[Grammar] He is the man WHO/WHOM I found responsible for the accident.

[Sahil Dhankhar]

This is not my homework.

Which of the following is correct gramatically?

1- He is the man who I think is responsible for the accident.
2- He is the man whom I found responsible for the accident.

3- He is the man whom I think is responsible for the accident.
4- He is the man who I found responsible for the accident.

 

[jutfrank]

Why have you ordered them like that? You should have switched numbers 2 and 3.

1 and 4 are correct grammatically.

2 is grammatically correct, too, but it doesn't sound like a natural thing to say.

 

[Sahil Dhankhar]

I have a doubt if 4 is right.
Someone told me that to choose between who and whom, count the verb and subject pairs. If all the verbs have been used with their respective subjects and there is no verb left without a subject, we should use "whom" as it is an objective case.
The 4th sentences falls under the same category. The pairs of subject and their respective verbs are- "He is the man", "I found responsible for the accident".

Is the above rule or advice that I have mentioned wrong?

 

[TheParser]

I have a doubt if 4 is right.

NOT A TEACHER


Hello, Sahil Dhankhar:

I was just wondering: Maybe it depends on the missing words in No. 4. As you know, native speakers often omit some words in informal speech/writing.

4a. He is the man WHO I found IS/WAS responsible for the accident.

4b. He is the man WHOM I found TO BE responsible for the accident.

 

[Tdol]

Is the above rule or advice that I have mentioned wrong?

Whom is used less nowadays than in the past. Some grammar purists insist that it is the only form in some cases, but other than directly after a preposition - to whom it may concern - usage patterns suggest that the vast majority of native speakers ignore the purists. 4 is fine.

 

[Phaedrus]

I have a doubt if 4 is right.
Someone told me that to choose between who and whom, count the verb and subject pairs. If all the verbs have been used with their respective subjects and there is no verb left without a subject, we should use "whom" as it is an objective case.
The 4th sentences falls under the same category. The pairs of subject and their respective verbs are- "He is the man", "I found responsible for the accident".

Is the above rule or advice that I have mentioned wrong?

That sounds like an unnecessarily complicated (and perhaps dubious) procedure to me. In a relative clause, there is a "gap." The simple way to decide between "who" and "whom" is to look at whether a subjective- or an objective-case pronoun is "needed" (in an ideal grammatical world) in the gap.

You quote "I found responsible for the accident" above as if it were a complete sentence. It isn't. It has a "gap": "I found __ responsible for the accident." Would you say, *"[strike]I found he responsible for the accident[/strike]"? No. You would use "him" (objective case). Thus, "whom" is correct.

Now, where do you think the gap is in "I think is responsible for the accident"? That's right. It's before "is": "I think [that] __ is responsible for the accident. Would you say, *"[strike]I think [that] him is responsible for the accident"[/strike]? No. You would use "he" (subjective case). Thus, "who" is correct.

The technique I have just outlined works for native speakers. Whether it will work for you will depend on whether you have developed your grammatical feeling for English enough to perceive the obviously ungrammatical sentences above as obviously ungrammatical. If you haven't, the procedure won't work for you.

 

[TheParser]

NOT A TEACHER

Personally, I try to use "whom" in writing.

I think that it is a beautiful word that is worthy of being protected.

*****

I have a book that cites seven sentences and asks whether the correct word ("who" or "whom") has been used. I shall/will share three of them.

1. "Now I see WHO he laughed at."
2. "Instinctively apprehensive of her father, WHOM she supposed it was, stopped in the dark."
3. "Arthur, WHOM they say is kill'ed [sic] tonight."

The author says that the WRONG word has been used in each of those sentences.


Source: Theodore M. Bernstein, Dos, Dont's & Maybes of English Usage (1977), pages 238 - 244. He surveyed a group of prominent intellectuals: Six voted to retain the use of "whom"; fifteen voted to abandon the word (except when it immediately follows a preposition); and four took an "in-between" view.

 

[Phaedrus]

Personally, I try to use "whom" in writing.

I think that it is a beautiful word that is worthy of being protected.

Amen, TheParser. There is only one circumstance in which I find it excessively formal, even in writing, and that is in questions like "Whom did you see at the party?" If I wrote that, it probably would not be to a friend or casual acquaintance. I might, however, write it to someone (whom) I was formally interrogating.

It is in sentences like my last that I generally do not use "whom" (except in very formal contexts). But I don't use "who," either. One good thing for learners to keep in mind about restrictive relative clauses in which the relative pronoun functions as object is that a relative pronoun doesn't even need to be used.

1. "Now I see WHO he laughed at."
2. "Instinctively apprehensive of her father, WHOM she supposed it was, stopped in the dark."
3. "Arthur, WHOM they say is kill'ed [sic] tonight."

The author says that the WRONG word has been used in each of those sentences.

Great examples. In each of those cases, a choice does need to be made. Omitting the relative is not an option. Nor is using "that" an option. I find it amusing that two of the three examples are of wrong uses of "whom"! The beauty of "whom" is delicate. Used correctly, it can be most elegant. Used incorrectly, it stands out as pure pretension.

 

[jutfrank]

The beauty of "whom" is delicate. Used correctly, it can be most elegant.

Amen, Phaedrus.

I too am an admirer of whom. I spend a lot of time listening to and reading the English of proficient users, and I encounter whom being used several times every day in both written and spoken language. I would say that those people who do use it naturally are those whom I judge to be the most expert users of English.

(I'm not suggesting that I'm of them, by the way!)

 

[Sahil Dhankhar]

Then you can find lots of such people in India. Here if we learn English as a subject, we learn it the traditional way.

 

[Phaedrus]

Some grammar purists insist that it is the only form in some cases, but other than directly after a preposition - to whom it may concern - usage patterns suggest that the vast majority of native speakers ignore the purists.

The grammatical reason for "whom" in "to whom it may concern" is that it is the direct object of "concern." "Whom" is not the object of "to"; the object of "to" is the free relative clause "whom it may concern," which (if "to whom it may concern" weren't a set phrase) would take the -ever suffix: "to whomever it may concern." An ultra-traditional arch-purist might begin a letter in any of these ways:

To whom(ever) it may concern:
To whoever helped me:
To whomever I received help from:
To whoever is interested:
To whomever it may be of interest to:

The last case is especially instructive because the second "to" is not redundant: "[strike]to whomever it may be of interest[/strike]" makes no sense. "Whomever" is indeed the object of "to" in "to whomever it may be of interest to," but it is the object of the second "to," not the first! The object of the first "to" is the free relative clause "whomever it may be of interest to."