Who vs Whome

[GuyThiebaut]

Andy Lanng wrote:

So you're saying that the question dictates the answer not the other way around?

It's more a case of the question helping to arrive at the answer, although both are dependent on each other and in that sense interchangeable - having said that, it looks like you have understood that :thumbsup:

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

― Christopher Hitchens

[Member 10652083]

Have you really got two 'n's in your name?

[R Erasmus]

who, unless specified. E.g. Though shall not use who when referring to a person or persons, though shall use whom instead.

[Nish Nishant]

Isn't the W silent? Whomer Simpson? :-D

Nish Nishant Consultant Software Architect Ganymede Software Solutions LLC www.ganymedesoftwaresolutions.com

[theoldfool]

what I've tried: womb, hoooome, hohum

Arguing with a woman is like reading the Software License Agreement. In the end, you ignore everything and click "I agree". Anonymous

[User 13406575]

You may, but can you?

[englebart]

"Whom" is the object of a prepositional phrase, an indirect object, or a direct object. English only makes sense once you learn a different language. (less sense in most cases!) Here is how I verify... Translate to Spanish. If it is only "quien" (missing accent), then it is "who". If it is "de quien" (missing accent), then it is "whom". literally: "of whom, from whom, to whom"

[ClockMeister]

Nope, the grammar is correct! (for those who [write] code). You would *not* say "for those whom write code".

If you think hiring a professional is expensive, wait until you hire an amateur! - Red Adair

[qmartens]

AFAIK, the only way to correctly determine when to who vs. whom, is to use grammar rules that don't really exist in the English language (unless you're a linguist). Native German speakers get this right by intuition, because German does have those rules. It boils down to whether the pronoun refers to the accusative object ('who'), or the dative object ('whom'). Here's a really bad analogy for us geeky types: Using the C++ or C# member access operators, . is 'who', and -> is 'whom'. A better example would be the sentence "Who did what to whom?". Commence flame wars re: ...but isn't "Who" in that example actually the subject (in the grammatical sense)?

Eagles my fly, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

[Jim_Snyder]

You mean "Thou"? :laugh:

[Wearwolf]

I believe it's correct because it's a part of a noun phrase. "Those who code" is the object of the sentence but "who" isn't the object of the phrase.

[R Erasmus]

Keeping with the subject :-P

[Jim_Snyder]

Yep, a slight path alteration, but not recursive.

[Jim_Snyder]

Not unless you were a stuffy know-it-all!

[ClockMeister]

LOL! Funny the stuff we get into arguments about in these threads, eh? ;-)

If you think hiring a professional is expensive, wait until you hire an amateur! - Red Adair

[Jim_Snyder]

Actually, I think most of us need a chuckle and the more preposterous something is, the better.

[Kirill Illenseer]

It's right here, "Who code" is a compound noun in itself. The people who code. "Whom" would be right in "For whom? Well, for those who code!"

[GuyThiebaut]

qmartens wrote:

better example would be the sentence "Who did what to whom?"

:thumbsup: I like that as it fits in with my "he did that to him" rule.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

― Christopher Hitchens

[Herbie Mountjoy]

Slow down! i'm still trying to get my head round Python. I haven't got time to learn English as well.

We're philosophical about power outages here. A.C. come, A.C. go.

[Jim_Snyder]

Did Horton chime in? He only hears 'who'...