Another Correct “Whom”

A lightweight post today (after all, I mention this feature of English grammar rather often). Actually it’s whomever. But it’s correct!

You could even say the “whomever” is correct for two reasons:

1. The noun clause “whomever she wants” is the direct object of the main verb, “can date.”
2. “Whomever” itself is the direct object of the noun clause’s verb, “wants.”

The second reason is the real reason, by the way.

Why is the second reason the real one? The rule is this: you go from the inside out. Rule 2 describes what’s going on inside the clause, which is inside the sentence. 

Here’s a sentence with similar construction that uses “who” to begin a noun clause that’s a direct object, and it’s correct:

Detailed new risk maps show who should really flee a threatening storm.

Scientific American Oct 2018, page 1

“Who” is the subject of the verb “should flee,” inside the noun clause. The noun clause is the direct object of “show.”

Subscribe to this blog's RSS feed

We don’t use “whence” and “whither” much any more. But when you do, be sure to get the words right!

Whence means from which, from where, or from when, depending on the context.

Whither is similar, but the implied preposition is “to.”

I enjoy Michael Shermer’s column in Scientific American (in this case, the July 2018 issue, page 73). His material is interesting and thought-provoking. But hah! I caught him in a solecism! Here’s the quote:

That is the compatibilist position from whence volition and culpability emerge. 

“Whence” already means “from where,” So he doesn’t need the “from.” I’d say that considering the rest of the vocabulary in that sentence, maybe he’s being careless; “whence” without the “from” would certainly fit.

This post isn’t exactly a lesson, but it is about writing. After you read the post, I invite your comments. 

Here’s a passage I ran across:

Plants need three things to grow: air, water, and nutrients. Farmers usually take care of the last bit by fertilizing their fields.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/corn-variety-grabs-fertilizer-from-the-air/

The first sentence mentions three “things.” But the last thing in that list is a plural! That means more than three, right? Maybe the writer should have said “three categories.” But are air and water mere categories? ehh… “Nutrition” is a singular, but it’s not quite parallel with the rest of the list. Maybe ignore the subtle incongruity and leave the plural in there? After all, in the next sentence, the writer referred to nutrients as a “bit.” Maybe re-write the sentence: Plants need air, water, and nutrients to grow. That eliminates the incongruity, but the sentence isn’t as dynamic; makes for a weaker beginning for the article.

So. Hmm. Uh, well, er, what do you think?

Do you know when to use “in” and when to use “within”?

The difference can be subtle. I’ll give you the answer right away:

Use “in” if you are writing about a container.
Use “within” if you’re writing about a limit.

I should point out that “within” is more formal than “in,” too, and I generally advocate plain writing.

The limit can be any boundary, not necessarily physical. For example you might say “Get your room clean within the hour!”

The container doesn’t have to be physical, either. Here’s a quote from page 72 in an interesting book I’m reading, Listening In, by Susan Landau. (I’ll set aside mentioning that “located in” is redundant. “Located” isn’t necessary.):

Zero-day vulnerabilities are most prized when they work against widely deployed systems─and Stuxnet’s were all located in the Windows operating system, which made these particularly valuable.

As they deconstructed it, they began publishing their findings in blog posts.

Okay, here’s a comic with “in.” Try reading this and the sentences above with “within” and you’ll see why “within” doesn’t quite work.

Here’s an example of using “within” when “in” is better. Say it both ways:

These include the Schrödinger Basin, a relatively youthful crater within the larger South Pole–Aitken Basin, which is thought to be the moon’s oldest impact crater.

So here’s the rule: if you can use “in,” do so. Use “within” only when “in” sounds wrong. Most of the time “in” sounds right.

When you create a compound structure in a sentence (such as a compound predicate, which we have here), you need to be careful. Both parts of the compound (both sides of the conjunction) should have the same structure. Look at the second panel in this Buckles:

He says the hair provides protection as well as holding the heat in. “Provides” is not the same verb form as “Holding,” so the two parts of the sentence aren’t parallel. Bad. Restate the sentence with “and” instead of “as well as” and the non-parallelness is easier to see. The hair provides protection and holding in the heat? Nah. It should be “provides protection as well as holds in the heat.”

You have a way around this, by the way, if you don’t like that way of saying it. Replace “as well as” with “while.” “While” turns the second phrase into an adverb, which modifies the verb without trying to be parallel to it. “Provides protection while holding in the heat.” That works!

PS—This error is not uncommon, by the way. I just ran into it in a Scientific American article:

Scientists think that its unusually low density causes impacts to indent the surface rather than excavating it.

Should be “excavate.”