![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/644\/2020\/07\/typewriter-death-whom.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Ten years ago\u00a0I wrote a article<\/a>\u00a0on grammar and word usage in response to a letter I received from a reader. (No doubt you all remember it well! ????) This isn\u2019t a rehash of that old article, but for those who love reading, as I do, I want to address, in a mostly lighthearted way, some current issues of language and wording.<\/p>\n Language is dynamic, not static. It\u2019s always changing, and that\u2019s why applying old rules to contemporary writing sometimes just doesn\u2019t resonate. I\u2019m thinking about this because the use of \u201cwhom\u201d has come up several times recently in the editing of my blog posts and book manuscripts.<\/p>\n Basically, I go by how it sounds to me and how I think it will sound to others. Some of the old language and grammar rules are rarely followed anymore, and therefore, when they are followed they sometimes sound strange, like we\u2019re going back in time to the way people used to talk but no longer do.<\/p>\n Those old rules were not actually rules (there\u2019s no such thing in language; it\u2019s not like chess or basketball). They are simply the common practice of a certain place and era, which to be taught in English classes means they are thought of as rules. But dominant usage changes while some are trying to hold fast to the old rules. The old rules are invalidated as language changes, and who knows when the old rule should be officially jettisoned since so few people are now abiding by it that those who do sound odd?<\/p>\n It comes down to how it actually sounds to most readers. The use of\u00a0whom<\/em>\u00a0usually (though not always) strikes me as obsolete and even pedantic. No offense to butlers, but I don\u2019t want to sound like one. As one writer puts it, \u201cGoing around using \u2018whom\u2019 properly probably makes people assume you have an entire closet just for your polo ascots.\u201d<\/p>\n Quite a few people, some conveying disgust and even outrage, have made much of the fact that Twitter has a feature called\u00a0Who to follow<\/em><\/a>\u00a0that suggests those you might be interested in. Their contention is, of course, that the proper way to say it is \u201cWhom to follow.\u201d Apparently Twitter feels like I do, and they don\u2019t want to sound like a butler either.<\/p>\n The same is true of many old rules, like \u201cNever split an infinitive.\u201d This would take Star Trek from us: \u201cTo boldly go where no one has gone before.\u201d Other times these rules make it impossible to convey precisely what we mean. For example, \u201cI wanted to finally break that habit\u201d works, but moving\u00a0finally<\/em>\u00a0forward or backward doesn\u2019t.<\/p>\n Or there\u2019s \u201cDon\u2019t end a sentence with a preposition,\u201d which produces \u201cFor what are you waiting?\u201d or \u201cThat\u2019s something up with which I shall not put\u201d or \u201cThat is the book about which I was telling you.\u201d\u00a0<\/em>\u00a0So when I\u2019m edited to unsplit an infinitive or not end a sentence in a preposition, I\u2019ll go with the edit IF it sounds as natural as the alternative, but often I will go back to the original because I think it\u2019s clearer and sounds less awkward. Just a few paragraphs ago when talking about Twitter I mentioned \u201ca feature called\u00a0Who to follow<\/em><\/a>\u00a0that suggests those you might be interested in.\u201d Notice I did not say, as old grammar books would insist, \u201cthose in whom you might be interested.\u201d I am not formal, and I don\u2019t want what I write to sound formal.<\/p>\n Not wishing to sound formal is why I restored most of the contractions in one of my books when an editor removed every single one of them. \u201cDon\u2019t take Scripture out of context became \u201cDo not take Scripture out of context\u201d which sounds to me not like I\u2019m giving good advice but instead a lecture in which I\u2019m shaking my finger at readers. Imagine that multiplied hundreds of times with \u201cwill not\u201d instead of \u201cwon\u2019t\u201d and \u201ccannot\u201d instead of can\u2019t. The book sounded stilted and impersonal, exactly what I didn\u2019t want. Trust me, removing all contractions from your writing makes you sound like the android Commander Data on Star Trek, who is one of my favorite characters, but not my model for speaking English like humans do.<\/p>\n The old rules, including those about\u00a0who<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0whom<\/em>, center on \u201cWhat do old grammar books say?\u201d and writing is now more about \u201cWhat sounds good to today\u2019s readers?\u201d To me,\u00a0whom<\/em>\u00a0usually sounds formal and even pretentious. The butler answers the phone as, \u201cWhom shall I say is calling?\u201d It should be\u00a0who<\/em>, by the way, but he thinks\u00a0whom<\/em>\u00a0sounds classier and more dignified. It also sounds affected, even if it is technically correct!<\/p>\n What follows is on a writing website, and it reflects the general trend against using\u00a0whom<\/em>, because it\u2019s increasingly rare to see it used in conversation and presentations and even in literature:<\/p>\n Practically speaking, there\u2019s no way to write using \u201cwhom\u201d in every case prescribed by the eagerly repeated grammar rule without sounding formal and stuffy.\u00a0 In general, newspapers don\u2019t; novels don\u2019t.\u00a0You\u2019d be hard-pressed to find an organization that produces writing using \u201cwho\u201d and \u201cwhom\u201d consistently according to the rule.<\/em><\/p>\n Listen to how it sounds:\u00a0\u201cWhom am I kidding?\u201d \u201cWhom are you going to call \/ Whom you gonna call?\u00a0 Ghostbusters!\u201d\u00a0\u201cA biography?\u00a0 Whom is it about?\u201d\u00a0\u201cWhom do you think will be elected? Whom will people vote for?\u201d\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The bottom line from me is this: unless\u00a0who<\/em>\u00a0sounds worse to me, I\u2019ll usually stick with it. I\u2019m not a fan of\u00a0whom<\/em>. I rarely use it when speaking or writing, as it just sounds archaic and stilted. I enjoyed much of Downton Abby, but it\u2019s not my goal to talk that way.\u00a0 I know others who think the same, and some who don\u2019t, but you have to make the call that sounds right to your ear, and which you think will sound most natural to most of your readers.<\/p>\n This doesn\u2019t mean grammar isn\u2019t important\u2014it is. I believe only when you know the \u201crules\u201d of grammar are you in the position to best know when to \u201cviolate\u201d them in the interest of not drawing attention to the form of your writing and thereby distracting attention from its meaning.<\/p>\n So I\u2019m not in favor of dumbing down the language and getting rid of constructive guidelines.\u00a0 I just don\u2019t like binding rules when language is dynamic and flowing. And I don\u2019t like words, old or new, that draw attention to themselves and sound like the speaker is trying to impress, like an article that I read recently which said, \u201cIt behooves us to\u2026\u201d Really? Who speaks like that? And why? (If you are a butler, feel free to say \u201cbehooves.\u201d I am not belittling your vocation!)<\/p>\n Here\u2019s a good article<\/a>\u00a0on the trend of replacing whom with who. Here\u2019s yet\u00a0another good one<\/a>\u00a0about grammatical rules that are now out of style.<\/p>\n Finally, I love this article because it\u2019s very funny:<\/p>\n In the world of Twitter and texting, \u201cwhom\u201d is archaic, a grammatical anachronism. In other words: Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for \u201cwhom.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n By\u00a0James A. Fussell<\/em><\/p>\n KANSAS CITY, Mo. \u2014 To whom it may concern: We\u2019re not all that concerned with the proper use of \u201cwho\u201d and \u201cwhom\u201d anymore.<\/p>\n Oh sure, it was important to Ernest Hemingway when he wrote \u201cFor Whom the Bell Tolls\u201d more than 70 years ago. We still teach \u201cwhom\u201d in high school and use it as a salutation in letters to unknown recipients. And we might drop an \u201cAsk not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee,\u201d misquote of a John Donne poem into casual conversation.<\/p>\n But, you know, whom really cares, right?<\/p>\n Read the rest.<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Photo by\u00a0Laura Chouette<\/a>\u00a0on\u00a0Unsplash<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Ten years ago\u00a0I wrote a article\u00a0on grammar and word usage in response to a letter I received from a reader. (No doubt you all remember it well! ????) This isn\u2019t a rehash of that old article, but for those who love reading, as I do, I want to address, in a mostly lighthearted way, some […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2661,"featured_media":3616,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[193],"tags":[1036,2995,2986,2906,2238,2992,2989,2636,2980,2983,7,82],"class_list":["post-3614","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-writing","tag-author","tag-formal","tag-grammar","tag-language","tag-readers","tag-rules","tag-sound","tag-use","tag-who","tag-whom","tag-words","tag-writing"],"yoast_head":"\n\n
Hallmark drives another nail in coffin of dying pronoun \u2018whom\u2019<\/strong><\/h4>\n