Hi Dimcl. Sorry I didn't make myself clear. My question is : Is this sentence correct as it is?What's your question, Akasaka?
In my experience, the use of whom in the US is about as infrequent as it is in the UK. I think it's the level of formal education rather than the Atlantic that determines thisThe doctor who we trusted has betrayed us
is heard more often in the UK than the form with whom and also considered correct. In the US they are more likely to use whom than the British, especially if well educated speakers. There are British native speakers who never say whom.
Not quiteThe use of "who" is correct when you have a preposition.
The doctor in whom we placed our trust....
The doctor who we placed our trust in....
Both are fine to me.
Some people insist that one should use whom whenever it is required grammatically, while many speakers ignore that "rule".Not quite
It has. Or at least my grammar book says so.
This is what Grammar books say:Not quite
It has. Or at least my grammar book says so.
R. Carter, M. McCarthy. Cambridge Grammar of English. 2006, Cambridge University Press.Whom is used most extensively (but still only in formal styles and mostly in writing) when it refers to the complement of a preposition, and is always used when the preposition is placed immediately before the relative pronoun.
Hello everyone,
I know this kind of question (who or whom) is often asked. What do you think of this sentence?
The doctor who we trusted has betrayed us.
I know "whom" is technically more correct, and that I had better omit "who".
Thanks in advance.
Could you explain your ticks?The doctor who we trusted has betrayed us.
The doctor we trusted has betrayed us.
The doctor whom we trusted has betrayed us.![]()
R. A. Close. A Reference Grammar for Students of English. Longman, 1975 (Eighteenth impression 1996).b Where is the man (whom)/(who)/(that) I saw this morning?
c Is that the man (whom)/(who)/(that) you gave your tickets to?
So they advise us not to say "the woman to who I talked"![]()
The doctor who we placed our trust in....![]()
In the original sentence, the authentic relative pronoun is whom, and that is what traditionalist English grammars would have said (I don't have any of those grammars, by the way, so that's just my guess because "whom" there is the object, not the subject). Have you got any grammar book explaining this topic in a different way?I'm surprised.
If the who and whom versions of the topic sentence are equally correct, there must be some difference of meaning or context to explain why.
Or are you suggesting that it doesn't matter which is used?
(I think I wouldn't use any relative in this sentence.)
Thank you for commenting. I thought it was like that in normal speech, but it's good to hear what a native has to say about it.panjandrum said:(I think I wouldn't use any relative in this sentence.)
Yes, but that is the idea. Explanations may vary a bit from book to book, but basically many of our grammar books talk of "whom" in relation to uses like "to whom", "with whom", and little more.Thank you - I think I understand now.
You are suggesting that the gradually-increasing non-use of whom by native English speakers has reached the point that non-natives perceive it as an anachronism.
And so, students are taught to use whom following a preposition (in whom) but not otherwise.
I may have exaggerated this.
Good point...
But, panjandrum, imagine grammar books would tell us to use whom in that sentence, we (foreigners) would speak even more strangely than we already do, don't you think?![]()
![]()
I agree, absolutely.All the above explanations are good for us to know, and we could find them all in some particular example (some in very formal writing only). But we also need to learn what is the normal way to express them.![]()
Books do not say this type of truly authentic and grammatical "whom" is incorrect or archaic, but they warn us about its being formal.Good point
I wonder if, as a result of this gradual change, it is now OK to endorse both who and whom in the example sentence without further explanation?
I also wonder how close we are to marking the "whom" version archaic, or even wrong![]()
They don't add much more about it. I guess we'd need to find an academic book on linguistics to focus on this grammar point in more detail. I'll give it a try later in books.google.comb Where is the man (whom)/(who)/(that) I saw this morning?
Yes, winklepicker, and that is why many books avoid talking about "whom" as object, "who" subject and all that. Many students would not understand those concepts at all, and they are not so much needed anymore nowadays.Pragmatically, it may be best for English learners to avoid the whole who/whom thing, and go with Wishfull's excellent suggestion:
The doctor we trusted has betrayed us.
John Eastwood. Oxford Learner's Grammar. Oxford University Press, 2005.We mostly use who as a subject relative pronoun, but it can be an object. (I met an old friend who I hadn't seen for years).
We can also use whom as an object pronoun.(I met an old friend whom I hadn't seen for years).
But whom is formal and rather old-fashioned. In everyday speech we usually use that, or we leave out the pronoun.
I think that's fair. The problem for non-natives (and indeed for natives!) is that this is an expression in transition. It is possible to be grammatically correct - but sound foolish. Or vice versa. It depends on the circumstances - and on cues that are very difficult for non-natives to pick up.In that same book, when referring to prepositions, it does not say "whom" is old-fashioned, just formal.
That was the point I was making in my earlier reply. HOWEVER, we seem to be in agreement here that such an approach is formal at least and old-fashioned at worst. I'll just have to go to my grave with the grating sound in my ears.When you can answer with he, it's who; example: Who is ringing? He is.; When you can answer with him, correct is whom; example: Whom are you looking for? I'm looking for him.