The Atlantic is sounding the death knell for whom (and has it really been so long since I’ve picked up the print version of the magazine that I wanted to type The Atlantic Monthly? It didn’t seem quite right so I checked, and, yep!, it hasn’t used the Monthly part of its name since 2004).
Whom. Such a lovely little word and one of which I am fond. But apparently is causes great confusion. And people don’t like it.
You know what, people? Get with the program. Who is the subject of a verb. Whom is the object of a sentence. Figuring out which to use is not so problematic: If you can substitute he for who/whom, then who is the proper word to use. If you can substitue him, then whom is correct.
Therefore, never send to know for [he] the bell tolls… [Nope! Not who.]
Therefore, never send to know for [him] the bell tolls… [Yes! Whom.]
From John Donne
I saw a creature, naked, bestial,
[Him], squatting upon the ground,
Held his heart in his hands… [Nope! Not whom.]
I saw a creature, naked, bestial,
[He], squatting upon the ground,
Held his heart in his hands… [Yes! Who.]
From Stephen Crane
Easy peasy, right? Yet The Atlantic writes:
Consider William Safire’s advice on the subject: “The best rule for dealing with who vs. whom is this: Whenever whom is required, recast the sentence.”
But the problem with this, in my mind, is it forces another grammatical problem: the substitution of that for who. Who=people. That=things. Now, I know that the sources are falling on this one, that some think it’s acceptable to use that when referring to a person (as in the headline of this post). But that, my friends, makes me crazy. Every time I hear Oasis warble, “Because maybe, you’re gonna be the one that saves me, And after all, you’re my wonderwall,” I want to scream, “Who saves me! Who!”
Who, Whom, That. I know it’s a losing battle. I know that whom will be as quaint someday as thee and thy. But we should fight the good fight along the way. Never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for grammar.
