A Dictionary of Cont..

who 556
to use that after a personal pronoun, as in he
rhur. we rhar. This is still acceutable English
but it now has a bookish tone. In speaking about
more than one person the form those who is
now preferred to they (or them) who.
The choice between who and which depends
on what seems to have personality and what
does not. We must use which and not who when
we are speaking about a type, function, or role,
and not about the actual person, as in if I were
his wife, which I thank goodness I am not and
he is exactly the man which such a school would
turn out. Which must also be used in speaking
about a group of people considered as a unit,
M in the family next door, which is large. If we
are thinking of the individual members of the
group we use a plural verb and the pronoun
who, as in the family next door, who stay up
till all hours. Very young children are often
spoken of as if they did not have personality.
We might say they had one child, which died
in infancy but we would certainly use who in
they had one child, who went away to college.
When the relative refers to both a person and
a thing, the rule is that we should use that. In
actual fact we consider only the word that
stands closest to the pronoun. We may say
unything or anyone who wasn’t familiar to him
and anyone or anything which had amused him.
Theoretically a relative pronoun has the same
person and number as its antecedent and these
determine the form of the verb when the relative
is the subject of the subordinate clause. But
this rule is not strictly observed. (For exceptions,
see agreement: verbs and one.)
INDEFINITE
At one time who could be used as the equivalent
of a personal pronoun and a relative
pronoun combined, such as he who or they
who, as in who was the Thune lives yet. This
is similar to the way in which we now use
what, meaning “that which.” The construction
is no longer natural English when who refers
to one or more specific individuals, as in the
quotation just given. It may be used when who
refers indefinitely to anyone or everyone, as in
who steuls my purse steals trash, but even here
the form is archaic and whoever is preferred.
See whoever.
WHOM
If English followed the rules of Latin
grammar we would use the form whom whenever
the word was the object of a verb or
preposition and the form who (or whose) in
all other situations. But this is not the way these
words are used in English. The interrogative
pronoun who is treated as an invariable form,
similar to whui and which. The relative pronoun
has the two forms who and whom, but
whom is used where the Latin rules would call
for who more often than it is where they would
call for whom.
Sentences such as whom are you looking for?
and whom do you mean? are unnatural English
and have been for at least five hundred years.
Eighteenth century grammarians claimed that
this form ought to be the one used, but Noah
Webster vigorously opposed this theory. He
wrote: “Whom did you speak to? was never
used in speaking, as I can find, and if so, is
hardly English at all.” He goes on to say that
this whom must be the invention of Latin
students who had not given much thought to
English, and concludes: “At any rate, whom
did you speak to? is a corruption and all the
grammars that can be found will not extend
the use of the phrase beyond the walls of a
college.”
The literary tradition was with Webster and
against the Latinists and this use of whom never
became standard English. Today the form who
is preferred when the word stands before a
verb, as in who did you see? The form whom
is required when the word follows a preposition,
as in to whom did you speak?, but this is an
unnatural interrogative word order. The form
whom may be used, but is not required, when
it follows the verb, as in you saw wkom? A
few people habitually observe the eighteenth
century rules of grammar, but this is likely to
be a disadvantage to them. To most of their
countrymen, the unnatural whom’s sound priggish
or pretentious.
In the case of the relative pronoun the situation
is different and the form whom is required
in certain constructions. Two of these however
are purely literary. (1) The indefinite who is
now archaic but if used, the Latin rules must
be strictly observed, as in whom the gods love
die young. (2) The form whom is required
after than, as in Beelzebub, than whom none
higher sat and Dumas the Elder, than whom
there never was u kinder heart. Theoretically
these sentences call for the subjective form who,
but this irregular use of whom is so well established
in our finest literature that all grammarians
accept it as the standard idiom.
The form whom is also used as the subject
of a verb when a parenthetical clause stands
between the relative pronoun and the verb, such
as they sny in the lines from Shakespeare,
Arthur, whom they say is killed tonight, and I
really think in the sentence by Keats, I have
met with women whom I really think would
like to be married to a poem. This construction
is used frequently in speech, as in we are jeeding
children whom we know are hungry. Many
grammarians claim that it is a mistake and that
who is required here. But this technically incorrect
form represents the principal use of
whom in natural English today. In sentences
such as these either who or whom is acceptable
to all except purists.
The form whom is required after a preposition,
as in the man to whom I spoke. This construction
can be avoided, as in the man I spoke
to, but it is used more often, and is more
acceptable, in a relative clause than it is in a
question. When the relative is the object of a
verb, that is generally preferred to whom, as