Another Who-Whom Lesson

Maybe it’s a subordinate clause lesson, because that’s the key here.

From the June 2021 Scientific American, page 62:

Last line. Shouldn’t that be “to whomever…”? After all, “to” is a preposition, so we should use the objective case, right? Nope.

Here’s the rule:

• Go from the inside to the outside.

What’s inside the prepositional phrase? A noun clause! And “who” (well, “whoever”) is the subject of “needed,” so it gets the nominative case!

So there you have it. Sometimes you can say “to who.”

Subscribe to this blog's RSS feed

Short post, and a good example of a grammatical subtlety, both correct and incorrect. From The Washington Post, no less.

The 2020 election will come down to two important questions: Who actually votes, and who do they vote for? 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/politics/voter-turnout-270-trump-biden/

The second “who” is incorrect. People commonly use “who” when it’s the first word in a context, even when it should be “whom,” as here. That “who” is the object of the preposition “for.” Put the clause into indicative word order instead of interrogative, and you get “they vote for whom.” Easier to see now, isn’t it? A related trick: replace the “who-whom” with “him.” Now it’s even easier to see.

Even the big guys get it wrong occasionally. Maybe they didn’t want to sound like curmudgeons.

Maybe I should say it’s a subtle difference (nah). The rule as mentioned in the comic is correct.

Use the relative pronoun “who” for people, and “that” for everything else.

Harrumpf.

—but not much else. Remember, when it’s the object of a preposition (in this case “with”) we use “whom,” not “who.”

Nice little reminder, though.

Based on the aside at the beginning of the comic, he might be trying to be humble…

You see the mistake in the sign on his door, right?