Let's face facts, no one knows the rules governing who / whom, cos there are none. It's a secret literary ploy to drive people insane.
I'm quite inclined to agree with you, but I think there are some grammatical rules behind it, but not enough to truly dictate its use. We know this simply because whom doesn't always work when replacing who.
Exactly. Close. who = he / she / they (nominative case) whom = him / her / them (oblique case, a.k.a. "objective case") @The Mad Regent Where did you get this idea that "whom" refers to a group? Or this idea that "who" can always replace "whom"? (And more importantly, where did you get this idea that grammar is "academic bullshit"?) That does not even make sense. Why is it not that "who won" = "out of this group, who won" and "to whom should I present the metal" = "to which individual should I present the metal"? You just made up the "who = individual, whom = group" idea and applied it arbitrarily. There is a much clearer and non-arbitrary way to determine which word to use, and I am not making it up. Simply write an answer with a pronoun in the same case as the pronoun in the question. "Who won?" "He won." is valid. (nominative case) "Whom won?" "Him won." is invalid. (oblique case) "To whom should I present this metal?" "Present it to him." is valid. (nominative case) "To who should I present this metal?" "Present it to he." is invalid. (oblique case) I guess some confusion might come from the fact that this: "Who should I present this metal to?" feels natural for some people to say, and you would not think twice about it if you heard it. It seems right even though it is not grammatically valid. "who"/"whom" is one of those issues where the English language is confusing not because it is complex or inconsistent, but because so many people misuse it that the wrong becomes more familiar to us than the right. Another English language feature that suffers the same confusion is the subjunctive mood: "I could trust him if he were honest" (valid) / "I could trust him if he was honest" (invalid, but commonly misused). Maybe someday the language will evolve and features like the oblique case of the relative pronoun ("whom") and the past tense subjunctive mood of the copula ("were") will be phased out. But that has not happened yet.
For a start, whom doesn't mean him. I've never even heard that in my life, and it sounds like bullshit ... academic, over analysing bullshit, trying to put grammatical rules were they don't belong. Secondly, whom, as far as I can tell, and originally said, relates to an older and regional style of writing, and like @rainy_summerday said, it seems to relate to indirect objects. As I stated earlier, the medal analogy simple asks the same question in two different ways: one is direct and the other is indirect, and when asking indirect, you're usually addressing a group or type or whatever you want to call it. You also can't really begin a sentence with 'whom won ...' One thing I've realised about whom is that it has to follow a clause; for example, 'My grandfather, whom was a great fighter pilot, helped to win the war.' Why did you have to bring this up on a Friday night?
Here is a better way to describe it ... 'To whom should I present this metal?' Topic is someone won a medal. (Out of the group/indirect) 'To who should I present this metal?' Topic is the person who won the medal.
You probably have heard it before in your life (in English class) and forgotten it. Search "who whom" on Google, and all you will find are people saying the same thing I am saying. For example, Wiktionary specifically says "rephrase [the sentence] to use she/he or her/him instead of who, whom; if you use she, then you use the subject pronoun who; if you use her, then you use the object pronoun." Can you show me a grammar guide that supports what you are saying?
I don't need one. I'm English. It doesn't matter what other people say; what makes sense matters, and my understand of it seems a lot more rational. Hate to tell you, but Wikitionary is wrong; whom doesn't really work like how it states. There are, however, some grammatical rules behind whom, but nothing strictly mandatory. A lot of the time, people place whom in a sentence and not understand why it's used, but just know it's correct.
Don't go to that trolling nonsense. There is nothing at all to say that what you say about 'whom' is correct, because honestly, it doesn't seem so. Even my views of it are speculation because, quite frankly, it's a fucking mystery. Only people born between the 1600 and 1900 know how 'whom' truly works. And there is nothing in the context that whom relates to he/she or him/her in any way at all. It sounds like a guess by people who don't really understand it.
Learn what? Just because some scrub on a 'wiki' website, which are highly untrustworthy by the way, said that's how whom works doesn't mean he's correct. It doesn't make sense, and I can probably shoot a lot of holes in the theory. It was probably written by an American as well, who really shouldn't be trying to dictate the ENGLISH language, something I'm well versed in being English and all.
I think you both have more in common than you think. But in the end, language is always an arbitrary system. This should not be about right or wrong, nor about better or worse. Grammar rules are not set in stone. They are describing what is common in use, and they exist to make communication easier by putting up hypotheses about how some words work together. Well, when in doubt, consult the Oxford dictionary, right? "Used [...] as an object of a verb or preposition." That is vague enough to keep everybody happy. I dare suppose that's what the author was thinking as well when he published that definition
That one is simple. "Whom" always follows a preposition. "Who" does not. Other usages can be a tad confusing. Try this quiz: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/arts/exercises/grammar/grammar_tutorial/page_61.htm
To whom should I present this medal = I should present this medal to HIM. (Not: to he) HIM = WHOM HE = WHO
To me, when to use "who/whom," "whoever/whomever" is very, very easy. Now, "lay/lie" is a tad more difficult, methinks.
OK, I'll put this simple since I'm now a troll. Whom and who does NOT dictate the use of him and he. I'm not even sure how anyone can get from whom to him in the first place, besides them both being pronouns and related to animate objects. Secondly, when I'm referring to whom, I'm talking about its characteristics, not its grammatical rules, because that's how language works -- you don't learn it, you understand it. And since whom doesn't necessarily have any strict grammatical rules besides the obvious (it's an objective substitute for who) then the only way to truly understand its use is to look at its characteristics.
They think I'm intentionally winding people up for my own amusement. A lot of people brand others as trolls when the argument they're participating in starts to crumble beneath their feet, and they don't want to confront the truths. It's common psychology seen primarily on the internet, especially in gaming.
I disagree. I do think he thinks he's right, despite denying there is a consistent substitution pattern (there are some grammatical rules behind it, but not enough to truly dictate its use), but do not believe he is trying to wind people up. I've seen similar arguments elsewhere but chosen not to participate. When someone thinks they are right despite rational argument to the contrary it's too late. I am 100% in agreement with @daemon -- if you want to know the correct who/whom substituion, use he vs him. I know. I'm Englisher.
In the spirit of conciliatory explanation: Noone is suggesting it does. They are simply saying he vs him substitutions can be used for determining which of who or whom to use. Language and its rules can be learnt, and that learning does not preclude understanding. We can certainly trust oatmeal to get it right. Dawg knows his bizness. http://theoatmeal.com/comics/who_vs_whom (Panel 4 & 5 -- check the link for the full caboodle.) Spoiler: Panel 4 Spoiler: Panel 5
You learn the words in a language, but you understand how to use it. We already learnt who and whom, but it's pretty clear that people don't understand its use. That 'him' and 'he' example just highlights that whom doesn't work in certain contexts, like him doesn't when asking a question, but it doesn't explain its use, or when it can be used. Basically, it's just an analogy, but who and whom has nothing to do with he and him. The question still remains, though, how does whom truly work in context? Something I feel I've already touched upon, though only in correlative theory.
who and whom has nothing to do with he and him It shows you which one of who or whom to use. Can you provide an example of a question where it doesn't work?
What it does is shows you if it works within the context or not. The him and he analogy can be connected to lots of aspects of the English language, not just who and whom. It doesn't dictate on when to use who and whom, though, because whom is a substitute of who, but him isn't a substitute of he, so all the analogy is doing is asking, 'would you use him with that question?' But whom doesn't translate as him, so, though it reflects a misuse of a word, it doesn't actually dictate how whom is used. Whom isn't always used with a question, either, nor is it used to open a sentence, like who can be. So obviously, though you can use that him and he analogy to determine whether whom or who works in that specific context, it doesn't explain when or how whom is used.
And so the confusion continues. Those little cartoons offer the simplest explanation so far, BUT they contradict the majority of answers to my question. Many posts ago I asked which of the two sentences were correct: 'John is separated from his wife and two teenage sons, all of who blame him for the split.' 'John is separated from his wife and two teenage sons, all of whom blame him for the split.' The general consensus is that 'whom' is the correct word. However, Oatmeal's explanation says to use 'whom' for the person having something DONE to them, and 'who' for the person DOING it. In my example, John's wife and children are the people DOING something (blaming him for the split) so I should be using: 'John is separated from his wife and two teenage sons, all of who blame him for the split.' This is contradictory to most of the answers I've been given ??
