Talk:Who (pronoun)

Move to Wiktionary
I added a "move to wiktionary" link to this article, becuase much of it needs to be moved.

I do not know if this article should stay in Wikipedia - it probably should since it includes more than a dictionary would.

The reason I added this tag is not because this shouldn't be in Wikipedia, but rather because Wiktionary has definitions for "Who" and "Whom", but there should be an third entry in Wiktionary stating how to decide which one to use.

(Maybe this already exists, but I couldn't find it.)

See the Wiktionary "Whom" talk page

--VegKilla 21:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You have accidentally added it to the talk page instead of the article, though, which resulted in this talk page being transwikied to wiktionary. Hopefully Wiktionary will enjoy the receipt of this talk page, providing them with many hours of reading enjoyment.  --Xyzzyplugh 14:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The decline of "whom"
The decline of "whom" appears to be a rather well known phenomenon among linguists that has been going on for quite some time. Some quick Internet research turns up:


 * http://www.linguistlist.org/issues/5/5-675.html, by one Nigel Love, who identifies himself as a linguist at the University of Cape Town, says (in part):

When someone writes in [to a radio panel discussion] complaining that they heard someone say/write e.g. "who did you see?" instead of "whom did you see?", and invites the panel to issue a denunciation, I answer along the following lines: (1) 'Whom' as an object form of that pronoun has been recessive for at least five hundred years, and is practically extinct (except as object of a preposition) in more or less any colloquial speech and in all except fairly formal writing. (2) There is a good linguistic explanation for this situation, which will long-term-predictably lead to the complete demise of 'whom'. (3) Meanwhile, there are many people who attach great importance to its currently 'correct' use, and who will complain, think the worse of you, etc. if you fail to use it properly. (4) If you want to please such people you would be advised to learn how to use it correctly. (5) As I linguist my interest in the matter is confined to stating and trying the explain the facts given in (1) (2) and (3). (6) Personally -- if anyone's interested -- I use it as outlined in (1), but don't care very much whether anyone else does, and in any case would be as reluctant to tell others what to do linguistically (as opposed to tell them, if they ask me, what the prescriptive rules happen to be) as I would be to tell them what to do sartorially. (7) The reason I take this lofty, 'uncommitted' attitude is partly that, as a linguist I'm interested in 'is' rather than 'ought', and partly that, as a speaker/writer of a standard form of English, I happen to be lucky enough not to feel linguistically insecure about issues of this kind: my sort of English is pretty much what the normative grammarian's rules are based on anyway.


 * http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/errors/who.html : "Whom" has been dying an agonizing death for decades--you'll notice there are no Whoms in Dr. Seuss's Whoville. Many people never use the word in speech at all. However, in formal writing, critical readers still expect it to be used when appropriate.


 * http://www.cjr.org/tools/lc/who.asp : A lot of smart people hate the word. It can sound stuffy, and more importantly, it's very easy to get wrong. The great New York Times editor and language authority Theodore M. Bernstein, who almost certainly never got it wrong, nonetheless campaigned to "Doom Whom" (except after prepositions). He lost, at the Times and in the larger world. For anything approaching formal writing, "whom" clearly will be with us for a good while longer.


 * http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/cyc/w/who.htm : But whom is rarely used nowadays. Except in the most formal of prose, it is usually acceptible to use who for either role.

I've read non-Internet research of this phenomenon, also, but the titles escape me at the moment. Kwertii 13:39, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, true then I should think. :) Thank you for the sources.
 * However, notice how it is stated that in formal writing (or fairly formal writing, or anything approaching formal writing), whom still ought to be used. The first quote also mentions that whom is not disappearing from use as a prepositional object: indeed, this I should imagine is the most common usage of whom even in colloquial speech. Obviously, I agree and reckon it is somewhat queer to see whom used as a direct accusative in colloquial speech ("Whom did you see?"); but after a preposition, even spoken English (or at least the kind I know) makes use of whom. Of course it is convenient that the structure preposition + relative pronoun is somewhat more formal than relative pronoun ... preposition, as in the following:


 * He is the man to whom the prize was awarded.
 * He is the man whom the prize was awarded to.
 * He is the man the prize was awarded to.
 * It can be seen that the defining relative clause is omitted altogether, which is perhaps why whom is more seldom heard in speech.
 * How do you think this should be dealt with in articles? Should anything be given at all (some rule states that 'Wikipedia is not a usage guide')?
 * Sinuhe 18:19, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure which rule you're referring to. I think as a good general guideline, it's always better to err by providing too much information rather than too little. Wikipedia has the wonderful property of practically unlimited space for information on obscure topics. Why not include what is, essentially, a usage guide, as a subset of encyclopedic knowledge? Kwertii 00:06, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * "Wikipedia is not a usage guide" &#8211; not that I agree with it; I think it should be a lovely addition to have usage information in the sense that it explains using grammar (but not individual words). Of course whom is a matter of grammar, so its usage ought to be clarified to some extent.
 * By the way, here is a quote from 'Usage and Abusage: A Guide to Good English', a marvellous book by Eric Partridge:
 * "who and whom. Such phrases as 'the man who I saw there' are very common in speech, for people appear to think that whom sounds pedantic. Whom for who, however, is the more frequent error (!) in literary use."
 * So apparently there is a trend not only to discontinue to use whom (as you suggest), but also the reverse (replacing who with whom), both leading to errors as seen by traditional grammar ...
 * Sinuhe 11:37, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * i think that the word whom has entirely dropped out of the english language. i have never heard it used in my lifetime, except during a speach by some stuffy english teachers. i think it actually is gone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.252.194.190 (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

If whom is declining from the English language, why shouldn't everyone just stop using the words him, her, us, and them as well? Because it would make everyone sound like an uneducated idiot of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.95.142.160 (talk) 05:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not a question of whether whom is declining or not. That is easily verifiable from free academic resources like the Corpus of Contemporary American English (http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/) or even Google NGrams. If you're adept at using a corpus or other similar linguistic tools, you can see that usage of whom in any position other than the object of a preposition has been very rare for some time and is becoming increasingly more so, including in academic articles. Your argument's sardonic condescension is really unwarranted, but it also ignores the historical reality of repeated shifts in the English language's pronoun system.  It would not make someone sound like an "uneducated idiot" to use the word "you" to refer to a single person, although several centuries ago the writer Robert Lowth (the same man "to whom" many people attribute the current "rules" about who/whom usage) bemoaned that particular "lowly habit" as plebeian since educated persons should clearly use the correct singular pronoun, thou.  Nowadays it would make someone sound either like a pretentious blowhard, a confused time traveler, or perhaps even a tragic victim of a psychotic episode to go around saying "thou" to everyone in that way.  We could go further back in English history and say that "you" shouldn't be used as a subject at all, since the nominative case of the second person plural pronoun was "ye" while "you" was only for objects.  Alternatively, we could just give up on that useless argument and accept reality for what it is instead of judging its value from some perceived place of privilege. Amieni (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

'who' vs 'which'
I've been doing some research on the use of 'who' with nonhuman animals, e.g., "the deer who eat the vegetables in my garden." Advocates of equality among animals believe that 'who' should not be reserved for humans. The Wikipedia article mentions this possibility but doesn't go as far as animal rights advocates.

This and related issues are explored at http://www.ecoling.net/who.html. I'd be interested in other people's views, especially those of the author(s) of the Wikipedia piece. Thanks. --george jacobs, Broward Community College (Singapore campus), gmjacobs@pacific.net.sg

The example
Not being a language specialist I find the example quite difficult. It isn't helped by the author who felt obliged to use he or she and him or her. Surely this is not necessary; he and him would suffice. Any chance of a less technical example? Arcturus 19:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Dialects
I'd be interested in a reference for the claim that it's especially in American English that whom is "dying", in fact, a reference for the implied claim that it used to be common in educated speech in Modern English (any dialect). Neither of these claims agrees with what I've heard (though I don't have a reference handy either). -- MikeG (talk) 02:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops, I see some of this was addressed in previous discussion. But still not reflected in the article. -- MikeG (talk) 04:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

One of the example sentences (which I've replaced with a simpler example)
This sentence looks dodgy to me: "We have been discussing plans with them, of whom we have grown rather fond these days." Comments? Njál 00:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That's correct usage, but a terrible sentence. Atchius 05:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Whom in pop culture
The Clash's song "Should I Stay or Should I Go" seems to contain the line, "exactly whom I'm supposed to be." (Lyrics sites often render it as "who'm I'm supposed to be," but that makes even less sense.) I believe this is incorrect, since the verb "to be" should be followed by the subject. Of course, people say "It's me" all the time, but the defense of informality doesn't work if you're using an already formal word like whom. It's strange to hear the word in a punk song of all places, even if it's used incorrectly. marbeh raglaim 18:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Phish uses it (correctly) in Story of the Ghost. 69.253.193.234 06:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-human sentients?
Does this trivial point about speculative fiction really belong at the very top of this basic grammar article? kraemer 02:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

From the Reference Desk: on Whose
I just was looking at the " who" article and I was a bit taken aback by the "whose" example:


 *  He is someone whose help ended my despair. ("whose" is adjunct to help, the side clause's subject)

Though this is correct, I find the example a bit contrived. Given how easily whose and who's are confused in English, I think a more strait forward example would be better. For example, when I first read the sentence, I assumed there was a tense error with a who's confusion, when there really isn't (i.e. He is someone who has helped to end my despair, which is not what the sentence says). He is someone whose help I appreciate, feels like a more straight forward example to me, but this may just be my idiosyncrasy. Thoughts? --Cody.Pope 13:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. Your example is more "straight forward" ... but the original example is nonetheless correct. (Joseph A. Spadaro 22:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC))


 * I also prefer your example, but are whose and who's so easily confused? I can't, off-hand, think of a sentence in which the correct spelling and meaning aren't clear. Xn4 01:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The original sounds contrived also to me. The example, by the way, has been cloned in the article on Hypercorrection. On confusing whose and who's: just like the pairs of homophones their – there, your – you're, and its – it's, they get confused all the time. If you Google "someone whose a", "someone whose the", or "someone whose not", you'll find plenty of confused uses.  --Lambiam 03:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Both sentences sound a bit contrived to me: the more natural constructions would be "His help ended my despair" and "I appreciate his help." How about something like "I apologized to the man whose hat I sat on?"  --Reuben 01:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I "cloned" this discussion on the "who" talk page.  Thanks for the input! --Cody.Pope 13:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Per that above discussion, I changed the sentence here, and also in the hypercorrection article. Any additional input would be appreciated. --Cody.Pope 13:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What is your order number 2001:5B0:2863:CC98:A0F1:B623:FE42:5DA (talk) 01:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Who(m)(so)ever example
I believe that the example "Let whoever is without sin cast the first stone." needs to be replaced. Imagine the poor student, unable to decide whether to use 'whoever' or 'whomever', faced with the following explanation. "To avoid grammatical confusion regarding the example, let in this case is an auxiliary introducing the subjunctive mood, and is dependent on cast..." Good luck to him. The phrase "To avoid grammatical confusion" is another way of saying, "We know we gave you a confusing example, but". I will try to construct an example which has fewer moving parts. If you have a better one, feel free to replace it, but if you revert, please explain here.Bendykst (talk) 03:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)bendykst


 * I agree that the explanation was terribly confusing. In fact, it included irrelevant material that we could easily just omit. But the example itself is good and famous. I've edited it back in, to show a more interesting and counterintuitive case (for some) in which the nominative is correct in a clause that itself is objective.
 * I have also fixed the formatting of the section to match norms set out at WP:MOS, and for consistency within the article.
 * – ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoN oetica! T– 05:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Humans are the only sentient beings?
The article states that "who" is used to refer to humans, and later claims that "what" and "which" are used for "non-sentient beings".

This is absolutely ridiculous, of course, since this is how WP defines sentience: "Sentience refers to possession of sensory organs, the ability to feel or perceive, not necessarily including the faculty of self-awareness."

It's pseudoscientific nonsense, and should be removed as soon as possible - animals clearly are sentient, and we still use "what" and "which" to refer to them - at least most of them.

Thoughtknot (talk) 09:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "Sentience" is synonymously used to describe higher-reasoning - not just self-awareness. This is the case as used in the article. English often treats animals as non-persons, or objects. e.g., "The cat that chased the ball," implies the cat is an object, as opposed to, "The cat who chased the ball." The cat is not addressed as "who," because the cat is generally not perceived at a person. (or sentient) Of course the cat is aware of its own existence, but that's not what I'm understanding "sentience" as in this context. I think this is all the article is trying to indicate. 70.153.124.103 (talk) 18:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There are many dialects that use relative "that" with human antecedents. "No maid I've seen like the fair colleen that I met in the County Down." (The Star of the County Down) Or "She's the one that steals the show. (I'll Tell Me Ma) or "The boys that wore the green." (The Irish Volunteer (album)) 109.42.177.44 (talk) 02:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

He is someone example confusing
The sentence " He is someone who is a great guy." is a kind of confusing example, because "is" causes the subject not to be declined in this case; i.e. "This is he" is correct English, so would be "Someone is he who is a great guy" and "He, who is a great guy, is someone." Given that, it's unclear what the example is trying to point out. -- Kendrick7talk 21:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You've added a "dubious" tag to the example. It's unclear whether you're saying it's incorrect, or just not a good choice of example. If it's the latter, then the "dubious" tag should not be there.
 * My own view is that it's perfectly correct, and that it's a good example. The "He is" part is just there to introduce "someone". "Someone" is a word that is never declined. That allows the three parallel examples to focus solely on the various forms of "who", without worrying about the function of "someone" in the main clause. That's a good thing. 128.32.238.145 (talk) 04:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I should add why I think the example is correct. The subordinate clause is "who is a great guy". "Who" is clearly its subject. 128.32.238.145 (talk) 04:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OK... something about who/whom just wasn't ringing right in my ears yesterday, and this example wasn't really helping. But now I get your point. -- Kendrick7talk 19:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

IP edits reversing usage of whoever and whomever
The recent edits by an IP editor are quite confused. First, the current text claims that whoever and whomever are contractions of whosoever and whomsoever respectively, citing a source which says no such thing:
 * WHOEVER, designates any person, or number of persons, separated from the general mass, or (in a limited sense) from the class over which we direct our view; [...] The words Whoever, Whatever, &c. just explained, are occasionally changed into Whosoever, Whatsoever, Whichsoever, Wheresoever, Whensoever, Howsoever, with no perceptible alteration of meaning; and, in addition, we have the genitive and objective cases, Whosesoever and Whomsoever ; as well as, Whencesoever and Whithersoever,—from and to ' what place soever.'

More importantly, the IP editor for some reason (and without citing a source) insists that the usage of whoever and whomever are governed by the main clause rather than the subordinate clause, reversing the long-standing rule. This changes the example to
 * Let whomever [him that] is without sin cast the first stone.

The 121.76 editor claims this is justified by the source, but it simply doesn't say anything about who(m)ever being governed by the main clause rather than the subordinate clause. There are plenty of reference books indicating that it's the internal clause that matters, as the article said for many years before the IP edits. I don't want to edit war, so could I get some support that these edits are against consensus and sources? --Amble (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * First, I do not need to show that who(m)ever is a contraction of who(m)soever, because it is a common knowledge. But if you still insist, then here:
 * " Whosoever," " whatsoever," " howsoever," &c., are words of considerable significancy. They convey the full force of the words of which they are compounded. Thus in " whosoever," the first syllable has the full import of " who" (" persons" being understood); the second syllable ("so") refers to manner indefinitely; and the third (" ever") refers to time indefinitely. The compound is therefore equivalent to the circumlocution, " persons who in any manner, at any time." The separation of the last syllables, so us to throw them at the end of the sentence, is inelegant. " Whoever," &c., is a modern contraction.
 * Second, the pronoun who is no different than the pronoun he. Who(m)ever is who(m) that.
 * Let whomever [whom that] is without sin cast the first stone.
 * The pronoun whom is the object of the imperative let. The inner clauses are irrelevant.
 * Also the proper-ancient rule has always existed:
 * Tyndale translated it properly.
 * And he that betrayed him had geven them a generall toke sayinge: whosoever I do kisse he it is: take him and leade him awaye warely. — Mark 14:44 Tyndale 1534.
 * But corrupted already by 1611.
 * And he that betrayed him, had giuen them a token, saying, Whomsoeuer I shall kisse, that same is he; take him, and lead him away safely. — Mark 14:44 KJV 1611.

— 121.72.163.146 (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC).


 * Is there any reason why that anonymous treatise on legal writing from 1840 should be taken as a more reliable source than the OED, which shows "whoever" in continuous use from Old English (as hwa efre) through Middle English (as who euere) to Modern English? It cites usage back to circa 1175, and does not support the idea that whoever originates as a contraction of whosoever.  I note that your source cites no authority for the claim other than the anonymous author's own supposition.
 * For the usage of who(m)ever, you cite no sources other than a single passage in Tyndale, which is hardly convincing evidence of anything. Wycliffe used "whom euere" in the same verse in 1389.  Neither one is a guide to standard usage in Modern English.  For that, we can look to grammar textbooks, etc., which give no support to your claims.  --Amble (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, Tyndale seems to be inconsistent in the use of who and whom. See also Luke 4:6, ending with "and to who soever I wyll I geve it."  In this example, the pronoun is an object any way you choose to slice it, and Tyndale still goes with the nominative form.  A few verses from Tyndale's Bible don't show any "proper-ancient rule," at most they just show that Tyndale wasn't consistent.   --Amble (talk) 19:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * First, though the pronoun of Luke 4:6 is properly an object, so is the pronoun of let whoever.
 * Second, the pronoun of Luke 9:48 (whosoever receaveth this chylde) is used in the nominative with Tyndale, Wycliffe, and the KJB. In fact, I cannot find even one bible that has the pronoun in the accusative case; which the supposed long-standing rule requires. So it seems they are all inconsistent.
 * Third, the deprecated forms that show the original meaning are found in Chaucer: Where that he be, I kan nat soothly seyn; By his clennesse, how that his sheep sholde lyve; and For whom that I have al this peyne and wo.
 * Fourth, on the contrary, the Oxford Dictionary supports it very well:
 * -so adv. attached to wh- prons. and advs., and how, e.g. ME. hwa so whoso, hwer so whereso (reduced forms of OE. swā hwā swā, swā hwǽr swā, etc.), repl. gen. by -ever (whoever, wherever) and -SOEVER.
 * — 121.72.163.146 (talk) 09:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC).


 * Your responses completely miss each point. Tyndale doesn't follow a consistent rule, and isn't a guide to anything.  You don't address this.  Given that, can we forget about Tyndale?
 * Why on earth would "Whosoever receaveth this chylde" be in the accusative? That would be ungrammatical.  Whosoever is the subject of "receaveth" in the inner clause, which governs the case of the pronoun, as any grammar textbook will tell you, and our article used to say.
 * Your example from Chaucer doesn't use "whomever" or "whoever," so it's completely irrelevant.
 * And your citation from the OED gives the origin of the so particle. Nowhere does it say that "whoever" is a contraction of "whosoever."  --Amble (talk) 15:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * First, it clearly says that whoso was replaced by whosoever and whoever. Now a clause cannot be connected to a noun with ever: history shows that it has either been swā or so or that.
 * Second, if he and who are both pronouns, then to treat them differently is ungrammatical. — 121.72.163.146 (talk) 00:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC).


 * The source says that A was replaced by B and C, and you are somehow concluding that C must therefore be a contraction of B. Complete non sequitur.
 * For your claims about the use of who(m)ever, find a source. Arguments based on your own suppositions are not a basis for Wikipedia articles per WP:OR.  I have provided a source that clearly states the rule that the inner clause governs the case of the pronoun.  If you think the source is not reliable for some reason, I will be happy to provide more.  Wikipedia articles are written based on reliable, secondary, outside sources. --Amble (talk) 07:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It is a contraction, and many grammarians agree so, because adverbs can never join a clause to a noun; which is a fundamental rule of English: and this is why there exists longer forms that connect through swā, so, or that. Ergo sequitur.
 * Second, you have not provided a source that says why the pronoun who can be treated differently than other pronouns, such as he. Sic non sequitur. — 121.72.163.146 (talk) 09:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC).


 * I give up. Have fun, make up your own rules of grammar, write about sword-wielding skeletons at Thermopylae, whatever. --Amble (talk) 16:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I have not made any rules up. You have. — 121.72.163.146 (talk) 22:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC).

Einstein Quote
From where doth the quote from Einstein come? I doubt that Einstein would refer to “Gods”. It would be more likely that he would refer to “gods”, and reserve the upper case for “God”. My Flatley (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added a reference for the quote, and edited to show better how it works with the two finite verbs in the sentence. N oetica Tea? 23:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Style manual, or wiki article?
The article reads like a style manual. The majority of the article is focused on how to use who/m, with little focus on the historical development. Look at that tiny section on its history, it doesn't even tell us what the Old English and Middle English forms were! The tone of the article has a very prescriptivist attitude, reading more like a random book on grammar than an encyclopedic article. This is unacceptable; all linguistic articles on Wikipedia are descriptivist, sensibly so. cntrational (talk) 09:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. That is a risk with articles involving common grammatical foibles and hobbyhorses. See also Apostrophe, which needs to be guarded against amateurism of the less benign sort. So please: do more than your one edit so far, to improve the article. N oetica Tea? 23:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Reliance on inappropriate sources
I feel this article's section on "Demise of whom" is unsupported opinion, rather than documented fact.

Many of the sources used to support its expressed opinion (that "whom" is an archaic form) are writings by non-native speakers of English who study the language from the viewpoint of an outsider. Of the few citations, in support of whom's demise, that refer to works by native speakers of the language, I see only one (Lasnik) written by a professional linguist.

Other citations of native speakers generally tend to support the use of whom, excepting only Simeon Potter, about whom little can be found, and whose book (cited in this article) was published more than 30 years ago.

If whom is truly vanishing, surely we can find a few sources more widely known among scholars who live and work in English-speaking cultures, whose works are more generally accepted. Perhaps we can find sources published by authors for whom English is not a foreign language. I don't see a convincing weight of citations to support the argument that "whom" has fallen into disuse in English writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mooncaine (talk • contribs) 17:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Huddleston and Pullum's (2002) "Cambridge Grammar of the English Language" deals with this point rather comprehensively, and before that, Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, and Svartvik's (1985) "Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language" said much the same. Both sources confirm that usage of whom is becoming increasingly restricted, is almost exclusively limited to formal writing, and is not even grammatical in some object positions such as in phrases like "*Whom do you love?" Whether whom will disappear entirely or not is a different question, and those linguists (as well as most to my estimation) steer clear of making wild predictions like that.  Certainly it will be preserved for some time to come in collocations like "to whom it may concern" and so on, but that's quite different still.  Now, I said this above, but to address your point directly, even without academic citations anyone can verify the notion that usage of whom is in fact on the decline for free using resources like the Corpus of Contemporary American English (http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/), Google NGrams, or a similar corpus.  Using a corpus of academic English like MICASE you can see that it is incredibly rare (and, for some reason, more common in philosophy lectures than in any other subject, although that's probably just a sampling problem).  So no, the problem is not that non-native speakers are trying to destroy the language from without; there is ample evidence available to anyone who wants it that "whom" is, essentially, vestigial. To address your point about the supposed imbalance of sources, there are indeed many citations of style guides written by native speakers that regurgitate outdated (and often factually inaccurate) assumptions about the usage "whom," but linguists have been pretty much in agreement on this matter since at least the origin of Chomskian grammar.  If I have time later, I'll insert citations into this article from the grammar books above or other academic sources, but until then, I encourage you to use the ones available to you for free online. Amieni (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive reversions by an anonymous editor
Editor 121.72.186.199 has been reverting in the section Who(m)(so)ever (and has edited nowhere else), so that this is now its entire content:
 * Who(m)(so)ever can take a relative clause, the relative pronoun of which is so, it being commonly omitted, and now no longer productive as a pronoun since Old English.
 * Who(so)ever [he who] undertakes to set himself up as judge in the field of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods. (Albert Einstein)
 * Let whom(so)ever [him who] is without sin cast the first stone.
 * ''Who(so)ever [he who] you meet there is bound to be interesting.
 * No explanation has ever been given to show, how a relative clause can govern who, when it cannot govern other pronouns; and how a verb can have no subject, but two objects. It is likely, that this traditional prescriptive rule is the result of confusion from careless grammarians.

This latest reversion replaces the following text:


 * According to traditional grammar and guides to usage, the relative pronouns who(m)ever and who(m)(so)ever take the case appropriate to their internal clause:


 * Whoever undertakes to set himself up as judge in the field of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods.
 * Whoever is in the nominative because it is the subject of undertakes in the noun clause whoever undertakes [...], not because of any relation to is. (The subject of is is whoever undertakes [...].)
 * Similarly:
 * Let whoever is without sin cast the first stone.
 * Whoever is in the nominative because it is the subject of is. (The object of let is whoever is without sin.)
 * In this case, whomever is used:
 * ''Whomever you meet there is bound to be interesting.
 * The accusative form whomever is considered right, because it is the object of meet within the internal clause whomever you meet there (compare: you meet her [or him] there), while whomever you meet there as a whole (rather than simply whomever) is the subject of is.
 * Actual usage is variable: whomever is often employed and defended where the traditional prescriptive rules would require whoever, just as whom is often used as the subject of a verb in more complex situations (see next section).

The content of the three citations can be seen on the page itself, or in source here. The second is essentially this, from Chicago Manual of Style:


 * [...] determining the proper case can be confusing when the pronoun serves a function (say, nominative) in a clause that itself serves a different function (say, objective) in the main sentence. It is the pronoun’s function in its clause that determines its case. In the first example below, the entire clause whoever will listen is the object of the preposition to. But in the clause itself, whoever serves as the subject, and that function determines its case. Similarly, in the second sentence whomever is the object of choose in the clause, so it must be in the objective case even though the clause itself serves as the subject of the sentence.
 * WRONG: I’ll talk to whomever will listen.
 * RIGHT: I’ll talk to whoever will listen.
 * WRONG: Whoever you choose will suit me.
 * RIGHT: Whomever you choose will suit me.
 * As the second example above shows, a further distraction can arise when the who clause contains a nested clause, typically of attribution or identification (here, you choose). CMOS16, at 5.63 (" 'Who' versus 'whom' ")

Now, it is unclear what the editor wants. He or she refuses to allow references supporting this longer, more nuanced version. Very many more could easily be added, to show the traditional take on the pronouns in question. Here are just a few, from the recent literature: More could easily be added.
 * The Writer's Digest grammar desk reference, Gary Lutz and Diane Stevenson, Writer's Digest Books, 2005, pp. 153–156
 * McGraw-Hill's essential ESL grammar, Mark Lester, McGraw-Hill Professional, 2008, pp. 112–113
 * When bad grammar happens to good people, Ann Batko, ReadHowYouWant.com, 2008, pp. 12–13
 * The McGraw-Hill handbook of English grammar and usage, Mark Lester and Larry Beason, McGraw-Hill Professional, 2005, p. 66
 * The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation, Jane Straus, John Wiley and Sons, 10th edition 2007, pp. 8–9.

So I call on the editor to explain: just what do you want? Why do you persist in blanket reversions to a manifestly incoherent version that substantiates nothing from citations, and whose intent is entirely unclear?

I propose that, if the editor will not conform to Wikipedia standards for clarity and verification of content, or for collegial discussion where there is dispute, we treat him or her as a vandal. Editors, please have your say; and please defend due process against what so far appears to be sheer opinion-mongering.

N oetica Tea? 23:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Of the rule, the citations have written ; but they suffer no explanation thereof. The rule is improper. — 121.72.186.199 (talk) 04:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC).
 * wikipedia doesn't make rules, but reflects usage. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Noetica and Casliber. 121.72.186.199, if there are style guides providing different advice, please produce them here, but absent published sources commenting on the matter, your reversions are improper. Please also note WP:3RR. -- J N  466  11:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The citations violate the standard rules of grammar. Until you cite a source that explains why the clause uses different rules of grammar to everything else, it is sheer fantasy. I do not need to prove anything. I am not the one inventing rules. You are. I suppose you think that God exists too, because some books say it? How absurd. -- 121.72.186.199 (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC).
 * Anon, this is getting no one anywhere. Please look carefully through the version I have just restored (but note the changes at the top, for clarity and to avoid mixing up topics), and let us know here what you object to. In particular, what is the very first point at which you disagree? You will simply be reverted otherwise. People are being patient so far; don't abuse that. N oetica Tea? 23:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It is claimed, that the relative be who, or whom ; but from where does this belief come, when it is clear, that the real relative is so? -- 121.72.186.199 (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC).
 * Well, the belief that whoever and whomever are relative pronouns comes from standard grammars and dictionaries of the last few centuries, including current ones. The belief that so is not itself a pronoun (even when it is a part of the old forms whosoever and whomsoever) comes from the same sources. Now we see what the difficulty is. So please: show us details from a recent dictionary or a recent grammar that contradicts the article as it now stands. I'm certain that people will pay close attention to that! In the meantime, because of the way we do things on Wikipedia, it would be appropriate to leave the article alone.
 * A good idea? I'm looking forward to seeing the evidence you want us to consider. N oetica Tea? 03:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is proof, that so comes from swa ; that swa is a relative pronoun ; that the compound relative comes from swa hwa swa ; and that the main clause governs the case.
 * A translation of the Anglo-Saxon poem of Beowulf
 * A guide to the Anglo-Saxon tongue
 * Anti-Tooke: or An analysis of the principles and structure of language, Volume 2
 * Analecta Anglo-Saxonica
 * A Short Historical English Grammar
 * A Primer of Historical English Grammar
 * A guide to Old English
 * Introduction to Old English
 * The distribution of pronoun case forms in English, 2005
 * Do read the last citation, as it is most important, because it is modern ; and shows, that swa could be replaced with the relative that ; and that, in the beginning, the matrix clause, or the main clause, would properly govern the case, in stead of the relative clause. -- 121.72.186.199 (talk) 06:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC).
 * "So" does still function as a relative pronoun in antiquated German, and once could do so in English, but I'm not sure that "swa" in "swa hwa swa" is a pronoun, and your sources don't state that. They do state that "hwa" is a pronoun, that the whole construction "swa hwa swa" functions as a pronoun, and that adding "swa" before and after "hwa" turned the interrogative pronoun, "hwa", into a relative pronoun. As far as the inflection is concerned, style guides generally state that the "who(m)" part of "who(m)soever" should correctly be inflected according to the word's function in the relative clause. I guess you're analysing it along the lines of "Let him who thinks so ...", which would make "Let whomsoever thinks so ...", with "so" as the relative pronoun, but that's not the line the style guides take (although both grammars and our article acknowledge that both "let whomsoever thinks so" and "let whosoever thinks so" do occur). -- J  N  466  07:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, Anon. Just 50 cm from my computer was my print copy of something you link in your list, above (A guide to Old English), though mine is the sixth edition, not the seventh. I browsed through it, and found this text: "Swā is sometimes translated as a relative pronoun. This is misleading; [...]". You can see those words in the seventh edition here, five pages after your own citation. That is the best guide currently available for Old English, it seems to me. The other historical sources you adduce are indeed interesting. I want to study them further. But it is clear that none of this has relevance in classifying the relative pronouns whoever and whomever in Modern English, let alone PDE (Present-Day English). Same for so in PDE, or soever. Sure, the history is engaging; but you miss the mark in applying it as you attempt here. I hope you will come to see that. The challenge remains: "show us details from a recent dictionary or a recent grammar that contradicts the article as it now stands", as I requested.
 * Finally, you ask me to read your last item. I have now done so, and am delighted to find the work of Keith Allen cited, since I know him. I haven't seen him for a while. We used to call him "the barefoot linguist", though he probably does not go discalceate in the frosty southern weather we now endure. That modern citation supports your case not at all, I fear. It does not contradict the article as it stands, though of course its analysis is far more fine-grained than we can hope to be. It discusses forms with swā, as historical background. No more than that.
 * Anon, I'm sure we respect your passion to get this right, and your diligent quest for the details of Anglo-Saxon syntax. But passion must not interfere with balance, nor with clear presentation of what is important to readers of our articles. I am interested in making a note on swā and its historical role in the development of English relatives; but that must supplement, not supplant, what we deliver now to readers who consult the article for English as it is now constructed.
 * And I thank you, for being constructive! Why not sign up with a username, and get more involved?
 * N oetica Tea? 07:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If the relative clause do govern who, why has not it done so from the beginning ? and if so be not a relative, why could it be replaced with the relative that ? and if the relative that could replace so, cannot whoever be understood as a contraction of who that ever ? and therefore must not the relative clause be unable to govern who, as it already governs the relative that ? -- 121.72.186.199 (talk) 08:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC).
 * You know, thinking about it, you may well be right, from a historical perspective. In German, "so wer" (literally "so who") is an alternative way of saying "so einer" ("such a one" = "someone like that"). If you combine that with the old German indeclinable relative pronoun "so", it would be "so wer, so" ("such a one who"), which is basically the same as the old English construction "swa hwa swa" ("anyone who" = "whosoever"). And in that German construction, "wer" would be inflected according to its function in the main clause, not its function in the relative clause. This might be good for a sentence or a footnote, but we would need a published source stating that the second "swa" really did function as a relative pronoun (as you say, this source mentioning that the second "swa" was often replaced with "that" or "ðe" would suggest it), and we would need a source linking this to the origin of the "Let who(m)sover casts ..." dichotomy. Is there evidence that the "hwa" was inflected according to the main clause in Old English?
 * At any rate, I feel grateful to you, because this has made me stop and think and feel less inclined to judge people who write "Let whomsover casts the first stone ...". :) Analysed in this way, it might actually be the logically correct form, while the form now considered correct would be a hyper-correction by speakers who had lost awareness of the underlying construction that had gone into forming "whoso". Fascinating stuff. But, as I say, we need sources commenting more directly on the construction, and the origins of speakers' uncertainty about the correct inflection. Is there anything out there? -- J N  466  16:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Heidi Quinn, in The Distribution of Pronoun Case Forms in English (takes ages to open on that site; a faster download of the pdf file is available here, with part 2 here), discusses the swa hwa swa construction on page 107 (of the pdf version, page 331 in Google Books):
 * She adds on page 108:
 * The example she quotes is, "The holy ghost gives it to whomever is pleasing to him." (Ðe holi gost ... hine dealeð to wam him beoð lofue.) So it does seem that the version considered incorrect by most style guides today has the longer tradition in the language. It might be worth looking into the sources she cites to see if there is anything further that we could use. (Allen (1980) is Cynthia Allen, Topics in Diachronic English Syntax.) -- J N  466  08:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The example she quotes is, "The holy ghost gives it to whomever is pleasing to him." (Ðe holi gost ... hine dealeð to wam him beoð lofue.) So it does seem that the version considered incorrect by most style guides today has the longer tradition in the language. It might be worth looking into the sources she cites to see if there is anything further that we could use. (Allen (1980) is Cynthia Allen, Topics in Diachronic English Syntax.) -- J N  466  08:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The example she quotes is, "The holy ghost gives it to whomever is pleasing to him." (Ðe holi gost ... hine dealeð to wam him beoð lofue.) So it does seem that the version considered incorrect by most style guides today has the longer tradition in the language. It might be worth looking into the sources she cites to see if there is anything further that we could use. (Allen (1980) is Cynthia Allen, Topics in Diachronic English Syntax.) -- J N  466  08:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I've added a sentence for historical perspective, and de-emphasised the "traditional", making it clear that the rules we give apply to Modern English, rather than reflecting age-old grammatical imperatives dating back to early Anglo-Saxon times. The deprecated "errors", which themselves have an unbroken tradition going back hundreds of years, are actually consistent with standard usage in earlier stages of English; they are clearly remnants, rather than modern aberrations. . Does that look okay? -- J N  466  10:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Good work. -- 121.72.186.199 (talk) 20:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC).

Sections "Historic grammatical development of who and whom" and "Demise of whom?"
These two sections are really a bit of a mess; they read as though two people had fought over the keyboard, and each got to insert a couple of sentences before the keyboard was snatched away from them again by their opponent. Besdies, they both seem to be about the "demise of whom". Any objection to collapsing them to one section, and streamlining or organising the content? -- J N  466  10:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No ; and it is false, that Whom do you think you are be a hypercorrection. -- 121.72.186.199 (talk) 20:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC).

"erroneous" use of who?
In the subsection "Indirect object with or without to" it is written, "How to use whom has been confused by the erroneous and colloquial use of who. When the preposition is dropped or does not immediately precede the pronoun, who is common."

The rest of the article is careful to avoid making prescriptivist judgments about common usage, so it seems out of place to call the replacement of whom with who "erroneous." This wording strongly suggests that colloquial usage is inferior to standard formal English. I suggest replacing "erroneous" with "inconsistent" or, better yet, deleting the first sentence and leaving the second. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.124.6 (talk) 06:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Subject whom
I notice as I go through the examples in this section that they seem very grammatically consistent with each other, and in particular the examples from Shakespeare and Defoe don't seem wrong at all. In each of those cases, whom is clearly identified with the non-subjective noun that immediately precedes it (looking up the full quote of "while I visit young Ferdinand...") and I don't understand why one should use him rather than he in such cases but not whom. Defoe in particular clearly uses 'him' in the exact place that the article claims is a subject. It is old-fashioned but not ungrammatical (try leaving whom out of the sentence entirely). The last sentence of the section appears to come to the opposite conclusion as the section began with, so I am left wondering if there is anything actually problematical at all or if it's just a lot of confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynn Ami (talk • contribs) 00:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Lynn, it is a little hard to see what the problem is for you. This might help: nothing in the article says that subject whom is "wrong". It is frowned upon by traditionalists and in style guides here and there; I would never use it myself, and most editors would "fix" it, putting who instead. But none of that makes it "wrong".
 * The grammatical role of the noun that precedes the pronoun is not relevant, in Shakespeare's Ferdinand case for example. It is good that you looked up the whole sentence. Here is the entire speech, from The Tempest:
 * "Prospero: Bravely the figure of this harpy hast thou Perform'd, my Ariel; a grace it had, devouring: Of my instruction hast thou nothing bated In what thou hadst to say: so, with good life And observation strange, my meaner ministers Their several kinds have done. My high charms work And these mine enemies are all knit up In their distractions; they now are in my power; And in these fits I leave them, while I visit Young Ferdinand, whom they suppose is drown'd, And his and mine loved darling."
 * Now, Prospero is an old and immensely erudite figure (representing the arcane learning of an earlier era). The speech is in blank verse, which modifies the language even more. It is full of oddities that we would not emulate, and that you will not find in the New York Times or on Wikipedia: "Bravely the figure of this harpy hast thou / Perform'd, my Ariel" [inversion, use of my with the name of the entity addressed]; "a grace it had, devouring" [inversion, abbreviated syntax with devouring]; "And his and mine loved darling" [an obscure or plainly ungrammatical construction deployed for the impression it will create, more than for conveying any clear message]. In this context we might expect a "hypercorrection" like whom instead of who. That's typical Shakespeare. Anyway, ask yourself:
 * What is the subject of the verb is? It must have a subject, and it cannot be Ferdinand, because that is the object of visit. It must be whom, right? Whom is not the object of suppose, though it looks that way superficially.
 * How would the sentence go if Prospero wanted to say that Ferdinand was in fact drowned? Surely not like this: "... while I visit young Ferdinand, whom is drown'd. ...". See? Of course it would be "who is drown'd".
 * How would the sentence go if Prospero had ordered the words differently? Surely not like this: "... while I visit young Ferdinand, whom is, they suppose, drown'd. ...". See? Of course it would be "who is, they suppose, drown'd".
 * The same sorts of things could be said about the Defoe quote, which we might re-order like this:
 * "... all but him who had been, they thought, dead"
 * Whom would be strange in that ordering; but it "incorrectly" creeps in when the pronoun is near the verb thought:
 * "... all but him whom they thought had been dead"
 * I hope that helps!
 * N oetica Tea? 04:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would translate it into my native language this way: "während ich den jungen Ferdinand besuche, von dem sie annehmen/man annimmt, dass er ertrunken ist. (oder "ertränkt wird") 109.42.177.44 (talk) 02:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Whom do you think you are
If you were me, you'd know that "whom do you think you are" is grammatically correct (but obsolete). But you're not me, and you don't think you're me, so you're not aware of that.

It wasn't me that wrote the article. But if it had been me, I would have said that "whom do you think you are" is correct (but obsolete). Whoever added the part of the article that said that "whom do you think you are" was wrong, should retract that statement. That's what I'd do, if I was him.

In case you didn't notice, I used the same grammar rule in all but one of the sentences above, that shows why "whom" is acceptable in this case. Carl Kenner (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If I were him. ;) I think it's a subject complement, so should take the subjective (similar to "It is I."). The use of subjective pronouns in subject complements is a controversial bit of grammar, though, so I wouldn't call "whom" in that sentence "hypercorrect" but it is perhaps a little inconsistent in applying one pedantic and rarely used grammar rule but not applying another. --Tango (talk) 20:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Whom" is wrong here, compare: "We don't know who you are", not "whom you are". -- megA (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Who after prepositions and who in writing
Two little questions which are not just for my information, but should be clarified in the text as well. (I think the article has much information, but it seems to have been edited by various people and might need some reorganisation.)

I'm not a native English-speaker. In school I was taught that using "who" instead of "whom" was acceptable except after a preposition. For example, if someone said: I'm having dinner at the XYZ restaurant tonight, one would have to ask: With whom? -- Now this article says that "whom" is avoided in any context, but there are also some hints that it's less avoided after prepositions. How's the situation in this regard?

Secondly: It's evident that "whom" is not much used in normal speech, but how is the situation in the written language? Will one find "who" as an object in a reputable newspaper such as The Times or Daily Telegraph? Because I thought "whom" was still used consistently in "good" writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.215.16 (talk) 23:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Using "whom" in a humorous context?
Should we explain that, in the many dialects in which "whom" is dated and considered unnatural or overly formal, it can be used for humorous effect for exactly that reason? Personally, I only ever use "whom" to talk about the word itself or in fixed phrases; by far most of my speech community also does this.

We could potentially cite the internet meme "whomst" and "whomst'd've" as examples. --Daviddwd (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Usage Note is gibberish
"Who also forms in relative clause, for a specify information about a person or animal, if replaced by he or she" — any idea what the writer was trying to say? That "who" is used to introduce a relative clause that adds information, etc.? Pluvianus (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

What is your order number
What is your order number 2001:5B0:2863:CC98:A0F1:B623:FE42:5DA (talk) 01:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)