General Forum
Start a New Topic 
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
Re: Who and whom

Gervais
I always use 'whom' when it is governed by a preposition, as in your sentence.

I always use 'who/whom' when referring to people, not 'that' (just as we don't refer to a person as an 'it' unless showing utter contempt for the person.)


That's up to you, but nominative "who" is fine and perfectly grammatical in this case. "Whom" is widely considered to be very stuffy in this day and age, despite what the prescriptivists may say.

To imply that "that" is unsuitable for human heads is quite misleading. Examples like "He's the guy that I spoke to this morning" and "The boy that they found hiding in the cupboard was the culprit" are impeccable.

It is not helpful to confuse or mislead questioners with such shibboleths.

PaulM

Re: Who and whom

Mr.Matthews:
I am aware that you take a "descriptive" approach to the English language; but are you suggesting that what you call the "prescriptive" approach has no place in this forum? I am led to that inference, since I find your statement - nay, admonishment - that "It is not helpful to confuse or mislead questioners with such shibboleths" to be presumptuously imperious. One could be forgiven for even inferring from your tone of writing that you regard this forum as your domain!

I will continue to provide the 'correct' 'Queen's English' grammatical perspective, if for no other reason than to show non-native speakers how other - dare I say 'educated'; dare I say 'good' writers may express themselves.

Re: Who and whom

Gervais
Mr.Matthews:
I am aware that you take a "descriptive" approach to the English language.

PM: Yes, I do generally take a descriptive approach to grammar, as do most grammarians, linguists and language enthusiasts. Personally, I am very conservative when it comes to changes in our language, and I do take care to point out wherever appropriate that whilst some things are widely accepted today, the traditional approach is not necessarily wrong. If you look at my reply to the OP concerning "whom vs "who", you'll see that I didn't say that "whom" was wrong or that I always use "who", but merely pointed out that "whom" is considered very formal nowadays (a fact) and that "who" is perfectly acceptable in Present-day English, which it is. By saying, as you did, I always use 'whom' when it is governed by a preposition, you run the risk of giving the impression that "whom" is somehow more acceptable, or the correct choice, which is simply not true. You gave your personal preference, not the full picture.

Gervais
but are you suggesting that what you call the "prescriptive" approach has no place in this forum?

PM: I've little time for pointless prescriptivism, but I'm quite happy to accept the 'rules' of traditional grammar where they still reasonably apply. With "who" vs "whom", things have changed over the years in the way people actually use these words (i.e. descriptive) and this has to be taken into account alongside the traditional analysis. I believe it is helpful to point out the traditional 'rule' as well as well as how people actually use the language in the real world today, as I did in my reply to the OP. But to imply, as you did, that "whom" is correct in the OP's example because that's what you always use, and that using "that" in relative clauses with personal antecedents is unacceptable, cannot be a reasonable reply. The latter is not even a genuine prescriptive rule; it is widely used by most everyone and has been for centuries, and is essentially a free choice.


Gervais
I am led to that inference, since I find your statement - nay, admonishment - that "It is not helpful to confuse or mislead questioners with such shibboleths" to be presumptuously imperious. One could be forgiven for even inferring from your tone of writing that you regard this forum as your domain!

PM: If you give questioners the impression that using "that" in relative clauses is unacceptable by saying: just as we don't refer to a person as an 'it' unless showing utter contempt for the person, then yes, I will point out the error of that statement. The implication of what you said is highly misleading, indeed wrong, since that relative clauses with personal antecedents are perfectly acceptable, and always have been; consider:

The man that hath no music in himself ... ― William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, 1596.

The Man That Time Forgot ― By Alan Mechem and Paul Mitchell, 2013

Gervais
I will continue to provide the 'correct' 'Queen's English' grammatical perspective, if for no other reason than to show non-native speakers how other - dare I say 'educated'; dare I say 'good' writers may express themselves.

PM: The choice between "who" and "whom", has nothing to do with "Queen's English" or being "educated". As I said above, "who" is widely accepted nowadays subject to the usual restrictions, and that- relatives with personal antecedents are perfectly acceptable. In the case of wh- vs that relatives, it is largely a free choice, even if we do have our personal preferences. To risk giving the impression that the latter is like "it" and thus somehow shows "utter contempt" for the person is quite unjustified.

You didn't address the OP's question concerning "who" vs "whom" in an unbiased way, and you then proceeded to make a quite unjustifiable assertion about that relatives, an alternative that I suggested to the OP. If you bothered to do just the tiniest amount of research, you'd find that you are wrong in what you say on both issues.

It is essential when addressing learners' concerns not to give only one's personal choice; it can be misleading and hence is bad teaching practice. It is much better to give an impersonal response, where necessary contrasting the "traditional" approach with that actually found in the Modern-day language (again, see my answer to the OP).


PaulM

Re: Who and whom

walks
My sentence is: I'm happier with a small amout of friends whom I feel like I can be myself around, .than with a big group of people I don't really know that well
Should it be "who I feel like "


Both work the only problem i see is at the end "than with a big group of people I don't really know that well." not sure but I think you forgot a word pehaps. Rather than with
a big group of people i don't know.
I could be Wrong