by Jennie Ruby
In every custom grammar class I teach, I get a request to review who versus whom. The choice between who and whom is arguably the hardest decision in grammar to make correctly. It can involve identifying subject-verb pairs, understanding the concept of object of a preposition, parsing out clauses that are acting as objects, pinpointing phrases that are acting as subjects, and knowing a little bit about infinitive verbs.
But it all comes down to this: is the word who/m a subject or an object in the sentence. To determine whether who/m is a subject, one method is to find every verb in the sentence and figure out exactly what word is the subject of that verb-in other words, identify who or what did that action. If the word who/m is the subject of any verb, the choice is who. If the word who is not the subject of any verb, then it has to be whom.
Here are some examples:
*Who/m put the sneakers in the dryer?*
The verb is put. The word Who/m is immediately before the word put, and is the subject of that verb. Because who/m is the subject of a verb, the correct word is who.
Who put the sneakers in the dryer?
*He gave the important letter to who/m?*
The verb is gave. The word he is the subject of gave. There are no other verbs in this sentence. The word who/m is not the subject of any verb, so the correct choice is whom.
He gave the important letter to whom?
*I wondered who/m the manager would choose for the new supervisory position.
The first verb in the sentence is wondered. The word I is the subject of wondered, so that verb is taken. But there is another verb in this sentence: would choose (a helping verb plus main verb combination). The word manager is the subject of that verb. There are no more verbs in the sentence, and the word who was not the subject of any verb. The correct choice is whom.
I wondered whom the manager would choose for the new supervisory position.
*She asked me who/m had the best sales record.*
The first verb is asked. The word she is the subject of asked. The next verb is had. The word who/m is the subject of had, so the correct choice is who.
She asked me who had the best sales record.
So far, we have seen only action verbs in the sample sentences. However, nonaction verbs, infinitives, and imperative verbs can be confusing in sentences with who/whom. We will take a look at those next time.
In the meanwhile, your homework is to notice any incorrect uses of who/whom you see or hear in the next week, whether they are in the news, in e-mail, on the radio, or wherever. When you find them, correct them, and send them in. I'll share good examples next time.
Are you an eLearning developer who has been tasked with creating an effective voiceover script? If so, consider attending my Writing Effective eLearning Voiceover Scripts class. I also teach the Writing Training Documents and eLearning Scripts class.
About the Author: Jennie Ruby is a veteran IconLogic trainer and author with titles such as "Editing with Word 2003 and Acrobat 7" and "Editing with MS Word 2007" to her credit. She is a publishing professional with more than 20 years of experience in writing, editing and desktop publishing.
This is a brilliantly simple way to solve the problem of subject/object forms of pronouns. Thank you.
I live in Japan and occasionally teach or write about avoiding mistakes in technical writing. The problem you you describe is not a major issue here for some reason. What is a major issue is mistaking restrictive clauses for non-restrictive clauses, and vice-versa. Do you have any brilliantly simple solutions to that decision?
My current solution is to tell the students to delete the clause and see whether the remaining sentence still makes sense. If it does, the clause is non-restrictive and should be be preceded by “which” and set off by commas. Otherwise it should be handled as restrictive.
However, many students in Japan, where vague statements are often acceptable/preferred, don’t find operatively incomplete sentences to be wrong; e.g., “people should not throw stones” (from “people who live in glass houses …”) is operatively incomplete because there could be times when they can or should throw stones. So it MUST have some restriction. But the lack of that restriction does not bother most students. So my proposed solution fails. Any help?
This is a brilliantly simple way to solve the problem of subject/object forms of pronouns. Thank you.
I live in Japan and occasionally teach or write about avoiding mistakes in technical writing. The problem you you describe is not a major issue here for some reason. What is a major issue is mistaking restrictive clauses for non-restrictive clauses, and vice-versa. Do you have any brilliantly simple solutions to that decision?
My current solution is to tell the students to delete the clause and see whether the remaining sentence still makes sense. If it does, the clause is non-restrictive and should be be preceded by “which” and set off by commas. Otherwise it should be handled as restrictive.
However, many students in Japan, where vague statements are often acceptable/preferred, don’t find operatively incomplete sentences to be wrong; e.g., “people should not throw stones” (from “people who live in glass houses …”) is operatively incomplete because there could be times when they can or should throw stones. So it MUST have some restriction. But the lack of that restriction does not bother most students. So my proposed solution fails. Any help?
This is a brilliantly simple way to solve the problem of subject/object forms of pronouns. Thank you.
I live in Japan and occasionally teach or write about avoiding mistakes in technical writing. The problem you you describe is not a major issue here for some reason. What is a major issue is mistaking restrictive clauses for non-restrictive clauses, and vice-versa. Do you have any brilliantly simple solutions to that decision?
My current solution is to tell the students to delete the clause and see whether the remaining sentence still makes sense. If it does, the clause is non-restrictive and should be be preceded by “which” and set off by commas. Otherwise it should be handled as restrictive.
However, many students in Japan, where vague statements are often acceptable/preferred, don’t find operatively incomplete sentences to be wrong; e.g., “people should not throw stones” (from “people who live in glass houses …”) is operatively incomplete because there could be times when they can or should throw stones. So it MUST have some restriction. But the lack of that restriction does not bother most students. So my proposed solution fails. Any help?
A great hint is that whenever you can substitute him, you use whom. If you would use he, you use who. Easy!
A great hint is that whenever you can substitute him, you use whom. If you would use he, you use who. Easy!
A great hint is that whenever you can substitute him, you use whom. If you would use he, you use who. Easy!