Who will save whom?
By Alexandra Petri
Published: Monday, March 25, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
At the Atlantic, Megan Garber alerts us to the news that “whom” is falling out of fashion. It has been a gradual but inevitable process, somewhat like the heat death of the universe.
“It's not who you know,” the Rev. Peter Gomes used to intone, “it's whom.” It was the sort of statement one expected from someone dubbed the Plummer Professor of Christian Morals and Pusey Minister at Harvard.
We can do without “whom.” Or can we?
The Whos down in Whoville are perfectly safe. But the Whoms, down in Whomville, having staid, WASPy dinners of roast beast and refusing to pass Little Susie Lou Whom a slice unless she uses the subjunctive correctly in her request: They are in grave danger. Whom is struggling. After all, whom is, as numerous writers have noted, the literary equivalent of waving an enormous flag that proclaims you a Stuffy Old Twerp, a Bombastic Blowhard Who Thinks He's In England, or In 1800, Or Possibly Both.
Whom is no one's favorite object pronoun. All it plays now are the rusty ill-paid gigs of Old-Timey, Vaguely Biblical-Sounding Phrases. For Whom the Bell Tolls. For Of Those to Whom Much Is Given, Much Is Required. To Whom It May Concern. From Whom All Blessings Flow.
Yes, whom is withering. Whither? Who can say. No one says “Whither.” Or “whence,” for that matter.
The subjunctive, over in the neighboring ward of the hospital, wants to know what is going on, as it were. “If ‘whom' were to go extinct,” it murmurs, “surely I would be next. But I do not think it likely.” The subjunctive never thinks it likely, which just shows what it knows.
Good grammar is like all those days you wear your underwear on the right side of your pants: It goes sadly unremarked upon. But slip up one time and that's what everyone mentions.
Grammar Nazis never stop you on the street to say, “What a beautiful subjunctive that was. Clear as a bell, and I loved the appositive you were rocking earlier. Fierce!” They just chase you down, like Javert, shouting, “Whom! Not who! Whom!”
Grammar Nazi is also one of the few Nazi comparisons that we have permitted to stand unchallenged. Few things are so irksome as the person who snaps up at you, shouting, “Don't give it to me and Tanya! Personal pronoun comes last!”
Perhaps it is time we change tactics. The vinegar approach to grammar certainly does not seem to be bearing much fruit. Maybe we should try honey. After all, grammar is the unseen wire undergirding even the most acrobatic sentence.
English is not an inflected language where subject and object are always instantly clear, and it's the hardworking Whoms and Whos of this world that help us skirt that issue. The more of these invisible wires we cut, the uglier our sentences will get. Compliment a stranger's grammar today. It may be our only hope.
Remember what John Donne might have said: “Any pronoun's death diminishes me, because I am involved in Language; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.” Of course, it tolled for “thee” a long, long time ago. Don't let it toll for whom.
Alexandra Petri is a Washington Post columnist and author of the ComPost blog at washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Starkey: NHL stuck in stone age
- Steelers defense’s rapid decline looks similar to that of Steel Curtain’s
- PNC plans to do away with tellers
- Penguins’ Neal apologizes, vows to be better
- Aliquippa’s Fields commits to WVU
- Pirates general manager Huntington is searching for right player, deal
- Steelers notebook: Roethlisberger comes to Haley defense again
- Woodley says he’s fine with move to right side despite numbers
- House Republicans signal support for budget deal
- Pittsburgh police investigating 2 overnight robberies
- Pirates notebook: Polanco ruled out as Opening Day option