I am a member of some grammar groups on LinkedIn, where there are some fascinating — and long — discussions of what some people would call grammatical minutiae. However, this week, I saw a discussion that I found a little surprising. The question posed was “Should we continue to teach who and whom to our students?” Obviously, this meant should we continue to teach the difference between them and when to use each.
In last week’s post I talked about the difference between linguistic and grammatical prescriptivism and descriptivism.
- Prescriptivists (the camp that I lean toward) think that the rules are there and they should be followed.
- Descriptivists believe that language evolves as new usages come into play.
Well, if we followed a purely prescriptivist viewpoint, we would still be using the language of centuries ago — thank you, Chaucer.
But what would happen if we followed a purely descriptivist viewpoint? How does language change, anyway?
Let’s look at an example: I have always used the idiomatic prepositional phrase by accident. The younger generation seems to be using on accident instead. Is it wrong? Which is right? Should we adopt what the younger generation is now using? Is there a reason that by should be used rather than on? Why did anyone start saying it that way in the first place? Is it because we say its opposite as on purpose?
I don’t know the answer to any of those questions. And to me, something like who and whom is a little different, anyway. People use who and whom — or should I say, people tend to avoid using whom at all — incorrectly because they don’t know or understand the rule. Should we say, “Oh, let’s just forget trying. It’s just too difficult to teach or understand”? Should we dumb down the language?
Taking who and whom specifically — since I have heard more than once that people would like to do away with the distinction — there is a reason that who is correct sometimes and whom is correct other times. And most people studying a foreign language will run across the same thing in that language. Who and whom are different pronoun cases. Latin has five cases. German, I think, has seven or eight. English has three….and we can’t even figure that out?
The distinction between who and whom is the same as the distinction between I and me. So, are we now going to say that “Me and him went to the movies” is okay too? Many people say it that way, so will that become the standard now too?
Then, there is the issue of conversation versus formal writing. Let’s say you are writing a cover letter, or maybe a college entrance essay. Are you going to distinguish between who and whom? All the grammar books I know of make that distinction, at least as of now. I would recommend that anyone writing anything formal use the rules until they are “formally” changed.
The evolution of language is nothing new. And I won’t pretend to know much about it. I am not a linguist, although I wish I were, and I find the subject fascinating. I do know that there needs to be a mix of descriptivism and prescriptivism, as there always has been; otherwise, the language would never have changed throughout the centuries. But where do we draw the line?
But who and whom? That’s where I draw the line!
By the way, here is the difference between who and whom:
There are three cases for pronouns in the English language: Nominative, Objective, and Possessive.
- The nominative case is used for subjects of sentences (and predicate nominatives, but we won’t go there today).
- The objective case is used for direct objects, indirect objects, and objects of prepositions, the three types of objects.
- The possessive case is used for ownership.
Let’s take the pronoun I: nominative is I; objective is me; possessive is my or mine.
- I am going to the movies.
- He took me to the movies.
- He is mine.
Now let’s take the pronoun who: nominative is who; objective is whom; possessive is whose.
- Who is going to the movies? (Who is the subject of the verb is going.)
- Whom did you invite to the movies? (Whom is the direct object of the verb invite.)
- To whom did you give the movie tickets? (Whom is the object of the preposition to.)
- Whose tickets are they, anyway?
One thing is for sure. I will be teaching my students the difference between who and whom!
Yikes! School starts really soon! Where did the summer go? Do you know
anyone who might need a really friendly and easy-to-use grammar book?
here is the thing; the cases in latin; german, russian and the like are systemic; they effect all nouns; a system is easier to do consistently then a few odd things; English has already lost cases in regular nouns; and has switched to word order as a method of conveying grammar; the pronouns merely (in some cases) retain useless vestiges of old English declension. if you don’t believe me read and interpret this sentence “me saw that”; no native English speaker would think that sentence was meant to have a first person object and i used an unusual order of words; it probably sounds very wrong, it does to me; but the fact that I simply used the non-subject form as a subject is obvious right away; proving that the word order is what is actually being relied on. in a language with systemic cases such variation in word order is possible and somewhat normal. “whom” does not compute to modern english because it is not part of a system; it is a weird thing only one word has.
I cringe every time I hear both of my supervisors, director and assistant sped director in education, consistently say, “Let her or I know …” It sounds really dumb. How did they get their titles if they don’t know how to speak grammatically correct? They also use who and whom incorrectly.
I know….and they are making ten times what we are….dummies!
To know what’s appropriate to the register demanded by the circumstances is a mandate, I believe; to always speak in the highest register may destroy the completeness of the communication. A discussion back on the block (barrio, neighborhood), a social exchange at a Frat party, rhetorical exchange in a PhD seminar, and a dialogue at the US Embassy in Paris may require leaps among the registers.
I must respectfully disagree. While slang and informal expressions may be used in conversation, I don’t think grammatical rules really change. While many people might break a rule and use a sentence fragment for effect — which is fine — what is the point of using who instead of whom if whom is correct?
Why do we distinguish between “who” and “whom”? I know the difference and have since I was a child growing up in a language-conscious family. Only now, at age 72, have I begun to question why we should make this particular distinction. This does not seem to be a situation where the different grammatical uses accompany differences in understanding. My mother told me that the point of making such useless distinctions was to let the listener know whether the speaker was educated or not, a little like using the correct fork. But now I think such distinctions are completely useless because it seems that listeners no longer care whether speakers are educated; ideas are judged on their own merits. Just like using a dinner fork while eating salad; either works as well.
Any thoughts?
First, thank you for the comment. Second, yes, I sure do have thoughts. Many agree with me and many disagree because grammar is like that! We distinguish between who and whom for the same reason we distinguish between I and me and use subject/verb agreement, and the correct present participle form of a verb. We do it because it is the correct way to use our language. Besides being a form of communication, it is a language. Many things would still be understood if we did them incorrectly, but why would we? If you are learning a foreign language, you learn the grammar and you learn it correctly. You just don’t do it any old way as long as you are understood. Language is a beautiful thing in itself — in my opinion.
presumably that is why you decline nouns into all 5 of the cases that existed in old english; distinguish 3 genders of noun; decline adjectives either weekly or strongly to agree with the noun; and conjugate verbs for 3 moods, 3 persons (with plural forms matching for all 3) and 2 tenses all with a unique ending. oh wait you don’t do that; for example when you said “rule” in the third sentence I don’t see it declined into the accusative case. also you use the word “a” which is an indefininte article; those didn’t exist in old english. you certainly also use the pronoun “you” only to adress more then 1 person and strictly stick to “thou” when talking to only 1. I can come up with even more examples; but that should be enough to get my point across.
if languages did not change we would be able to understand this:
HWÆT. WE GARDE na in geardagum, þeodcyninga þrym gefrunon
(Using modern character set: “HWAET. WE GARDE na in geardagum, theodcyninga thrym gefrunon”
but it is in fact utter gibberish to all of us; and if you can understand it, you have learned old English as if it were a foreign language. word for word translation does not really remove those issues either; so grammar as well as vocabulary evolves. let me demonstrate with this quote from old english; translated both word for word and fully into modern english:
quote:- “Ūs is lēofre þæt wē hæbben healtne cyning þonne healt rīċe.”
using modern character set:- “Uus is leeofre thaet wee haebben healtne cyning thonne healt riiċe”
word for word translation:- “Us is dearer that we have crippled king than crippled kingdom.”
proper translation:- “We’d rather have a crippled king than a crippled kingdom.”
language is a dynamic constantly evolving thing; not a static thing with unchanging rules. “people must understand the truth about this”; as if it were false, I would have said “ċeorlfolc sceal understandaþ þā sōþ onbūtan þissum” (or to use modern character sets:- “ceorlfolc sceal understandath thaa sooth onbuutan thissumin”) in place of the previous sentence in quotation marks; they in fact mean the exact same thing though excuse me if I bungled some of the declensions in Old English.
though old english is itself the product of gramatical evolution from proto-west germanic; which is itself the product of that happening to proto-germanic; which is itself the result of it happening to proto-indo-european; whcih is no doubt the result of that happening to an earlier language lost to history; and it could go on to infinity; what makes you think that the english you learned in formal education is immune to the processes that effect every living language ever?
someday over a thousand years from now; this very post will to a speaker of some language that may or may not be called English be unintelligible without learning the language we the people of 2022 call “modern English” it as if it were a foreign language despite his own language descending from it.
there is in fact only one criteria for correct grammer that has any real existence in linguistic reality. the criteria is “what would most native speakers over the age of 5 or so say?”. that is the sole basis of correct grammar in any living language. the reason foreign learners of a language have to learn many complex grammer rules is because they do not have a native speaker’s gut instinct. the rules they learn should be based on a description of the patterns that can be observed from what native speakers say.
let me repeat that again for emphasis; a native speaker’s gut instinct is an infallible guide to the grammar of a language. they may not know the rules consciously; but most people tend to internalize the grammar of their own native language so thoroughly that conscious instruction does nothing but confuse them.
you do not have to tell a native speaker of English that “dog the cute” is an ungrammatical mess; they instantly know that by the time they are 5; similarly you would not have to explain how “the door I opened” is probably a reduced relative clause and not a sentence with scrambled word order to use object subject verb order, if you are a native English speaker the reduced relative clause interpretation is what you and other speakers would actually say, and the scrambled sentence is almost word salad.
in the end that is all there is to true correct grammar. I admit with vocabulary concerning content words there might be some complexities arising from technical terms; but in grammar and function words the native speaker’s practice determines what grammar is.
besides the fact that stopping language change is impossible; it is not desirable either; in my view the end result of speaking a language that doesn’t change is the end of original speech. if our language never changed; we would eventually be reduced to talking wholly in quotes; it might take centuries; but it would happen.
Sometimes I feel like Don Quixote, tilting at windmills. It’s good to know I am not alone! Sometimes it seems as if people who don’t really know or understand the correct usage of who and whom will toss in “whom” now and then just because they think it makes them sound erudite. You see the same sort of thing with the reflexive. I was at a wedding once where, when the preacher asked, “Who gives this woman to be married to this man?”, the father of the bride answered “Her mother and myself.” Again, a case of not being sure of usage so just tossing it out there hoping it makes us sound cultured and knowledgeable. Regarding prescriptivism vs. descriptivism, you need to address the usage of third person plural (they, them) as a gender-neutral alternative for third person singular (he/she, him/her). It’s a favorite peeve of mine, and I think I am losing this battle. Even reputable scholarly publishing houses are adopting this usage as their house style. More windmills at which to tilt!
Oh, Meredith, you are not alone! I am there with you, fighting the good fight!You are so correct about people throwing in “whom” and “myself” to sound smart. I can’t stand that incorrect use of “myself.” A definite peeve of mine. “Between you and I” is the same thing. Use I and you sound “erudite”! Apparently the Webster authorities have anointed the singular “they” as being fine to use. I don’t like it, I teach my students that it is OK, but please don’t use it!
A very interesting discussion. I am so set in my ways that I can’t stand to hear “slovenly” language and will always keep to what I was taught way back in the day. The same goes for other languages – people are becoming lazy and not being grammatically correct. In Hebrew, for instance, for those who do not talk correctly, they are labeled as speaking “Israeli”. I once heard an Israeli lecturer who was based in the University of Cambridge, U.K., saying that if people can understand each other with the way Hebrew is spoken today, then that’s o.k. I tend to disagree. It sounds ugly. Arlene – keep up the good work.
Thanks so much for your comments, Avril! I completely agree with everything you said! We must keep up the good fight!
Right now, I am working in Dexler Information Solutions as Language Expert. The other day, one of the managers said to the CEO, “I told to finish the project before the deadline.” The CEO called me from right across the floor, “Will you explain the difference between ‘said’ and ‘told’ to this person?” The difference between “said” and “told” is not clear in South Indian languages – Tamil, Kannada, Telugu, and Malayalam. It is clear in Hindi. Hence, mostly people from South India get confused between these two words. Naturally, the explanation had to do with “told” having two objects – the indirect occurring first, which is not the case with “said”. That leads one to direct and indirect speech; objects starting with infinitives; and, of course, the who–whom controversy. Usually, the who–whom controversy is easily sorted out, as we have what are called “case endings”. “Yaaru” would be “who” and “Yaarukku” would be “to whom”.
“Who” and “whom” in English is exactly the same; they are different case endings. Apparently most languages have cases. English has only three and we can’t get them straight. Latin has five and German, I believe, has eight. I haven’t thought much about the difference between “said” and “told,” but you are absolutely correct. Said never has an indirect object and told often does. But even when used without an indirect object, there is a distinction in English. We would say “I told a lie,” but probably wouldn’t say, “I said a lie.” But we would say, “I said something that wasn’t true.” Go figure!
There’s always a context in which a communication is set, either formal or informal. I’d always recommended to my students that they should choose ‘whom’ instead of ‘who’ to fill in the blank: in ‘_____ did you invite?’ and ‘to whom’ instead of ‘who… to’ in formal contexts, especially in response to grammar test items. In informal context however ‘who’ or ‘to whom’ is fine.
To me, that is confusing. Why not just do it “right” all the time? If you are going to teach the difference, then why tell students to use it sometimes and not other times. It isn’t that “who” has become acceptable as the use all the time in informal language. I say, do it right all the time if you are lucky enough to know what is correct!
A few years back, I met one of the top editors at Merriam-Webster, publisher of various dictionaries (and IMHO the best _American_ English dictionary). I’ve used Merriam-Webster collegiate dictionaries since grammar school days … and I purchased their (famous/infamous) Unabridged 3rd Edition many many years back.
The question of following changes in language was a hot topic among those of us gathered at her table … the Merriam-Webster method was to take note of new words and/or new usages of words as they appeared (but not necessarily incorporate them into any of their dictionaries). Once a reasonable number of _published_ occurrances of a new word/usage appeared in works by “competent” authors, then Merriam-Webster would give strong consideration to add the word to the dictionary.
The attitude reflected in the Merriam-Webster policies tends toward the “descriptive” camp … but the requirement that the word or usage be published (not merely spoken on TV) with the judgment that the author was “competent” actually leaves some bias toward perscriptive language use. In other words, Merriam-Webster takes seriously new words or usage — but doesn’t rush to anoint the word or use with their “approval” unless it seriously looks to become part of the evolution of our language. Some words might get into the dictionary, but be flagged with a “slang” or other label to indicate that it is not a correct word, but widespread use might get it listed.
I note that if you subscribe to a Merriam-Webster online edition (either Collegiate or Unabridged), you can sign up for a monthly newsletter that talks about new words/uses and words that have suddenly become popular (e.g. a word used in a Presidential speech can suddenly have thousands of lookups on the M-W websites).
It’s interesting to know what actually happens as new words are introduced into the language. Thanks, Pete. I kind of understand new words, but what do you think of actually changing the very basis of grammar, as in who and whom? I guess we would have to ask Mr. Strunk or Mr. White!
I, too, am a prescriptivist. My teeth grind every time I hear someone (who ought to know better) use I in the objective case. And I talk back to the TV when I hear otherwise very intelligent people using lie and lay incorrectly. And now the kids say No problem for You’re welcome. That’s as bad as On accident. I will never give up on some of these usages!
Nor will I, Sandy! Prescriptivists rule! You wouldn’t believe the number of teachers who say “between you and I.”
Re “between you and I” — English teachers, at that!
Sad, but true! Things sure have changed since I was in school with English teachers who taught us some grammar! Right?
Like Sandy, I also talk back to the TV, radio, and even to articles I read in the paper! I have less of a problem when someone (not just kids) says, “No problem” or “No worries.” These comments are positive, friendly, and not ungrammatical (albeit not complete sentences). But “between you and I”? NEVER! To my ears, the speaker sounds uneducated in general. However, the fact likely is the person specifically hasn’t learned the difference between nominative and objective cases. However, if I were reading his/her job application . . .
I’m with you and Sandy and many others! (“No problem” doesn’t really bother me — since I use it all the time!)
I am glad to know I am not the only person who talks back to radios and televisions. If you are speaking in any public forum, please uses the correct grammar. How uneducated one sounds when they are heard using the incorrect form. I lose all the context once I hear this from anyone. I also want to correct grammar in books and I know all about literary license but between “you and me,” I am a stickler for correct usage.
Thanks for the comment, and I agree with you 100 percent!
But of course — keep teaching the differences between who and whom.
Otherwise you’ll end up with people saying:
Whom is at the front door? or,
To who do I owe this honor?
And what a sorry world that would be! LindaJay
You are correct, Linda. The funny thing is I am reading a book highly recommended to me, and I noticed that there was a “whom” where there should have been a “who.” That is unusual. Usually, it is the other way around and people don’t use “whom.” An overcorrection, like always using “I,” even when it should be “me.”
There is so much nonsense in this descriptive versus prescriptive debate. Sophisticated adults can operate according to their own rules. Somehow what grown-ups can do gets conflated with what children should do…. I say they should have the good fortune to be taught Standard English, prescriptively. Later they can decide what to drop.
A very sensible idea, Bruce. I must admit that up until a month ago I didn’t even know about those two schools of thought by those names. I just knew I leaned toward being grammar hawk, rather than a dove. I like your solution.