science course in Python! Let’s learn more about what this course has to offer. In this course, you’ll learn the fundamentals of programming, from variables to conditionals, loops, functions, and data structures.…
Water Efficiency at Home | National Geographic
In the United States, we’re facing a national water shortage. Government-backed research shows that in a little over 50 years, half of the freshwater basins may not meet our demands. For this story, I’m in my home state of Florida. Here, the water crisis …
Why Einstein Thought Nuclear Weapons Were Impossible
Now that we have nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants, you might think that it was always inevitable that we would be able to harness the energy inside the nucleus of atoms. But that was far from the case. In fact, serious scientists thought the idea …
2005 Entrepreneurship Conference - Taking on the Challenge: Jeffrey Bezos, Amazon
I want to talk a little bit about how we think about innovation at Amazon.com and, uh, give you a couple of examples from the world. This is the whiffle ball and the guy, his name is David Nelson Malany, and in 1953 he took a Cody perfume package and, ou…
Frames of reference | Movement and forces | Middle school physics | Khan Academy
When we make new discoveries, we need to be able to share them with others. The first thing we have to do is make sure everyone is on the same page. We do this by using units and frames of reference, which are also called reference frames. We talk about u…