The word whom has an interesting reputation, at least in my mind, and I was beginning to question its use.
Many people get it wrong, with confusion about its use. The general rule is that who is the subject and whom is the object. For me, it’s always been, if it’s him, it’s whom. If it’s he, it’s who. In most instances, people recognize it from those ubiquitous reference letters. … To whom it may concern. Or as the telephone joke goes, “To whom am I speaking?” To which the retort goes, “Well with language like that, you’re not speaking to me.” Dial tone.
And that was decades ago. So with its nonuse is becoming more prevalent, I got to thinking, why not just stop using it? After all, journalists decide all sorts of things like names of neighborhoods (we share that with Realtors) or if something is controversial (if we think it is, it is).
While we follow Associated Press rules, we still do have a thing called house-style, which sounds swankier than it actually is, believe me. But changing house style can be a risky thing. First, you have to get everyone in the house on board, then be willing to explain it to others who question it.
I recall a conversation with a reader once about dangling prepositions when he was suggesting to me that we should just let them be because it’s common vernacular. I resisted then, so why the mood now to deviate from proper grammar?
In situations like this, it’s best to check with an expert. Jim Burke, a longtime Burlingame High School English teacher who still works from time to time at Middle College, was my go to, and also the supplier of the telephone joke. He said he got it from a Herb Caen column years back. For him, those who don’t know the rule about whom don’t use it because they worry they will get it wrong. But whom represents precision in language, and he said it’s up to those who know it to use it right. It will eventually fall to the wayside like other phrases and words, but it’s important to model good behavior for others.
And that is where my thoughts of discarding whom ended. In a busy world of “you know what I meant,” it’s easy to slip into phrasing that deviates from the proper. Yet how often have you received an email that deviated so much that you didn’t understand its meaning nor intent? Same.
Recommended for you
There is a reason why we have spelling, grammar and sentence structure. They are rules on which we all generally agree so we can properly understand one another. Deviating is quite the step. So whom remains, at least for now.
Talking to Jim, however, was like being lost in Lithuania and finding someone who speaks English and knows the way to the train station. He speaks my language, in more ways than one. So what about the preponderance of that when it should be who. There are tons of people who say the sentence like this: There are tons of people that say a sentence like this. It should be who! I say this all the time.
For Jim, it’s just a sad truth. “A lot of English teachers were not educated in the finer instruments of rhetoric and grammar,” he said.
A lost art, if you will, and yet it’s only the language we use to speak to one another and understand one another. Using the language the right way requires deliberate teaching and once you have the rules down, you can make a deliberate style choice to deviate. This is what I do with dangling prepositions at times. Or you can deviate to make something clearer such as when to use the Oxford comma when generally it’s not needed. Still, Jim rightly says that trying to stop changes to language is like holding your arms against the waves. And as artificial intelligence becomes more prevalent, it’s quite possible that written language will be used less and less. Still, there is pleasure in writing and in using the language in ways that both adhere to rules and precedent and also deviate for style. So many English teachers would hate that I start so many sentences with and, but and even fronted adverbials. And yet I do, because it’s my style and it’s fun.
I will be keeping the word whom in my arsenal and will continue to cringe when I hear “people that” when it should be “people who,” or the wrong use of less when it should be fewer (if you can count it, it’s fewer).
Yet it is English teachers like Jim, to whom I grateful for his excellent analysis of the language we use, who explain the rules and remind us why we follow them.
Thanks for your column today, Mr. Mays, in providing a deeper look into the conditions for using “who” and “whom” and the value of common language rules regardless of who (or is it whom?) thinks it is not as important. I’m unsure what they teach in English classes these days, but for those who are confused, they can copy/paste text into online grammar checkers, which, I hope, will provide correct grammar and word usage. Perhaps you could recommend a Jim Burke book (assuming he has written any) for those who are interested in increasing or reinforcing their grammar skills. I’d highly recommend Ellen Jovin's book, "Rebel with a Clause" for a humourous and educational look inside the world of grammar. Or Lynne Truss’s book, “Eats, Shoots & Leaves” for a humourous and educational look inside the world of punctuation.
- Mr. Burke is known to be able to provide personal insight into the proper sentence(ing) as the (outcome) of these phrases.
AI states-
"Whom to arrest" is the grammatically correct phrase, because "whom" is an object pronoun that receives the action of the verb "to arrest". You should use "whom" because the police are performing the action of arresting. "Who to arrest" is less formal and more common in casual speech, even though it is technically incorrect.
As a witness or suspect, Mr. Burke can personally state “whom to investigate” and “whom to arrest,”
- the English teacher being the object of the investigation and arrest.
Officer Murphy knows whom to investigate and whom to arrest.
--The suspect (?)-- The Companion of the English Teacher--
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(3) comments
Thanks for your column today, Mr. Mays, in providing a deeper look into the conditions for using “who” and “whom” and the value of common language rules regardless of who (or is it whom?) thinks it is not as important. I’m unsure what they teach in English classes these days, but for those who are confused, they can copy/paste text into online grammar checkers, which, I hope, will provide correct grammar and word usage. Perhaps you could recommend a Jim Burke book (assuming he has written any) for those who are interested in increasing or reinforcing their grammar skills. I’d highly recommend Ellen Jovin's book, "Rebel with a Clause" for a humourous and educational look inside the world of grammar. Or Lynne Truss’s book, “Eats, Shoots & Leaves” for a humourous and educational look inside the world of punctuation.
I remember the TV show named “Who Do You Trust?”. That was years ago. We were already headed downhill.
BHS English, the Grammar and the Police-
-- Who to investigate or Whom to investigate?
-- Who to arrest or Whom to arrest?
Reference- The Companion of the English Teacher
- Mr. Burke is known to be able to provide personal insight into the proper sentence(ing) as the (outcome) of these phrases.
AI states-
"Whom to arrest" is the grammatically correct phrase, because "whom" is an object pronoun that receives the action of the verb "to arrest". You should use "whom" because the police are performing the action of arresting. "Who to arrest" is less formal and more common in casual speech, even though it is technically incorrect.
As a witness or suspect, Mr. Burke can personally state “whom to investigate” and “whom to arrest,”
- the English teacher being the object of the investigation and arrest.
Officer Murphy knows whom to investigate and whom to arrest.
--The suspect (?)-- The Companion of the English Teacher--
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.