whom were you there with?

[Boris Tatarenko]

Whom were you there with?

Does it sound natural?
Is it a good and correct English?

Honestly, I've never heard such a phrase in my life. ;-)

 

[Rover_KE]

You must have read it somewhere to be asking about it.

Where did you encounter it?

 

[SoothingDave]

"Who were you there with?" is natural now.

I would say the vast majority of native speakers never use the word "whom" unless it is part of a set expression. (Like "for whom the bell tolls.")

 

[Boris Tatarenko]

You must have read it somewhere to be asking about it.

Where did you encounter it?

My little brother wrote a letter to his friend and I wanted to check it. I just wasn't sure in this sentence.

 

[Boris Tatarenko]

"Who were you there with?" is natural now.

I would say the vast majority of native speakers never use the word "whom" unless it is part of a set expression. (Like "for whom the bell tolls.")

I thought so. If I'm writing a formal letter, for example, will it be correct?

 

[Raymott]

"Who were you there with?" is natural now.

I would say the vast majority of native speakers never use the word "whom" unless it is part of a set expression. (Like "for whom the bell tolls.")

That's an example of using "whom" after a preposition, which is still quite popular, and to me sounds quite acceptable. Those to whom "whom" sounds strange are probably not even noticing the inflected form after prepositions.

 

[BobK]

That's an example of using "whom" after a preposition, which is still quite popular, and to me sounds quite acceptable. Those to whom "whom" sounds strange are probably not even noticing the inflected form after prepositions.

I frequently use whom after a preposition. There are people who would prefer 'With whom were you there?' but that sounds to me very strait-laced (note my 'omission' of -GH- - I mean it sounds to me like the sort of utterance one would expect from someone wearing a tightly-laced corset ); so in this case I would say 'Who were you there with'. YMMV.

b

 

[MikeNewYork]

Whom were you there with?

Does it sound natural?
Is it a good and correct English?

Honestly, I've never heard such a phrase in my life. ;-)

That is correct English. It is a bit formal for regular conversation, but it is not wrong. In formal discourse and writing, it is still preferred by many.
In that sentence, "whom" is the object of the preposition "with' (even though they are separated). So the objective form is technically correct.

 

[5jj]

In that sentence, "whom" is the object of the preposition "with' (even though they are separated). So the objective form is technically correct.

I would not say that it was even 'technically' correct. "For whom ...?" is grammatically correct, though rather formal. "Who ... for?" is natural and, for most speakers, completely acceptable these days. "Whom ... for?" is an unfortunate mixture of styles.

 

[MikeNewYork]

I would not say that it was even 'technically' correct. "For whom ...?" is grammatically correct, though rather formal. "Who ... for?" is natural and, for most speakers, completely acceptable these days. "Whom ... for?" is an unfortunate mixture of styles.

Usage is usage. But the objective form is technically correct. That has not changed.

 

[5jj]

Usage is usage. But the objective form is technically correct.

That is your opinion; it is not mine,

 

[MikeNewYork]

Fair enough.