A Word, Please: To ‘whom’ it may concern

So you’re a “whom” person.

You like to use it, when appropriate. And you know how.

You understand that “whom” is an object, making it the most grammatical choice in a sentence like “It’s unclear whom they will choose.” Maybe you’re so whom-savvy that you even avoid the pitfall of using “whomever” in a sentence like: “We will give the job to whoever we think has earned it.”

This one is a big feather in your cap because sentences structured this way seem to defy the basic rule. “We will give the job to” ends with the preposition “to,” and as you know, a preposition takes an object. The natural assumption is that “whomever” should go there because it’s the object form of the pronoun. But in this case, the object is not the word the follows “to” but the whole clause that follows: “whoever (we think) has earned it.” Clauses need subjects. “Whoever” is the subject form. So “whoever” is the subject of “has earned it” and together they form the object of “to.”

I understand why people are “whom” fans. Personally, I don’t expect people to speak and write “properly,” and I’m very informal myself. But I like the grammatical precision of subject pronouns acting as subjects and object pronouns acting as objects. So I get your “whom” enthusiasm.

Yet, no matter how devoted you are to using and preserving “whom,” you probably hesitate in situations like these:
“Whom did you see at the store?”
“Whom is this for?”
“Whom do you love?”

Whether in speaking or writing, “whom” takes on a whole different dynamic when it’s at the beginning of a sentence or clause. That dynamic, it seems to me, is awkwardness. Even people who are formal enough to say, “To whom was he talking?” will switch to the subject pronoun when they must say, “Who is this for?”

“Whom” fans feel conflicted about this: On the one hand, they’d rather keep subject and object pronouns in their respective lanes. On the other hand, no one wants their fussy wording to draw attention away from what they’re trying to say.

Well, that feeling of being conflicted ends today. Here’s iron-clad proof that it’s not just OK but highly literate to use “who” as an object sometimes.

“Who wouldst thou strike?” — William Shakespeare
“Between who?” — William Shakespeare
“For certain friends … who I myself struck down.” — William Shakespeare

Shakespeare had no problem using “who” as an object. In fact, this usage wasn’t even considered substandard until a century and a half later when it became fashionable to start judging the rightness and wrongness of language.

“Our evidence shows that present-day uses of ‘who’ and ‘whom’ are in kind just about the same as they were in Shakespeare’s day,” writes Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage. “What sets us apart from Shakespeare is greater self-consciousness,” which Merriam’s blames on the 18th century grammarians.

Self-consciousness isn’t always bad. It’s the only thing keeping me from wearing pajamas to the grocery store. But when the anguish does nothing to improve behavior, or when it’s about behavior that doesn’t need improving, it’s just a sad waste.

“This greater self-consciousness appears to have changed actual usage very little,” Merriam’s notes, backing it up with lots of examples of famous writers using “who” the same way Shakespeare did.

“They become leaders. It doesn’t matter who they lead.” — Ernest Hemingway
“Let tomorrow’s people decide who they want to be their president.” — William Safire
“And he said, Well haven’t you got any opinion at all about them? And I said, About who?” — William Faulkner

So if you’re a “whom” person who feels bad that they sometimes use “who” as an object, you can feel better from now on. There’s no shame in speaking or writing like Shakespeare, Hemingway, Safire and Faulkner.

— June Casagrande is the author of “The Joy of Syntax: A Simple Guide to All the Grammar You Know You Should Know.” She can be reached at JuneTCN@aol.com.