Bill Moore

Really Easy Grammar – No. 35: Whom Do You Think Who Is?



Posted: Tuesday, December 12, 2006

by

Misuse of who and whom is an error in grammar often committed by the very people who consider themselves most refined and grammatical. The correct use may surprise you. When to use who and when to use whom is probably one of the most confusing grammar problems around. Well, I’m about to give you the solution, or, at least, I can show you how to be right about 80% of the time, anyway.

To start with, who and whom are both types of pronouns normally used as a substitute for a noun. Where the confusion comes in is that there are different kinds of pronouns. They can be subjective , or they can be objective . (If your eyes are starting to glaze over, don’t stop reading. You don’t need to know the technical definitions to use the words right. I just need to use them to explain.) Anyway, who is a pronoun that’s used in place of the subject of a sentence. For example, “Who shows up first wins," is an example of using who correctly. Whom is a pronoun that’s used in place of the person that something is done to (or, as we were taught in school, the person who is the object of the action ). For example, in, “Whom did they give the prize to?" whom is used correctly because it’s the object of gave —or the person who got the prize.

Without all the grammar, think of who as being used in place of the person that . (It’s not real good grammar, but it’s easy to remember.) “ Who works hardest earns most," is the same as, “ The person that works hardest earns most." We’re talking about the subject of the sentence—the person who does the earning. Then think of whom as being used in the place of what person , so, “Jill gave the box to whom ?" is the same as, “Jill gave the box to what person ?" because this time we’re talking about the person who got the box.

Still not very clear? OK, so, how are you supposed know which one to use when? Well, there’s rules of grammar, and then there’s tricks of the trade. The rule is you use who as the subject of a statement, and you use whom as the object of an action. And, you always use whom with prepositions (words that show some kind of relationship such as to , for , from , about , of , and by ). And, you never use whom with a “being" verb like is and are.

Them’s the rules. Personally, I find the tricks easier to remember. There’s two: the sound trick and the substitution trick. If your sentence is a statement like the one I used before, “Who shows up first wins," you can usually use the sound trick. Just use who and whom both to see which one sounds right. "Whom shows up first wins," doesn’t sound right, and it isn’t. It’s the same with, “He’s the guy who calls the shots," or “He’s the guy whom calls the shots." Whom doesn’t sound right. And it’s not.

It’s not as easy, though, when you write a question. “Who did you call?" and “Whom did you call?" might both sound OK to different people. That’s where the substitution trick comes in. If you write a question and use whom , just turn the question into a statement and see what pronoun you can substitute for whom . “Whom did you call?" becomes, “You called whom." Now, which pronoun would you substitute in place of whom, her or she ? “You called she," isn’t good grammar, and it doesn’t sound right either, so you’d use her , which is correct. That makes, “Whom did you call," the correct usage.

How about, “Whom shall I say is calling?" As a statement, it becomes, “I shall say whom is calling." Then you do the substitution trick with he and him . You get either, “I shall say he is calling," or “I shall say him is calling." “Him is calling" isn’t good grammar (and it doesn’t sound right), so you use he. And, he is correct. It might seem like you should write, “Whom did you say was coming?"or, “Whom shall I say is calling?" because we’ve heard it used that way by people who are supposed to be sophisticated and educated. But, if you do the substitution trick, you discover that they’re wrong because you can’t use whom with a verb like is or are . So, even if you’re the butler to an English lord, you still better ask, “Who shall I say is calling?" if you want to be grammatical.

But, let’s get real, here. I’ve been talking about strictly correct, grammatical usage. What about when you’re being casual or colloquial? A whole different story. Whether you write, “Whom are you talking about?" or “About whom are you talking?" it sounds very formal. In everyday use, there’s nothing wrong with, “Who are you talking about?" If you do much reading, you find out that writers as far back as, and including, Shakespeare often switched these words. So, the way things are being written these days, and because it’s so difficult to keep the rules straight, I recommend this: Unless you’ve got a really good reason to use whom , you’re generally safer if you use who in most situations.

Bill Moore is the author of Write Rite Right. This compendium of homophones, homonyms, and frequently misapplied words is a necessary resource for anyone who write for others to read. (Available on backoftheroom.com, amazon.com and barnesandnoble.com)
Bill is a freelance trainer, researcher, and technical writer with over 30 years professional experience.To discuss writing projects, contact him personally at moore_words@comcast.net. You can also visit his Website, www.WriteRiteRight.com for more information on words and writing.

This Article has been viewed 3,185 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (5 total)
» left by Barbara Lee Coppola
 5 years 59 days ago.
The top of my head blew off about halfway through this article. Not that the author is wrong...we just don't relate to the correctness of Who and Whom, "who's calling" is correct enough for me. But A+ to the author for the lengthy nightmare...whom I hope has a great sense of humor.
» left by 5 years 59 days ago.
I didn't intend to cause actual cranial detonation, but I can understand the response when I saw that the article had been printed three times in a row. That's been rectified. We may actually relate more than you think. Amid all the excess verbage, my view that "who's calling" is correct got lost. I've never gotten such a high grade for a nightmare before. I'm flattered. Yes, I like to think that I've a great sense of humor (check out WriteRiteRight.com), and I applaud you for yours. Bill
» left by Duck
from Sauce 3 years 253 days ago.
DUCK SAUCE
» left by Lisa
from Bolulder, CO 3 years 168 days ago.
A thousand thanks. That helped a lot (I am an editor, often confused by who/whom). I love your Who = “the person that.” and Whom = “what person.” And you do say it only works 80% of the time. However, it works so perfectly with "Whom shall I say is calling?" As in, "What person shall I say is calling?" Not, "The person that I shall say is calling?" (And even if you switched it around to work--"Shall I say the person that is calling?" That is really a totally different question than, will you please tell me your name, which is what the first question is asking.) Why, in this case, do you choose the he/him rule above this other? This “what person” also works where she/her does in your example of, “Who did you call?" and “Whom did you call?" What person did you call" (same answer as your deduction through she/her). Point being, this last one matches, but the 1st one doesn't--what is the difference?
 
My 2 cents is that whom is right in the first example b/c somehow there is a difference between "whom shall I say is calling" and your end result of, "I shall say he is calling." Because to me, by the ear, I'd say, "I shall say whom is calling?" when it is a question and "I shall say who is calling" when it's a statement. Translated, "I shall say what person is calling?" "I shall say (announce) the person that is calling." Somehow--I don't know how--those two sentences are different. I guess because you need the "what" to make the question.
 
Really dragging this out, you wouldn't ask, "I shall say he (who) is calling?" Because, though it works gramatically, that is precludes the question--the question is who is he? By so doing, you are turning a question into a stament, which doesn't work. If I already knew the he, I wouldn't be asking. (I also understand you wouldn't say, "I shall say him [whom] is calling?") I just don't think the whole he/him thing works in this case--whereas "what person" works beautfully.
 
Ah, but to totally contradict this, it's obvious to say, "Who's calling please?" Though it also works to say, "What person is calling, please?" and it doesn't work so well to say, "The person that is calling, please?" (Though it does work as an imperative question.) So here the what/that doesn't make it.
 
Your thoughts?
» left by Anonymous 3 years 165 days ago.
Lisa,
Thank you for your kind words and extensive comment.
This will take me a bit of time to digest.
I'll respond more fully anon.
Bill
 
» left by Bill Moore from Royal Oak, MI 3 years 165 days ago.
My first thought is that, “Who/whom shall I say is calling?” is a poor example. Second thought is that I didn’t really explain it fully. Let’s start with an agreement. Who is a subjective pronoun. Whom is an objective pronoun. That never changes (in the same sense that parallel lines never meet). Common, declarative sentence construction is noun-verb-object. She-hit-the ball. In a question, the order is reversed. Ordinarily, we wouldn’t say, “You are eating what?” even though it’s grammatical and understandable. Just not how we usually do it. Same with, “You gave to whom the hat?”
 

So, I’m going to re-do the example using a similar, but different sentence. Let’s make it, “Who/whom should I say is here?” Same idea but not so cliché. The part I should have talked about is that the question, “Who/whom should I say is here?” is made up of two clauses, i.e., it has two verbs: should say and is here. Two verbs means two subjects. The subject of “should say” is “I.” The subject of “is here” is “who.” There are other ways to phrase the question. You could say, “Who is here, should I say?” or “Should I say who is here?” or “Who should I say is here?” The underlying questions is, “Should I give the name of the person that is here?” I know it’s caviling on the tenth part of a hair, and I’m sure there are those who would disagree, but the question isn’t about “what person.”  It’s about “the person that.”

 

Thanks again for making me rethink the whole question.

Bill

» left by Anonymous 3 years 16 days ago.
Whom do you think you are, anyway?
» left by Dr. More Gooder
from Oceanside, CA 2 years 332 days ago.
Yep, that's the way I work it out too, using the he/him substitution - but Bill, now we need to sit down and go over the naughty grammar in your article:
 
1. ".......there’s rules of grammar" - how about there ARE rules of grammar? But then again if it was a book called 'Rules of Grammar', then you might have meant THERE IS rules of grammar (in a singular context) - so forgiveness on that one.
 
2. "There's two....." - err, are you saying there IS the number two, or there ARE two (tricks)? Ok, so let's just learn that there are three kinds of people in the world, those who can count, and those who cannot. (wait for the penny to drop)
 
3. "Them's the rules" - total poetic colloquial license granted, fer sure! :)
 
Anyway, great explanations Bill - I propose a toast to more gooder English!
 
Cheers.
 
English Lord
» left by Bill Moore from The Rust Belt 2 years 332 days ago.
Thanks.
The Doctor is not only IN, but spot on.
The use of there's as a contraction for there are has been pointed out by more proofreaders than you can shake a Bic at. You know it's wrong. I know it's wrong. It's a hold-over from the language I spoke as a child. Oh, it was American English, but it sure'nuf wasn't standard. All I can say is what I tell my other doctor when he mentions that I'm not losing any weight, "I'm working on it."
Bill
 
 
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.