Talk:Who (pronoun)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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:

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.

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" – 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).

[edit] '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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.
–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 05:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] 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)