By who? For who?

Guest   Thu Jan 17, 2008 6:46 pm GMT
Whom is a nice word, why does it have so many detractors?
guest   Thu Jan 17, 2008 7:08 pm GMT
<<Whom is a nice word, why does it have so many detractors?>>

I think so too, I would like it to stick around.
However, I imagine that it sounds too much like 'who' (lit. 'who' + m), and this is why it is falling by the wayside.

Were it differentiated more in its pronunciation, say for instance, like /hVm/ ("hum"), it might have a better chance at survival (cf. 'he' /hi/ vs. 'him' /hIm/, where if 'him' were pronounced as /him/, "heem", [i.e. 'he'+ m] it too might be suffering the same fate as 'whom').

It's just easier to say 'who' than 'whom', and there's no ambiguity doing so. Classic case.
furrykef   Thu Jan 17, 2008 7:42 pm GMT
<< These sentences should be "who with?" and "who for? your boyfriend?" and "Oh yeah? Who by?" >>

Umm, no, "with who?" and so on are definitely common and accepted, at least in the United States.

Are you the same DJ who got banned a while ago?

<< Whom is a nice word, why does it have so many detractors? >>

It's not that it has detractors, it's that its use sounds unnatural, at least in speech and in informal writing. Unnatural speech is bad speech. But whether or not it sounds natural is something that cannot be controlled.

- Kef
Johnny   Thu Jan 17, 2008 10:05 pm GMT
I see. Thank you.
DJ   Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:15 am GMT
Well, it seems some of the "native speakers" here have gone through the US education system - they couldn't place Britain on the map, and their English is atrocious. Welcome to US, er, "culture"?
Guest   Fri Jan 18, 2008 4:16 pm GMT
<<Well, it seems some of the "native speakers" here have gone through the US education system - they couldn't place Britain on the map, and their English is atrocious. Welcome to US, er, "culture"? >>

Yeah, it's a darn shame that we do not have your manners DJ. What an ambASSador you are.
furrykef   Fri Jan 18, 2008 9:40 pm GMT
<< Well, it seems some of the "native speakers" here have gone through the US education system - they couldn't place Britain on the map, and their English is atrocious. Welcome to US, er, "culture"? >>

Boy, you must be the same DJ. Either that or you're just as bigoted.

- Kef
Guest   Fri Jan 18, 2008 9:52 pm GMT
Do people in Great Britain use whom more frequently?
Guest   Sat Jan 19, 2008 2:04 am GMT
Why did yo ban DJ? He seems a nice guy who says the truth.
some guy   Sat Jan 19, 2008 4:17 am GMT
I love the word whom as well, and have been making an effort to use it, even in everyday colloquial speech. Hell, I`m ready to start using "thou", "thee", "thy", "thine", and "ye"...they RULE!! If you Brits are ready to start using them, I`m on board. After all, the British have the gold key to the crapper when it comes to the English language. Just ask them.
DX   Sat Jan 19, 2008 2:55 pm GMT
To whom, by whom etc: this is correct, but seen as a bit "too correct" for casual use.
Who by, who to: this is also correct usage.

By who, to who: this is just wrong...
furrykef   Sat Jan 19, 2008 11:53 pm GMT
"this is just wrong..."

On what grounds?
John   Sun Jan 20, 2008 4:13 am GMT
I don't understand what all the fuss regarding who and whom is about. The rule is simple and applies everywhere in the world. If you can replace the word (or answer the question) with "he or she" then it's "who", if "him or her" sound more correct then "whom" should be used.
some guy   Sun Jan 20, 2008 4:18 am GMT
On these grounds, more or less:

You`d never use a sentence which which says "by he/she", but you WOULD say "by him/her".

You`d never use a sentence which which says "to he/she", but you WOULD say "to him/her".

If a sentence uses "him" or "her", it can also use "whom".

If a setence uses "he" or "she", it can also use "who".

I`m sure there`s someone on here *cough*>Travis<*cough* WHO can explain it better than I just did.
DX   Sun Jan 20, 2008 6:38 am GMT
I doubt it. Travis and Furry Kev are both dumber-downers. As long as there are some native speakers who mangle a great language, they will argue that "descriptively" such errors must be "correct". They are of no help to people trying to learn good English.