The easiest way to think about this is to compare to he him his:
Who gets the benefit? He gets the benefit.
To whom does the benefit accrue? The benefit accrues to him.
For whose benefit is that? That is for his benefit.
For whomse benefit is that? That is for hims benefit.
Obviously that last is unnecessary/wrong—in place of hims (or him'...
There aren't two different nominative/objective pairs
Who -> Whom
Whose -> *Whomse, *Whom's, etc.
Instead, there's three choices
Who - Nominative
Whom - Objective
Whose - Possessive
Who can't be both objective and possessive.
Because the subject of who most need is simply who, you have to use
With a two-party system, our nation will divide the people who most need to be brought together.
If you want a whom example, try
With a two-party system, our nation will divide the people whom you most need brought together.
The relative pronoun takes the case of the role it plays ...
Whose is (originally and now) the genitive of who. From Etymonline:
whose: genitive of who; from Old English hwæs, genitive of hwa (see who).
In all Indo-European languages that I know, a genitive modifies a noun but does not agree with this noun, not even in languages with elaborate paradigms. In other words, the form of the genitive doesn't change when ...
Yes, (2) is ungrammatical.
You gave him the book is You gave the book to him after it goes through Dative alternation. After flipping the direct object and indirect object, the to preposition disappears.
You can't do this with questions, so you need the to.
The relevant portion of the linked article is sloppily written.
It is correct to say that "whom" is ungrammatical in these sentences:
He is demanding £5,000 from the elderly woman who has ruined his life.
Mr Reynolds is highly critical of journalists, who just use labels to describe him.
It is incorrect to describe "elderly woman" and &...
Who and whom also happen to be relative pronouns.
Relative pronouns link noun phrases (NP) to relative clauses (RC).
Who is the subject pronoun, and it has its object form whom and possessive form whose. Who and whom refer to people only.
For the last half century or so who has been used more and more for both positions: subject and object. Whom, on the ...
No, that is wrong. It should be whoever, because it is the subject of whoever has the pleasure.
Don’t be distracted by the for: it’s just a decoy, for the entire clause is its object, not just the next word.
"Whom do you help?" is correct. But many English speakers use "who" wherever they should use "whom".
Here is the easy way to figure out which one is correct. If you answer the question (or substitute the statement) with 'he' and it makes sense, use 'who.' If 'him' makes sense, use 'whom.' 'Whom' and 'him' both have the letter m so that is how to remember that they go together.
"Whom did you ask?"
"I asked him."
"Who answered the question?"
"He answered ...
The following is my original answer, which I stand by as being logical and on the face of it applicable, though it does not seem to tell the whole story. See below for a revised answer.
You are right: it should be who here.
This is a simple (and fairly common) case of hyper-correction, where people who are not quite sure how to use who and whom correctly ...
If I could choose neither, I would, since I'm not sure if the sentence is grammatical (I have asked a separate question about that here: Is "I am who(m) God made me" grammatical?).
If I had to choose one and I was allowed to choose based on my own preferences, I would choose who since, as many posts on this site explain, "whom" often sounds stuffy ...
In modern colloquial English, "who" is always okay. In your example, you have correctly applied the rule for old-fashioned and formal English -- it would be "Whom should I give the job to?", or perhaps better (in that style): "To whom should I give the job?" (But "To who should I give the job?" sounds wrong.)
Saying "Whom did you give the book?" is rare seems to me an understatement; I haven't found any actual examples of sentences like this. (As far as I know, who can always be used instead of whom, so I'm treating "Who did you give the book" the same way in this answer.) Despite the rarity, I have found conflicting statements from grammar experts about whether ...
I think there are a few reasons:
Most people are not great at taking an explicit grammar rule and just adopting it; rather, we're much better at internalizing rules when we also have exposure to language that conforms to those rules. Since whom is rarely and inconsistently used, most people don't have enough exposure to it to get a good sense of when it's ...
In a comment, John Lawler wrote:
They're both grammatical, but the use of whom has declined in modern English, to the point where substantial portions of the speech community actually follow different rules for its use because they use it so seldom. Since Anglophone schools teach their students nothing about English grammar (except what to avoid, for no ...
It is grammatically incorrect. It should be "I speak of him, who is one of the best people I've met."
From what I've learned, whom would be used in a situation when it is indirectly referring to someone. Such as: You gave it to whom? (i.e. You gave IT to [person]. person is not the subject, the subject is "it". so You gave it to her. etc)
Who is a pronoun, ...
First of all, each of the examples given in the body of your question should be "whom."
This is a holdover from when the English language had cases, which you sort of referenced by noting the difficulty in identifying a subject. Who is always a subject, while whom is either a direct object, indirect object, or object of preposition:
1) Whom did you kill? (...
Winnie saw the truth at once, knowing as she did the character of her,
whom, if she had ever looked upon as a mother, must from this moment
forfeit every claim upon her feelings, unless it were that of utter
the parenthetical and other additions to the matrix sentence complicate analysis.
Stripping to an easier but comparable (...
"Whoever" would be correct. The blank in your sentence is not the object of "gave". The entire clause "___ deserved it most" is the object of "gave", which in turn means you'll use "whoever", which is the subject of "deserved".
The rule here is exactly like what you said: who = subject, whom = object. The trick in this case is understanding the clauses ...
1)/You gave the book to him/ is the declarative form of: To whom did you give the book? A standard English formal form
2)/You gave him the book/ is the declarative form of: Did you give him the book.
That said, in colloquial spoken English, nowadays, people will often say:Who did you give the book to? for 1)
TL:DR. Just use who. You've already dispensed with traditional grammar by using who(m) instead of who(m)ever; why start paying attention to antiquated rules at this point?
And the detailed explanation:
I am who(m) God made me,
the pronoun who(m) is serving as both the subject complement of the verb am and the object of made. This is a fused ...
Relative pronouns like who, which, etc. are extracted from some position in the relative clause and moved to the front of the clause.
the car [which she saw ___ in the street]
starts with a clause that modifies a noun phrase the car,
that contains a noun phrase the car --
the car [she saw the car in the street]
then the car is changed to a ...
James is the man who we know ____ is who won it.
Here, "who" is not object of "know" but subject of the embedded "is" clause, marked by gap '___' .
"Who won it" is a subordinate interrogative clause functioning as predicative complement of “be”.
We understand "we know James is the answer to the question 'Who won ...
Please find below a very short answer that agrees with Janus on most points.
You owe a duty to persons *whom it is foreseeable are likely to be harmed by your conduct.
If the only thing I do is replace the relative pronoun with a personal pronoun and adjust the sentences only just enough to make it work, I get this:
You owe a duty to persons. It is ...
I have friends from all walks of life who/that/whom I consider my best friends.
In a sentence like yours, the usage of all three relative words ("who", "that", whom") are acceptable in today's standard English.
BUT, if you are taking a class, either as a native English speaker or as an EFL/ESL speaker, then you'll have to give the version that your ...
‘Who’ does not inflect for number: it is always ‘who’ as the subject of a clause and ‘whom’ in all other contexts, whether its antecedent is singular or plural.
That said, your phrase is rather ambiguously worded (have you only met Pelé, or have you met all three, or have you met a lot of South American footballers, including Maradona, Garrincha, and Pelé? ...