How to use 'who' and 'whom'

Imran   Sunday, May 04, 2003, 06:26 GMT
I've read in English dictionaries and grammar books that 'whom' is gradually
disappearing from usual spoken language and 'who' is used in place of it and
often even 'who' is deleted.For example,

1.This is the man who I saw in the market.
2.This is the man I saw in the market.

Besides, same is the case with 'WILL' and SHALL'.Shall is raely seen . would it sound awkward if I made a sentence like this.

I shall visit Oxford University the day after tomorrow.

Be sure to tell me my other mistakes in this text.
MunchkinLad   Sunday, May 04, 2003, 17:35 GMT
I think relative pronouns ('who', 'that') can often be dropped eg. 'Here's the dog I saw' instead of 'Here's the dog that I saw'.
Imran.   Sunday, May 04, 2003, 19:42 GMT
Dear MunchkinLand
Thanks a lot for your answer! What about 'Will' and 'Shall'.I hope you will clarify it as well.
KT   Monday, May 05, 2003, 02:21 GMT
Here is the usage note from (under the entry "shall"), which I think explains "will" and "shall" pretty well:

The traditional rules for using shall and will prescribe a highly complicated pattern of use in which the meanings of the forms change according to the person of the subject. In the first person, shall is used to indicate simple futurity: I shall (not will) have to buy another ticket. In the second and third persons, the same sense of futurity is expressed by will: The comet will (not shall) return in 87 years. You will (not shall) probably encounter some heavy seas when you round the point. The use of will in the first person and of shall in the second and third may express determination, promise, obligation, or permission, depending on the context. Thus I will leave tomorrow indicates that the speaker is determined to leave; You and she shall leave tomorrow is likely to be interpreted as a command. The sentence You shall have your money expresses a promise (“I will see that you get your money”), whereas You will have your money makes a simple prediction. ·Such, at least, are the traditional rules. The English and some traditionalists about usage are probably the only people who follow these rules, and then not with perfect consistency. In America, people who try to adhere to them run the risk of sounding pretentious or haughty. Americans normally use will to express most of the senses reserved for shall in English usage. Americans use shall chiefly in first person invitations and questions that request an opinion or agreement, such as Shall we go? and in certain fixed expressions, such as We shall overcome. In formal style, Americans use shall to express an explicit obligation, as in Applicants shall provide a proof of residence, though this sense is also expressed by must or should. In speech the distinction that the English signal by the choice of shall or will may be rendered by stressing the auxiliary, as in I will leave tomorrow (“I intend to leave”); by choosing another auxiliary, such as must or have to; or by using an adverb such as certainly. ·In addition to its sense of obligation, shall also can convey high moral seriousness that derives in part from its extensive use in the King James Bible, as in “Righteousness shall go before him and shall set us in the way of his steps” (Ps 85:13) and “He that shall humble himself shall be exalted” (Mt 23:12). The prophetic overtones that shall bears with it have no doubt led to its use in some of the loftiest rhetoric in English. This may be why Lincoln chose to use it instead of will in the Gettysburg Address:“government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.”

Hope this helps
KT   Monday, May 05, 2003, 02:30 GMT

You may also want to know about "should" and "would" too.

Also from (also under the entry "should"):

Like the rules governing the use of shall and will on which they are based, the traditional rules governing the use of should and would are largely ignored in modern American practice. Either should or would can now be used in the first person to express conditional futurity: If I had known that, I would (or somewhat more formally, should) have answered differently. But in the second and third persons only would is used: If he had known that, he would (not should) have answered differently. Would cannot always be substituted for should, however. Should is used in all three persons in a conditional clause: if I (or you or he) should decide to go. Should is also used in all three persons to express duty or obligation (the equivalent of ought to): I (or you or he) should go. On the other hand, would is used to express volition or promise: I agreed that I would do it. Either would or should is possible as an auxiliary with like, be inclined, be glad, prefer, and related verbs: I would (or should) like to call your attention to an oversight. Here would was acceptable on all levels to a large majority of the Usage Panel in an earlier survey and is more common in American usage than should. ·Should have is sometimes incorrectly written should of by writers who have mistaken the source of the spoken contraction should've.
Antonio   Monday, May 05, 2003, 12:00 GMT
I use ´shall´ quite a lot.
Both ´that´ and ´who(m)´may be dropped in normal language.

I saw a man -> I saw HIM -> This is the man whom I saw. / This is the man I saw. / This is the man that I saw. / This is the man who I saw.
KT   Monday, May 05, 2003, 12:45 GMT
I don't use "shall" at all.
I would use "should" if describing duty.

Not many people use "whom" anymore.
"Who did you have lunch with?" instead of "Whom did you have lunch with?"

It used to bother me when people said that. Now I'm just as corrupted.
Antonio   Monday, May 05, 2003, 13:03 GMT

In that case you must say ´With whom did you have lunch?´

´whom´ has the same concord as ´which´
Tom   Monday, May 05, 2003, 14:34 GMT
"Whom" is used after a preposition:

For Whom The Bell Tolls
I don't know to whom he sent the letter. (more popular structure: I don't know who he sent the letter to.)
Imran   Monday, May 05, 2003, 19:42 GMT
Thanks to all those who have given explanation.
Jim   Tuesday, May 06, 2003, 00:59 GMT
Well, KT just about summed "would", "should", "shall" and "will" up. I'd add that in Australia most people follow the same usage as says the Americans use. I can't speak for the British and Irish but I'm guessing that in casual speech there would be a trend to the (so-called) American style.

What hasn't been mentioned is the use of "shall" in offers and suggestions. For example "Shall we dance?", "Shall I open the window?" & "Shall we go to the beach?" This is still a little popular.

The words "shall" and "whom" are still often found in standard phrases like "To Whom It May Concern," (used when you don't know the name(s) of the person/people you're writing to) & "Thou shalt not kill." (one of the ten commandments).

The distinction between "who" and "whom" I don't think has been fully explained. Strictly speaking, you should use "who" if it's the subject of the sentence/question and "whom" if it's an object. However, more and more often "who" is being used for both jobs except, as Tom points out, after a prepositon (when it's an indirect object).

I don't find the use of "shall" at all awkward. "I shall visit Oxford University the day after tomorrow." sounds fine to me. I used to use "shall" and "shan't" all the time but I've got more and more lazy in my old age. I still use it in offers and suggestions, though. I'm too lazy to worry about using "whom" either unless I think about it or it's after a preposition.

... and, well, you asked for it so I'll nit-pick your mistakes.

"... 'who' is deleted.For example,"
"... 'WILL' and SHALL'.Shall is raely seen . would it ..."

These look like typos but it should have been

"... 'who' is deleted. For example,"
"... 'WILL' and 'SHALL'. 'Shall' is rarely seen. Would it ..."

.. or even better

"... 'will' and 'shall'. 'Shall' is rarely seen. Would it ..."

There's no need for the capitalisation. In you opening sentence there are a bit too many "and"s

"I've read in English dictionaries and grammar books that 'whom' is gradually
disappearing from usual spoken language and 'who' is used in place of it and
often even 'who' is deleted."

Perhaps this would have read better

"I've read in English dictionaries and grammar books that 'whom' is gradually
disappearing from usual spoken language with 'who' being used in it's place. Often even 'who' is deleted."

... and finally you wrote

"Be sure to tell me my other mistakes in this text."

What did you mean by "other"? Perhaps this would have been better

"Be sure to tell me if there are any mistakes in this text."

... or maybe even

"Please tell me if there are any mistakes in what I've written."

Well, as I said, you asked for it, so if I seem picky I'm only trying to do you a favour.
Imran   Friday, May 09, 2003, 17:09 GMT
Dear Jim
Thanks a lot ! Everything is clear to me because of your explanation in such a detail.I am really sorry for I stayed offline for three days. I have just read your message.In fact,my typing speed is not good enough that causes
me to make mistakes.Please, never think you nit pick my mistakes.That's what I need and above all I am extremely pleased if people like you whose
first language is English point out my mistakes.I teach English at a school with the enthusiasm to pass on authentic knowledge to my pupils.
Hope you will go on helping me.