To whom it may concern:

Over the past 200 years written use of the pronoun whom has declined by half, and half again over the last 50. It makes sense. In the colloquial world of email and texting, thinking about the correct usage of whom can just slow writers down. The word can make sentences sound more formal, but if used incorrectly whom makes a speaker sound insincere when they’re trying to sound smart. So, why not delete whom from the dictionary entirely? Because for all its flaws, whom might still have something to say.

(What words might be removed from the dictionary? Find out here.)

Let’s start with the correct usage. Whom is a pronoun that refers to a person not present in the conversation. Technically, ‘whom’ is the objective-case pronoun of the subjective-case pronoun ‘who,’ where ’whom’ refers to the object of a sentence and ‘who’ refers to the subject. It’s the difference between the accusative form, ‘whom’ and the nominative form, ‘who.’

So, you’re at a party and you run into someone you think you recognize, you say “Hello, who are you again?” this is perfectly correct. If the person is right in front of you, they are ‘who’ because you are speaking with them directly. Whom comes into the conversation when you realize that the person you’re talking to didn’t come to the party alone. “Oh, I see you’re holding four hats there. With whom did you come?” or you might say, “Hey, you had to be invited to this party. Of whom are you a guest?” (You could say “whom are you the guest of?” but that would be ending the sentence with a preposition and that’s a whole different blog post).

In this way, whom can be about mystery. The person/people about whom you’re asking are far off, and their representative pronoun adds a layer of distance.

In the case of unknown identities, this aspect of whom can turn a business letter into a detective story. “To whom it may concern” (the standard salutation that replaces ‘Dear,’ at the beginning of formal letters) could be addressing anyone: the CEO of a company or the hotdog vendor that found the letter on the street. In other words, whom makes space for writers and speakers to address that which is absent or unknown, a sort of grammatical spyglass through which to imagine the hidden figure just around the corner.

Do you think whom is worth keeping? Tell us what you think.

I think it should be kept. Just because people are getting sloppy with their grammar is no reason to do away with a word. If they want to sabotage themselves by not growing their vocabularies and using slang and computer lingo, then so be it. But the rest of us like our words, and we find beauty in them.

I’m pretty sure the difference between “who” and “whom” has to do with subject versus object. The explanation of mystery doesn’t hold water. For example, if you don’t know the identity of someone standing on the other side of the room, you still say “Who is that?” rather than “Whom is that?”. Their identity is still a mystery, but you do not use “whom”.

“Whom” must be used if the mystery person in question is the object (DO) of the verb you’re using or the object of a preposition (OP) attached to the verb.

(e.g.,
1. “I came with X” (OP) –> “With whom did you come?”
2. “I am a guest of X” (OP) –> “Of whom are you a guest?” — although this one should just be “Whose guest are you?”
3. “It concerns X” (DO) –> “Whom does it concern?”
4. “He likes X” (DO) –> “Whom does he like?”)

And “who” is used if the mystery person is used as the subject of the verb. “He likes dogs” –> “Who likes dogs?”, or “He is a guest.” –> “Who is a guest?”

The difference between “who” and “whom” is clear and easy enough to understand, but I have to admit it doesn’t seem to make a huge difference in comprehension if you mistakenly use one or the other. It only makes the grammar police angry.

i think i’m the first commenter! just to let ya’ll know i love ENGLISH!!

I definitely think the word whom should be kept.
What better way to identify those whom you don’t know.

????

Whom will never die. Rob has spoken.

Yes, i think word ‘whom’ should be left. After all I use it whenever possible as it’s quite applicable in my work environment.

I am not sure if this explanation of “whom” is correct. In my view, whom is the dative and accusative of who corresponding to “Wem” and “Wen” in German. It is a remnant of the old english declension system (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declension). best Axel

I’ve been trying to use “whom” correctly for years, solely based on that scene in “The Office” (American version) where it becomes the topic of discussion and nobody seems to know how to use it. Finally, Pam offers up something like, “Whom is used when the person being referred to is the subject.”

Dictionary.com, care to expand your article?

As I learned from the closing of a graduation speech delivered by Diane Sawyer, it’s really not to hard to remember. She told the graduating class: Just remember when you go out into the big, wide world…it’s not who you know, but whom you know.

To whom am I leaving this comment to….whom ?

As much as I support the spirit of this article, it seems to be trying to condense the use of whom to one particular scenario and avoids the larger picture of how “whom” fits (or used to fit) into our language as the objective 2nd person pronoun.

For example: “That’s John, he is the man with whom I came to this party”. No mystery there..?

I’m sorry, but this article does not explain the difference between “who” and “whom” and therefore its ‘correct’ usage. It has nothing to do “not knowing the identity of the person about whom you’re asking”, this is a general feature or interrogatives and the semantic distinction proposed here simply depends on context. Consider this example:

“Who left their wallet here?”

You obviously don’t know the identity of the person in question (otherwise why would you be asking?) and yet using ‘whom’ in this case is simply ungrammatical:

*”Whom left their wallet here?”

The distinction between who and whom goes back to English’s much depleted case-marking system. In English, the case system has been vastly reduced but still exists as a relict in the pronoun system:

Nominative (subject) case: He came into the room
‘Accusative/Dative’ (object) case: I saw him
Genitive case: Those are his shoes.

(And: “I, me, my” – “she, her, her”)

The simple fact is that ‘who’ also shows case:

Nom: Who came to the party ?
Acc: Who(m) did you speak to last night?
Gen: Whose shoes are these?

The fact is that the broad subject/object distinction for ‘who’ has been declining for some time (a perfectly normal development), but the basic distinction remains the same. So saying something like:

“Whom is the smartest person in the room?”

is equivalent to answering:

“Him is the most important person in the room”

There is a mismatch between the subject (who) and the object case.

“To whom did you talk last night?”
“To him/*to he”

Hopefully, this will clear things up.

I’m afraid you don’t seem to understand the use of who/whom correctly at all. Who is the subject and whom is the object, and their usage follows the use, for example, of “I” and “me”. It is purely a grammatical construction and has nothing to do with the “unknown”.

I also can’t make sense of your reference to Spanish. Nosostros means “we” or “us” and vosotros means “you” (in the plural). I don’t see the relevance there. The subjunctive also has nothing to do with pronouns, and is a “mood” in which verbs can be conjugated.

That said, you have managed to use who and whom correctly in all your examples:

“Hello, who are you again?” Although the word “who” is being used as the object here, it is used with a linking verb (to be) and so the subject form is correct.

“With whom did you come?” The word “whom” here follows the preposition “with” and so the object form is always used.

“Of whom are you a guest?” This time the preposition “of” mandates the object form.

“To whom it may concern” Again a preposition, this time “to”.

James

To whom it may concern, my opinion is thus:
Verily; it is dying and it is worth saving.

definitely!!! I say use whom regularly. I don’t believe that any word should be removed from the dictionary, because someone will always use it.

Whom has nothing to do with being a mystery, just with being an object. I know who Bob is. Bob is my friend. Bob is also the one to whom I gave my car. I know who you are. You are the one who wrote this article. You are also the one to whom I am writing this note.

YES, most definately…..Whom is a proper promoun because of the unknown .

Whom has nothing to do with proximity or knowledge of the person, although such contextual information may play into the word’s likely role in sentences.

“Whom” is “who” in the oblique case, a conglomeration of the dative, absolute, and genitive (with prepositions) cases. “Who are you again” is correct because linking verbs take the same nominative case. But “Whom did you bring” or “With whom did you come” have “whom” as the object of a transitive verb and of a preposition, respectively.

By way of analogy, “who” is used wherever “I” would be used in a sentence, whereas “whom” is used wherever “me” would be used. who : I :: whom : me

Hi ,

yes , I think whom is worth keeping , because I don’t know any other expression to replace it , if you know please tell me ,

thank you

Of course ‘whom’ should remain in the English lexicon. English speakers who do understand subjective v. objective cases know when and how to use whom. I use it all the time. I also use ‘big words,’ which people complain of since they don’t know the meaning so instead of ask what the words mean, I shouldn’t use words people don’t “get.” It’s the same with whom, if it’s not common or the rules are too hard, blame the speaker of being a snob and continue in ignorance. (The same problem exists with I v. me: me used at beginning of sentences preceding the other subject, “Me and Ben went . . .” But if you help by stating that
it’s “Ben and I” people get pissed, or vice versa ending a sentence with ‘I’ when it should be me.” Forget using whom, let get people to use ‘I’ and ‘me’ correctly — before that whomsoever will always struggle with using whom. Word up!!

I think that “whom” is absolutely needed.

For those who know what a “subject” and an “object” of a verb or a preposition are: Use “whom” when it is the “object”. (That same rule applies to many other Indo-European languages).

To me, someone who does not use “whom” sounds careless, or ignorant of the proper usage of English.

Interesting analysis. But whom is the objective case of the word “who.” To whom – object of the preposition “to.” With whom did you come – object of “with.” Of whom – object of “of.”

Nosotros is the first person plural subject pronoun (“we”). Vosotros is the second person plural subject pronoun (“you”, “ya’ll”).

Subjunctive is a verb mood; it applies to verbs, not pronouns.

The word “whom” should be kept and grammar should be taught and upheld in every subject. It is sadly thought of as floccinaucinihilipilification to some people.

This explanation is incorrect. Whom is an object pronoun, as opposed to a subject pronoun. Simple.

Great article! I think that whom is worth keeping. In my country (Trinidad and Tobago) it is still used among some. Another thing, in the example you used, …(You could say “whom are you the guest of?”, maybe this can be read as, “Of whom are you a guest?”

“Whom” is not only not dead, it’s not rare either. I use “whom” ALL THE TIME and so do many people whom I know. (See what I did there?) The way you describe “whom” here, whilst accurate, tells only half the story. Basically, “whom” is the form of “who” used when it is the object of a verb, “The man whom I saw yesterday” – albeit this usage is becoming much less common – or of a preposition, “The man to whom I was talking yesterday”. And whilst whom certainly CAN refer “to a person whose identity is unknown”, it can just as easily refer to a person whose identity IS known: “Tommy, to whom I was talking yesterday”.

Oh my goodness.

I can’t believe you’ve published this article without actually understanding the distinction between who and whom.

“Whom” is simply a correct inflection of “who” and has absolutely nothing to do with whether the person is known or not, and everything to do with whether the pronoun is subject or object of the sentence; although it is commonly omitted for direct objects, it’s almost invariably used in conjunction with prepositions and indirect objects.

“Whom” certainly is dead if its survival is dependent on people like you!

It should be used in this sentence only: Whom are you speaking toom?

Whom gives a @#$%? In any kind of conversation, people would rear up and ask “whom speaketh thusly?” if you dropped “whom” into a sentence. Disappearing like blacksmiths, a lot of words are no longer used and therefore no longer understood by the listener. When was the last time you heard “amongst” or “whither”.

It’s sad that Old English words are dying, we should keep whom on board. I think that’s like been around for centuries. We keep it going, We should try to do a whom revival or something.

To whom it may concern:
“Whom” is the form of the relative pronoun “who”, when “who” has assumed the position of the direct object or indirect object in a sentence.
It has nothing to do with whether you know the identity of the person to whom you are referring!
e.g. Jane is the beautiful woman with whom I have had a loving relationship for over ten years.
e.g. Mr J Smith, to whom your letter was addressed, no longer works for this company.
e.g. The homemade cakes were not eaten by Jane, for whom they were intended.
I definitely do think the word “whom” is worth keeping. “Whom” is a word without which I cannot write intelligibly, whether or not I know who will read what I write.
Who vets these blog posts? That is the person (or committee) with whom I would like to communicate!

Every case in your article follows the 2 basic rules of “whom”:
a: the object of a preposition uses “whom” (“to whom”, “with whom”, “about whom” & “of whom” in your article are all “whom” because of the preposition, not because they are unknown)
b: the verb “to be” always takes the subjective case (who) and never the objective case (whom), whether known or unknown.

test case: “Who are you & who is the man in the mask who just came in?” is correct, but by your rules the unknown second man in the mask would/should be referred to as “whom.”

“Who are you” is correct because “are” is a form of “to be”. Thus when the Lone Ranger comes into the room, no one knows who he is (verb “to be”) because his identity is unknown. But someone will ask “Who is that man in the mask? (verb “to be” even in an unknown gets “who”, not “whom”)

I have never heard of your rule of known

Wait a second, this explanation is completely wrong! The criterion is not whether something is known to you or not; it is purely a question of grammatical use: ‘who’ is a subject, ‘whom’ is an object. It’s as simply as that. Your examples even support this: “who are you again?” Subject! “With whom did you come?” Object (of the preposition ‘with’)! ‘Whom’ can’t be used as a subject, even if its placement can be deceptive (in ‘Whom did you see at the party?’, ‘whom’ is still an object! ‘You’ is the subject).

Second point: “Over the past 200 years written use of the pronoun whom has declined by half, and half again over the last 50. It makes sense. In the colloquial world of email and texting, thinking about the correct usage of whom can just slow writers down.” What? When did we start emailing and texting? This trend clearly precedes the digital age!

The baby was nurtured from cradle to whom?
Whom am I trying to kid ?

Of course it is worth keeping. Its correct use should be taught widely with suitable examples as given above.
Perhaps authors of English books for teaching foreigners should keep this in mind and reserve emphatically a special place for this word.

This is a very misleading article. It seems to be implying that ‘who’ should be used when referring to a known person and ‘whom’ to an unknown one (as though the example on the front page, ‘whom is dying’ is correct. In fact ‘who’ is used when referring to the subject of a sentence, and ‘whom’ when referring to its object.

I’ve always considered “who” a subject and “whom” an object.

That said, I’m more likely to say “Who did you come with?” than “With whom did you come?” or “Whom did you come with?” simply because it sounds better even though it’s technically incorrect (you = subject, did come = verb, who(m) = object).

And if scolded for ending a sentence with a preposition I’d be tempted to respond “OK, then – whom did you come with, bitch?” (to paraphrase Annie Potts as Mary Jo on “Designing Women”!)

I’m sorry, but if your idea of the use of “whom” has to do with its including mystery or uncertainty, you are seriously misinformed. “Whom” is simply the objective case for the word “who”. “With whom” is used because it is preceded by a preposition (just as you’d say “with me” instead of “with I”). Same thing with “to whom”. You would also use “whom” in a situation like “the man whom I saw yesterday” because YOU were the one doing the seeing, and the man is the object. If you said “the man who saw me” that would mean that the man was doing the seeing and YOU were the object.

I have a dog rescue magnet on my car that drives me crazy because it says: “Who Rescued Who?” Even my children who are NorthWestern University graduates didn’t realize that it should say “Who rescued Whom?”

Without “whom”, with whom could I communicate?

In “Of whom are you a guest?” the quandary is whether the case of the pronoun is determined by the preposition “of’” or the verb “are” which is a linking verb that demands the case following match the case preceding. Rearrange the interrogative into a declaration: You are a guest of who(m), and you see that “whom” as an object of the preposition “of” must be in the objective, not nominative case. Whom and its kith and kin honor precision in language use. Their loss impoverishes the language.

Yup. I just think it sounds cool.

I love your article. Whom was drilled into me during my 8th Grade English class. The usage has stuck with me for the past 30 years. Good to see it found a way to rise again. Keep the great articles coming.

Sincerley,
Glen Meyer

“Whom” is most definitely worth keeping. As a Quality Assurance professional, part of my job is making sure things are worded correctly (hence my happening upon this post), and I’ve passively insisted on the proper use of “whom” over and over at work. Its to the point where the developers trust me more than their own writing. And to borrow from Martha Stewart, that’s a good thing.