|
WebWord Weblog Posting Posting Date: January 06, 2003 WebWord Comment -- In the left hand navigation of the WebWord home page there is an area where you can submit news. Do you think it should read Who to credit? or Whom to credit? and why do you feel that way? Throw some grammar rules at me!
Reader Comments...
Properly, it'd be written "whom." A good rule of thumb: Ask the question and answer it with a pronoun. If "he" is the correct answer, "who" should be used; likewise, "him" corresponds with "whom." In this case: "Who/whom should we credit?" Him. Hence, "whom" should be used. An alternate example: "Who is my brother?" He is. In that case, "who" is correct. I should mention many people believe "whom" has been abused so much that it has lost meaning. So many people use "who" in place of "whom" and call it correct. Posted by: Adrian Holovaty on January 6, 2003 11:23 PM
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. It should be "whom".
When you write "who to credit", you're actually writing, "to whom shall I give credit". If you wrote it as "who gets credit", then "who" is appropriate. Since you used the preposition "to", it's whom. Reference 1 Need more, John? ;) Posted by: MadMan on January 6, 2003 11:26 PM
Instead of "Who/Whom to credit", how about a simple "Credit"? Posted by: Mark on January 7, 2003 12:22 AM
The relative pronoun in the nominative case is "who". In the objective case it's "whom". "To credit" is an infinitive whose object is the relative pronoun "whom". So "whom to credit" is correct. Except, the prononoun "whom" is now considered old fashioned and "who" is the preferred form for both the nominative and objective cases. So actually both are forms are correct. Use "who to credit" is you want to sound modern and informal and "whom to credit" if you want to sound proper and formal. Posted by: Bernie Simon on January 7, 2003 07:27 AM
"Whom" is considered old fashioned? It is? By whom? Before we toss whom out, I'd really like to know the authority, and it had better be someone as credible as Samuel Johnson. Posted by: Frank on January 7, 2003 11:35 AM
"Old-fashioned" my arse! :) We ain't all Bill "who do you trust" Clinton. Some of us speak propah British English. And I have the accent to prove it.
"Whom" is proper, and as far as I know has not yet been antiquated, although I have heard modern linguists say that for conversational speech, "who" can be interchanged for better comprehension. A good trick, along the lines of the one Adrian suggested, is to rearrange the sentence completely, drop the who/whom, and see what pronoun should be used. (If it is "him", then use "whom", and if it is "he", then use "who".) Example: "Who to credit" rearranges as "Should I Credit him?" and you know you should be using "whom" instead. Other examples: "Who should I say is calling?" rearranges to "Should I say he is calling?" and you know you are correct, and "To whom am I speaking?" rearranges to "Am I speaking to him?" and you know you are correct. Here is a good web page for common mistakes that has a bunch of useful tricks. Even if you know grammar well, it makes for interesting reading! Posted by: Lydia on January 7, 2003 12:46 PM
> "Whom" is considered old fashioned? It is? By whom? See the discussion of the subject at www.dictionary.com. Posted by: Bernie Simon on January 7, 2003 08:02 PM
Reminds me of the good old -
I read the recommended entry at dictionary.com, but only saw a division referring to traditionalists regarding one context, the construction involving a sentence ending in a preposition, such as "who did you give it to," ... and while the entry reads "grammarians since Noah Webster have argued that the excessive formality", I'm not sure that implies that grammarians are unified on that. The American Heritage Dictionary's usage panel (in my edition, anyway...) expresses disagreement over the formality of 'whom.' In written contexts, a "substantial" proportion insists on whom in its proper uses, with fewer insisting on it in informal situations or in speech. Posted by: Frank on January 7, 2003 09:21 PM
How about "Who gets credit?" or "Suggested by...?" Both of those are longer but possibly more informative. Posted by: Dennis G. Jerz on January 8, 2003 12:11 AM
Well, speaking as the fellow with the dubious distinction of having the number one hit for my bad on google, I vote to leave it "who". WebWord does not seem formal to me (and that's a good thing). Does anyone believe there should be a Rolling Stones song called "I Can't Get Any Satisfaction?" Posted by: Chad Lundgren on January 8, 2003 07:41 PM
"I Cannot Get Any Satisfaction." The abbreviation is too informal. Posted by: Dennis G. Jerz on January 9, 2003 12:30 AM
Whom cares? Come on John, ain't you gots no bigger fish to fry? Should my site be "Croc O' Lyle" or "Crock of Lyle"? Now you got me thinkin'. Of course "Webword" isn't in any dictionary either... :) Posted by: Lyle - Usability Guru on January 9, 2003 01:05 AM
Surely, there are other things in this world to argue about? Like, ending sentences with a preposition and whether to use commas to separate the last item in a series.... Humor aside, how about just labeling the field as "Source"? You're wanting to credit the "source" of your awareness of the news, right? If so, why complicate things with irrelevant/outmoded grammar? Posted by: Jenny on January 9, 2003 03:19 PM
Good idea, Jenny, but "Source" could be too ambiguous - I can just imagine someone out there thinking, "But I just gave you the URL!" Best to use plain speech whenever possible, and John did ask to have some grammar rules thrown at him... Personally, I'm not bothered either way. Webword is more informal, and we all write in a conversational style, but I won't stand in the way of someone wanting to increase his knowledge or get a differing opinion. Posted by: Lydia on January 9, 2003 06:45 PM
Dennis: Good call on "cannot", but what about the "get" snobs who feel "get" is not classy enough and should always be gotten away from: I cannot attain any satisifaction. OK, I'll stop now. Posted by: Chad Lundgren on January 11, 2003 11:24 PM
Before: After: Moved to the bottom so it can take up more width. If you have never scrolled to the bottom of the page then you don't deserve to submit news. Forget who or whom, the point is that someone has taken the time to tell us all about an interesting item. It needs to be clear that this is the name of the person submitting the item, not the author of the original item. I have been careful to use the WebWord Hulk Green as I don't want to create an ugly interface.
Home | Moving WebWord | Cool Books | Hot Web Sites
URL: http://webword.com/weblog/ ©1998-2005 by WebWord.com. All rights reserved. |
