I'm not certain of this @OurJud but I think that sentence is like what I explained earlier in the thread about topic focus. All of who stresses on the specific people that blame him, but all of whom stresses the fact that he's to blame. As I've suspected all along, it seems whom is a word used in specific context for emphasis, probably in earlier versions of English as it's not very commonplace now but was a couple of hundred years ago. I'm pretty sure 'whom' has some connection to groups or types, like in that sentence it's referring to 'those that are blamed.' I also found this sentence in one of my old Japanese university documents earlier today: 'So now you can say to people whom you can speak informally ...' It's clearly referring to those, as in that group of people, who can speak informally. I don't think this dictates the use of whom in any way, but I do think it's an important characteristic that demonstrates its common or preferred use, even if people are using it subconsciously.
Yeah, the cartoon oversimplifies it and just causes more confusion as a result. What it really means, and what it tries to explain without using grammatical terms, is this: if the relative pronoun is the subject of the dependent clause, then use "who"; if the relative pronoun is the object of the dependent clause, then use "whom". For example: "John is separated from his wife and two teenage sons, who blame him for the split." ("who" is the subject and "him" is the object of the dependent clause.) "John is separated from his wife and two teenage sons, whom he blames for the split." ("whom" is the object and "he" is the subject of the dependent clause.) However, when you replace "who" with "all of whom", the relative pronoun is neither the subject nor the object of the dependent clause. Therefore, the above rule does not cover this case. Instead, the relative pronoun is the object of a prepositional phrase ("of whom") within the dependent clause. The subject of the clause is not the word "whom" but the phrase "all of whom", and the object of the clause is "him".
But in this case it is not about the main clause of the sentence, right? From a quick syntactic analysis of the sentence, you get this: John (subject) is separated from (predicate) his wife (object) and (conjunction) two teenage sons (second part of the object), all of whom blame him for the split (attributive clause). It is true that the attributive clause is a sentence in its own right. And if you try to untangle it, then all of whom is the subject. However, that is a complex subject as well, containing another clause: all (head of the clause) of whom (attribute). QED: Who(m) in this sentence is not the subject of either the main clause or the subordinate clause. Maybe that helps. It's quite complicated at times, isn't it, with all these clauses... Edit: And it seems daemon managed to post earlier than I did.
You're telling me I really appreciate the lengths some of you have gone to, to explain the differences, but logic and understanding written instructions has always been a major problem for me. It's simply not gelling with me, especially when words like 'predicate', 'conjunction', 'dependent clause' are being used. I know that as someone who likes to write, I perhaps should be familiar with such terms - fact is I'm not. Nothing's ever simple, is it? Why is it never: Q: Bla bla bla? A: Bla bla bla, because bla bla bla No 'ifs' or 'buts'... just a black and white answer with no exceptions to the rule. I think I'll bow out of this now, and plough through using 'who' and 'whom', and just judge my 'ear' for how they sound.
There. You have it. That is exactly what "whom" is. Forget everything else you said about the word's "characteristics" (which you are making up) or the "context" in which it appears. You clearly know the definition of "whom"; now it is up to you to choose to use it as it is defined instead of choosing to pretend that grammar does not exist.
The purpose of that sentence was to illustrate what happens when the relative pronoun is the object of the clause. It is just a contrived example of a sentence. "John is separated from his wife and two teenage sons, whom he blames for the split." = "John is separated from his wife and two teenage sons. He blames them for the split."
But we fall back on your previous pattern: John is separated from his wife and two teenage sons, all of them == whom blame him for the split. Done.
"John is separated from his wife and two teenage sons, who blame him for the split." ("who" is the subject and "him" is the object of the dependent clause.) "John is separated from his wife and two teenage sons, whom he blames for the split." ("whom" is the object and "he" is the subject of the dependent clause.) The subject is someone was blamed, the object is him. I'm not sure how you get from whom to he and who to him, but it's not correct. The whole point of that analogy was to say that whom doesn't work LIKE switching he for him when asking that medal question, but in other context, like the one above, him and he has no place whatsoever.
You've removed a lot of the sentence, and the context implies his wife and two sons blame him, not John blaming himself. You're totally rigging the sentence to support that he/him theory.
He's not rigging anything. He's offering examples to prove the substitution pattern. And it's rock solid consistent. "John is separated from his wife and two teenage sons, whom he blames for the split." = "John is separated from his wife and two teenage sons. He blames them for the split."
And on a final point, if whom really worked by that grammar, we would see it a lot more in literature, and we don't, so I dunno who invented such a theory, but it's not correct.
It does explain when whom is used. Can you provide an example where it doesn't? You will have to learn your intuition is not flawless. Like in this instance. I had to learn the same thing (my intuition is not always correct), it's not easy. Especially once you're emotionally invested in an argument.
Worked by that grammar? Do you mean worked based on that substitution pattern? The fact that people -- even you -- do not know this pattern should be more than enough to explain why we don't see its usage in literature.
This is the problem with how you arrive at your conclusions. After you convince yourself you are right, your memory becomes selective. You cannot remember any specific examples, but you could swear you have seen more examples that support your conclusion than examples that contradict it. How convenient. There is no arguing with that, simply because there is no argument to contradict.
ZIGGA ZAGGA, ZIGGA ZAGGA, OO OO OO! Sorry, we used to chant this at school whenever a playground fight erupted. I don't care anymore... who whom schoom!
Utter nonsense. The sentence is: 'John is separated from his wife and two teenage sons, all of whom blame him for the split.' Now look at: 'John is separated from his wife and two teenage sons, all of who blame him for the split.' EXACTLY the same sentence, and means the same thing. You can write it either way and it won't make any difference. 'John is separated from his wife and two teenage sons, all of he blame him for the split.' 'John is separated from his wife and two teenage sons, all of him blame him for the split.' For a start, the sentence is referring to the wife and teenagers blaming John, so implementing he/him in there to begin with is a complete contradiction in the English language. You can't just say, 'oh, you use who because it actually means he blames them for the split,' which he doesn't, because it's John himself being blamed. Secondly, all you're doing is changing the structure of the sentence to somehow relate him/he to whom/who, so much so that the sentence itself doesn't even make sense any more. Thirdly, the subject of the clause is that John is blamed, like if I asked, is that Dave? The subject isn't Dave, the subject is the question in hand. When using who then the subject is stressed on the people who blame John. I dunno where the hell you people learnt the English language, but you really need to learn the subtleties in such things. Yes, the him/he method was useful for determining whether whom and who work in the medal context, but it doesn't dictate how or when to use whom. Sorry, but it's totally illogic.
Then why does my view overflow with logic when your view is self contradictory? I found a perfect example today going through some old university notes. If you read earlier in the thread you'll find it, and it doesn't relate to him/he in any way what so ever.
No, it's not. Lack of reading comprehension on your part more likely. Correct, and to provide another example, the sentence was changed. Which is why I wrote, "He's offering examples to prove the substitution pattern." If you do not understand what that means, you can just say so and I will explain further. Patently false. They are not exactly the same, as one word is different. You do know the meaning of same yes? If, on the other hand, you mean "exactly the same meaning", and hence the sentence is EXACTLY the same meaning, and means the same thing Then I might agree, but not before I boggled at the tautology. Materially, the who example is incorrect grammar. Wilfull ignorance does not make you right. Which is why we can also use them (instead of him) for plural cases. Something that was mentioned multiple times but I get the feeling you are not reading what is being written. For the second time, I will reiterate: I wrote, "He's offering examples to prove the substitution pattern." This makes no sense. The correct substitution is whom. I learnt English in England. The substitution is completely logical and consistent. Show one example where it fails, just one.
It sucks that you provide an incomplete sentence, but here it is: So now you can say to people whom you can speak informally ... So now you can say to them. You can speak to them informally. Use whom. So now you can say to those. You can speak to those informally. Run screaming from the room. It's clearly referring to those, Really? You really think the substitution is: So now you can say to those. You can speak to those informally. And you have the temerity to ask where we learnt English? Goodness
I see what you're doing now: you think who and whom is like the difference between them and those and he and him, correct? Well sorry to burst your bubble, but it's not the same thing. Whom = who, and who = who. They mean the same thing.