who/whom

whenever somebody who doesn't speak english asks me a question about english I always give the impression that my grasp on it is fairly loose.

Can somebody explain to me the difference between who and whom (also while/whilst, among/amongst) so I can explain to my Romanian flatmate.

Who deals with the subject of a sentence or action
Whom deals with the object of a sentence or action

- at least as far as I remember.

Yeah, but I don't really get how that works, google is just making me more confused.

who is a subject pronoun and whom is an object pronoun. so who is generally found towards the beginning of a sentence in subject position ("who is going to the movies?"), or in other nominative situations ("michael, who had never been to that theater,......"), whom is used as an object (and really we usually see it as the object of a preposition, e.g. "to whom it may concern").

i rarely hear whom used in conversation much anymore myself.

The spy who loved me

The spy whom I loved

okay, that is actually the definitively clear explanation

really really weird -- someone was just asking me about this in the office today. we looked up definitions and everything

a lot of places where it's actually correct to use whom, though, it just sounds weird

the quick and dirty rule i learned, which i dont really remember, is like, if the word is standing in for a word that ends in "m" (i.e. him or them) it also gets an "m", but if its standing in for an m-less word, it doesnt.

to ??? it may concern --> it may concern him --> to whom it may concern

michael, ??? had never been to that theater --> he had never been to that theater --> michael, who had never been to that theater

that would fly with the explanations that I couldn't understand.

This may not be entirely accurate but, is an easier way to think of it:

Who - replaces I, you, he, she, they, we
Whom - replaces me, him, her, them, us, you (as object)

Whilst and amongst are largely archaic at this point, although I guess Britishers disagree somewhat.

I think the easiest way to remember is just using a simple subject/object arrangement: Who hit whom?

Which is, yes, pretty much the same rule in operation with "he" and "him": He hit him.

Who/he/she are for the subject (the entity that's actually doing the verb involved) and whom/him/her are either for the object of that verb (the entity that verb is happening to) or the object of a preposition: Who was hit BY whom? He was hit BY her.

Surmounter's right that we usually err on the side of just saying "who," and there are a lot of places where it's technically an object but "who" gets used ... pretty much if it's not a clear instance of "whom," nobody is going to get on your case about using "who," but if you're constantly misusing "whom," you will probably look worse than if you hadn't bothered.

for me I never had a problem with the who/whom-ness, but I've often had problems with the preposition that's supposed to travel with the whom - it very often leads to unnatural sounding sentences

and there are a lot of places where it's technically an object but "who" gets used ... pretty much if it's not a clear instance of "whom,"

Who's zoomin' who?

Help finish off this annoying and useless distinction by using who in all positions.

There are some positions where you shouldn't be using who.

It's exactly the same distinction as "he" and "him." "Whom" is simply an object form of "who." (Similarly, "whoever" and "whomever.")

this is a public service thread

who/whom has always seemed reasonably intuitive to me, but i have some sort of block about understanding which/that

Help finish off this annoying and useless distinction by using who in all positions.

Alternatively, learn this very simple aspect of English. In my native language, we also distinguish between forms equivalent to "who" and "whom" . . . plus about four more!

In Hungarian, there are something like a dozen different forms of "who." I can't recall exactly, I'm trying to run through them in my mind. Ki, kié, kivel, kit, kihez, kiben. kinél (etc.)

In fact, I speak seven languages, and all of them have (at least) a "who" / "whom" distinction . . . most have a larger number.

I've been speaking English for a short period of time. And I've figured it out! Have some pride in proper use of your own language!

Quite a lot of grammar is "annoying" and "useless." Why have separate words for present tense forms of "to be" - am, is, are? It's "annoying" and "useless" too! Why have different words for "I" and "me?" Or "she" and "her?"

The fact of the matter is that it's probably only annoying to some people because those same people can't work it out. In real life, I don't fault people who can't work out the simple difference. But I greatly admire those who mark this distinction consistently. It's a pleasure to speak to people who have really mastered a language with eloquence and order.

xpost - Possibly a good way of remembering which/that, without getting into grammar terms, is by paying attention to the commas? I don't know if this will help, but a "which" clause will be sectioned off by commas or dashes, like a parenthetical, while a "that" clause will not:

- The house that's on the left is huge.
- The house, which is on the left, is huge.

Note that you can remove the "which is on the left" part and the sentence is still sound; not so much with the first one. In the first one, "the house that's on the left" is one entire noun; in the second, the noun is just "the house" -- which happens, in a separate clause, to be on the left.

Quite a lot of grammar is "annoying" and "useless." Why have separate words for present tense forms of "to be" - am, is, are? It's "annoying" and "useless" too! Why have different words for "I" and "me?" Or "she" and "her?"

And in some languages they don't. Who/whom things are 'annoying' because they're nothing but a barrier that makes a language more difficult without adding any semantic value.

which/that

It's simple!

Look at the two sentences:

1) I like birds that can fly.

2) Birds, which lay eggs, are fascinating.

Not all birds can fly. Because you're restricting what you're modifying, you use "that."

But all species of birds lay eggs. So this modification is "unrestrictive." Thus, use "which."

It doesn't get easier than that.

iatee, not to get into a whole value-of-grammar thing, but I have a very hard time believing you'd say that about any other subject/object distinction we make -- would you favor throwing out "him" and "her" and "them?" I mean, I'm guessing not, right ...

no one says whom ok

in theory I would. If, for some reason, millions of people started saying "I'm going with he" instead of "I'm going with him" - I wouldn't get all huffy, because the exact meaning is still communicated...and communication is the reason we have and need language.

but that particular change isn't happening at the moment - while the who/whom one is

I would feel uncomfortable asking to who am I speaking or wondering for who the bell tolls, so I'm not giving up on this one anytime soon -- it's way way down on the list of things to care about, but there are some formulations, mostly after prepositions, where anything else just sounds grating.

Iatee, I'm not sure the same amount of meaning would be communicated, especially as you found your way into more and more complex sentences ... but before I start diagramming examples, can I also ask if you feel the same way about reflexive pronouns like "himself?"

I have never been sure that the word 'whomever' exists in English - as against American (English). I think the correct English word might be 'whomsoever'. But probably someone can prove that they're both acceptable.

If you love case, number and gender distinctions, learn Latin. Or apparently, Hungarian. English has a long history of saying "fuck this superfluous word ending, I'm not gonna do it anymore" and as a proud native English speaker, I fully support and encourage further erosion.

no - himself is another story.

but with the he/him thing - this is in a theoretical world where people *are* suddenly using it in that manner - and in that theoretical world, it wouldn't sound as jarring to our ear. but in any case, in a sentence like "I'm going with he" - the object doesn't need to be nec. underlined grammatically because it's clear within the sentence and the SVO-ness of our language. really don't see where the lost meaning is?

iatee, there's not much lost meaning in that sentence because you've chosen a very simple sentence without much complex meaning in the first place -- but you are proposing a rule here, and that rule would affect the ability to transmit meaning through more complicated sentences as well

F. Hazel's closing assertion doesn't really square with the way the most is written!

the way the POST is written

propose a sentence in which it would be lost then?

And in some languages they don't. Who/whom things are 'annoying' because they're nothing but a barrier that makes a language more difficult without adding any semantic value.

And in some languages, plural forms are created by doubling the singular form -> "horse horse" = "horses." This usage would, superficially, make English less difficult. No more "alumni" or "women" or "bacteria."

But let's be honest, unless you're some sort of Newspeak supporter, you must be joking. It isn't tough to master this. When I was ten, I could tell you all about the ablative or inessive cases. So could any of my classmates. That's because kids in my country were actually taught the basics of grammar. Many English-speakers - especially in America - learn almost no grammar in school. And in the UK and USA, a disturbingly small percentage of people ever learn a foreign language (which is also a good way to "grasp" grammar.) So rather than just stepping up to the plate and learning really simplistic aspects of language - such as the "who" / "whom" dichotomy, they whine about it being "annoying" and "useless." The fact is, that annoyance, in this case, tends to be rooted in ignorance. Most people who make the distinction naturally aren't annoyed by it. As far as "semantic value," the distinction has plenty of value. I use it ("whom") to word lengthy sentences more succinctly, without creating confusion which would come from solely employing "who." I can, however, understand that some people who are unused to academic or literary language may not personally see its "semantic value." That doesn't mean it doesn't have any though.

Correct me: Whom did you eat dinner with?

no one says whom ok

okay maybe he's belting, not saying, but still:

language and grammar changes constantly. it's a natural process - there's no good or bad to it. this has always happened, forever and ever and ever. if languages with more complex systems grammar were inherently superior, maybe we'd all be eating goulash.

systems of grammar

I don't think the reason more people speak English than Hungarian has to do with systems of grammar.

english's relatively simple grammar is certainly one of the reasons why it's a good world language

I would feel uncomfortable asking to who am I speaking or wondering for who the bell tolls, so I'm not giving up on this one anytime soon

Yeah but "who am I speaking to?" sounds perfectly fine, and "for whom the bell tolls" used as anything other than a quote is idiomatic... idioms are grammatically frozen, so that's not really a good example either. It's not like language change is just dropping in who in every place whom used to appear. You're going to see the formulation of sentences change as well.

I think it's supposed to be "With whom did you eat dinner?"

Iatee: a good complex example would take me a while, but here's a fun top-of-the-head example:

Whom did you wrong?
Who did you wrong?

These mean opposite things: the first one asks who you screwed over, while the second one asks, colloquially, what low-down no-good scoundrel screwed you over.

so can, you not say "who did you eat dinner with?"

'Who am I talking to?', when corrected to 'Whom am I talking to?', surely brings in its wake the sense that it is still incorrect, with that preposition hanging off the end. It should, I think, properly be 'To whom am I talking?'. I can imagine myself saying that, but not many people are going to do so.

There's plenty of ambiguity in English already that doesn't have a terrible effect on the language. Hell, look at the lack of a good second-person plural form of you... folks come up with perfect good alternatives like yous or y'all that reduce ambiguity and they just get shat on by prescriptivists. So I don't really buy the ambiguity argument either.

the second one is technically grammatically incorrect, nabisco

With whom did you eat dinner.
To whom am I talking.

This is why you don't end on prepositions.

language and grammar changes constantly. it's a natural process - there's no good or bad to it

I mean, we probably shouldn't get into a whole long thing about it, but this just isn't as dogmatically true as you're presenting it: there are changes that increase the clarity/precision/flexibility of a language and there are changes that harm those things, and it strikes me as pretty natural for people to have opinions about those things. For instance, you've kind of agreed upthread that it wouldn't be great for people to forget what reflexive pronouns were. Not that they are. It's just odd to me that usually, when we have a thread about a grammatical question, there's an inevitable part of it that's like "it doesn't matter anyway," and the argument proceeds along usual lines and then we talk about David Foster Wallace's big grammar-and-usage article and so on ... I dunno. Maybe we can just shortcut that and say that the importance of who/whom, on this thread, is that someone cared enough to start a thread to ask about it, so people are answering.

(For the record I don't think anyone on this thread has been arguing that "whom" is any immense loss, clarity/precision/flexibility-wise -- but it does have its uses, however marginal they may be these days.)

iatee: the second one isn't grammatically incorrect at all, actually -- it diagrams fine as subject-verb-object-adverb -- though it is idiomatic in its meaning

Yeah but "who am I speaking to?" sounds perfectly fine, and "for whom the bell tolls" used as anything other than a quote is idiomatic... idioms are grammatically frozen, so that's not really a good example either. It's not like language change is just dropping in who in every place whom used to appear. You're going to see the formulation of sentences change as well.

"Who am I speaking to?" doesn't sound unnatural. However, personally I say either, "To whom am I speaking?" or "Who, may I ask, is calling?" (on the phone at work) or informally, "Who is this?" Certainly, spoken English is often ungrammatical, and the written language gets more ungrammatical with its increasing informality. If almost all you hear and read is grammatically incorrect, then these things will sound perfectly fine.

the prescriptive view of language (THIS IS HOW IT IS) is pretty much the linguistic version of being a bill cosby complaining about the kids and their hippity hopping. these things happen! such is language. a few people complaining about it on the internet is not going to affect how people naturally decide to speak. the "this is how it is and how it has always been" aspect though - I mean you don't have to look back far in the history of English to find very different grammar. did we lose something when we lost 'thou'? uh maybe. did we lose something even further back when we lost cases? maybe? but these things happen for historic, natural / sometimes inexplicable reasons. this is why we have more than one language to begin with.

You can say, "who ate dinner with you?"

have to leave computer now

Who has to leave computer now?

um, but doesn't that mess up the subject object thingy this is supposed to be about?

xpost to sarahel

Who is the subject, the person doing the leaving. Computer is the object. I wasn't making a who/whom reference, but a loss-of-meaning as a result of loosening of grammatical rules reference. Does "have to leave computer now" mean "I have to leave computer now" or "you have to leave computer now."

When I was ten, I could tell you all about the ablative or inessive cases. So could any of my classmates. That's because kids in my country were actually taught the basics of grammar. Many English-speakers - especially in America - learn almost no grammar in school

1. It is true that English speakers learn almost no grammar in school.
2. Nevertheless, English has neither an ablative nor an inessive case. English has the subject, the object, and the indirect object, and that's about it. We don't treat the 'ablative' and the 'dative' differently: they are as it were the same case, which uses different prepositions to different meanings. (as the Greek dative does the work of the Latin dative and ablative)
3. Prescriptive grammar in English suffers from the fact that it was developed by people in the 19th century who thought - on the basis of the information they had at the time - that the rules by which we understand Latin were universal rules of all languages. It turns out they do not even apply to all Indo-European languages.

I meant the dinner one you just did

Iatee, I feel like you're really arguing against ponied-up adversaries here, which is maybe leading you to remind us of things no one particularly disagrees with. For one thing, none of the types of prescriptivists you imagine would appear to exist on this thread, and to be honest I'm not sure many of them exist in general, as it would be sort of credibility-hobbling for anyone to delude him- or herself that anything about English has always been a certain way. I'm also not sure anyone imagines that their internet disappointment about developments in usage is going to change anything -- but like I said, if you happen to have a well-reasoned opinion that a grammatical rule is useful and helpful, it is pretty natural to voice that opinion when other people say the rule is pointless.

Anyway. I'd also point out that there is one reason certain grammatical rules persist that is not at all inexplicable, and that is that we teach them, to children, regularly. Language change is inevitable but not some great mystical and uncontrollable thing, or at least very few people take that position when educating second-graders: we have certain opinions about which grammatical rules are helpful, aid clarity, and make language more usable and coherent, and we hand those down, socially, via the same kind of social mechanisms by which language changes. Sometimes it stays the same via the same mechanisms that change it.

I still think the usual prescriptive/descriptive argument is a big red herring here, though, insofar as I haven't seen anyone say anything particular prescriptive here beyond explaining a rule someone asked about

english's relatively simple grammar is certainly one of the reasons why it's a good world language

English has ridiculous and weird grammar! it is really hard to learn! The rules for use of the direct and indirect object alone are immensely frustrating and strange!

"Who ate dinner with you?" just switches the subject and object, making the unknown person the one who did the eating and making you their companion, as opposed to asking who your dinner companion was.

it is a funny thing, but
"who did you eat dinner with?" sounds fine, while
"whom did you eat dinner with?" sounds kind of silly;
"with who did you eat dinner?" sounds AWFUL, and
"with whom did you eat dinner?" sounds correct yet pedantically so.

language is gay, just use the words u want

For one thing, none of the types of prescriptivists you imagine would appear to exist on this thread,

I would imagine those types of prescriptivists would be driven insane by ilx.

And old, too! Or anyway it feels like those sorts of we-do-what-Fowler-tells-us folks are dying off. I think most of ILX's grammar people are more of the Garner/Wallace variety, which is to say ... people who enjoy making "judicious" case-by-case decisions about where grammatical rules are helpful and where it's not. (E.g., we only really had one person come out strong for "whom" -- everyone else did the distinction and then gave some variety of "usually nobody minds if you just say 'who'" disclaimer.)

my position is, I probably won't use it properly anyway, esp. where it sounds hella stupid, but I'd like to be able to.

I think Jamie T Smith's post over here is OTM: the who/whom pair don't work like a practical pair of subject/object pronouns any more. The functional rule - ie nothing breaks, you will be understood, your register will match that of others - in most contexts is 'who, except when following a preposition' (C sharp major's post illustrates this, I think)

I tend to worry about sounding pompous using whom, so I'll often phrase sentences so that it isn't necessary, add to that the writing imperative drilled into my brain to avoid passive sentences.

If anyone thinks I sound pompous because I use "whom," fuck em.

^^ I will try to emulate this attitude.

english's relatively simple grammar is certainly one of the reasons why it's a good world language

This is a ridiculous comment. Despite its heavily analytic nature (relatively few inflections, verb forms, a lack of case endings baring possessive, etc), English is a tremendously difficult language for most people to learn. Comparisons depend a lot on one's native language, but most non-native speakers find it their toughest language. For the record, my native language is a Slavic one (and thereby a cousin of English), but I've found all the other Indo-European languages easier to learn, not to mention Hungarian, which isn't even an IE language and is "notoriously" difficult. (The little Turkish I have seemed easier, too.) I'm confident my English isn't too terrible for most people here, so take my word for this. English has the advantage of immersion possibilities no matter where one is in the developed world - I can practice my English in a little village in Portugal or Poland more easily than I could my Hungarian or Russian.

Nevertheless, English has neither an ablative nor an inessive case. English has the subject, the object, and the indirect object, and that's about it. We don't treat the 'ablative' and the 'dative' differently: they are as it were the same case, which uses different prepositions to different meanings. (as the Greek dative does the work of the Latin dative and ablative)

We don't have these in my language either. That was sort of my point (poorly made, I agree.) We still learned about them and could describe their functions and whatnot.

Whilst and amongst are largely archaic at this point, although I guess Britishers disagree somewhat.

Numerous UK ILXors seem to enjoy "whilst".

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,490 from ilxor.com for whilst. (0.22 seconds)

ILX is not necessarily a good indicator of broader cultural attributes, though.

I don't have anything but anecdotal evidence to report, but I have heard/read UKers use "whilst" quite much. Especially when I visited Edinburgh.

Maybe they were putting on a whilst for me.

Who is the subject, the person doing the leaving. Computer is the object. I wasn't making a who/whom reference, but a loss-of-meaning as a result of loosening of grammatical rules reference. Does "have to leave computer now" mean "I have to leave computer now" or "you have to leave computer now."

wuz talking bad on purpose

I think it would indicate something if all the ilxor uses of "whilst" came from British users and none from American ones.

We don't have these in my language either. That was sort of my point (poorly made, I agree.) We still learned about them and could describe their functions and whatnot.

But what is the point of being able to describe the function of something that to all intents and purposes does not exist? For an English speaker - for a German speaker, a French speaker, a Korean speaker - learning about the locative is about as useful as learning about the feeding habits of sillicon-based lifeforms.

(actually you could kind of argue that korean has a locative particle)

(i say 'kind of', i mean: korean has a locative particle. but maybe calling it 'locative' - as if it were a case - and suggesting a parallel with indo-euro languages is uh not fruitful)

Iatee, I feel like you're really arguing against ponied-up adversaries here, which is maybe leading you to remind us of things no one particularly disagrees with. For one thing, none of the types of prescriptivists you imagine would appear to exist on this thread, and to be honest I'm not sure many of them exist in general, as it would be sort of credibility-hobbling for anyone to delude him- or herself that anything about English has always been a certain way. I'm also not sure anyone imagines that their internet disappointment about developments in usage is going to change anything -- but like I said, if you happen to have a well-reasoned opinion that a grammatical rule is useful and helpful, it is pretty natural to voice that opinion when other people say the rule is pointless.

deedeedeextrovert = the ponied up adversary, and the only person I was really trying to argue with

a good ole european trolling and I prolly shoulda let it be

Europeans trawl.

"Amongst", "whom" as an object = k-klassiX0r

But what is the point of being able to describe the function of something that to all intents and purposes does not exist? For an English speaker - for a German speaker, a French speaker, a Korean speaker - learning about the locative is about as useful as learning about the feeding habits of sillicon-based lifeforms.

Well, I can comment intelligently on linguistics, for one. And for two, unlike in America, it was common for kids to learn three or four languages . . . so a deeper understanding of linguistics went a long towards easier learning. Anyway, those concepts do exist. It's a bit like saying, what's the point of learning about Papua New Guinea? For most intents and purposes, it doesn't exist any more than the inessive case does, for the vast majority of Americans.

(Not sure most North Americans learn about Papua New Guinea either.)

LOLcat grammar for all.

sometimes I just wish I could be as smart as a European

Meh. I imagine most Australians would raise a sarcastic eyebrow at anyone who used "whom" in a sentence unless they were talking about Metallica.

xposts

i'm just not sure that knowing about the inessive actually enables one to comment intelligently on linguistics, though? The existence of something called 'cases', of a wider range in other Indo-Euro languages than in English, is a thing that it is good to know about: yes. Assumption of the necessary function of the inessive case (which is is in, what, finnish? and estonian?) is essentially confusing when you are dealing with a language where there is no such thing as an inessive. It is useful to know about the genitive when you are dealing with a language that has a genitive; it is not useful when you are dealing with a language that uses only the possessive or the preposition 'of', because you get confused imagining a genitive to be there.

It's a bit like saying, what's the point of learning about Papua New Guinea?

To me, what you're saying sounds like "if you don't know about the governmental structure of Papua New Guinea then you will find it difficult to understand the government of your own country, or of other countries."

people who've been on TV whom you've pwned

Mostly agree with Nabisco.

I don't really like it when people say 'language changes all the time, that's how it is, deal with it', cos they wouldn't just accept, or be happy about, 'what happens' in all kinds of other scenarios. We are not, any of us, agnostics about the million other things that are changing all the time, so why should we be compelled to be mutely accepting about language?

I also don't really think that saying 'this doesn't aid clarity, so lose it' is a knockdown argument. We could easily get by with much, much simpler language: eg with just I, he, she rather than me, him, her etc, as indicated upthread. But we don't WANT to.

French has certain cases that you only use while writing or reading. In one sense they're "useless" since they are duplicated by other cases. But the very fact that one never speaks them confers a meaning - a literariness - that other languages without these cases lack.

iatee it's almost as if you would prefer us all to speak like the ants in "The Once and Future King", who build their mighty civilization on just two words - "DONE" and "NOT DONE". It's all they need.

I think Jamie T Smith's post over here is OTM: the who/whom pair don't work like a practical pair of subject/object pronouns any more. The functional rule - ie nothing breaks, you will be understood, your register will match that of others - in most contexts is 'who, except when following a preposition' (C sharp major's post illustrates this, I think)

I think that's the first time I've ever been quoted on ILX!

Anyway, I'm not going to get into it all again, but head over to that thread, where Nasty, Brutish and Short and I pwn the whom-lovers.

Certainly, spoken English is often ungrammatical, and the written language gets more ungrammatical with its increasing informality.

This is so wrong I don't know where to start.

Don't start then

OK.

I was about to say I agree with your point that we shouldn't be neutral about language change. But at the same time, you can't pretend that it doesn't happen.

well lots of terrible things happen. some we approve of, some we don't.

ouch, I mean - we don't approve of the terrible things

we approve of good changes, and not bad ones

in life, in general, I mean. so the same principle could, in theory, be applied to language -- in fact I daresay it is.

http://www.freeonline.hu/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/2earlux.jpg

This book changed my life.

But yes, I agree competely. However, lots of linguistic changes we can be relatively neutral about.

I am a complete stickler for the less/fewer distinction, but I couldn't give a toss if it is lost (and it's surely on the way out). We don't make the same distinction with more, so I see no problem with doing away with it, or keeping both words but allowing less to be used with count and non-count nouns.

Whereas something lexical like uninterested/disinterested seems a useful distinction, and since it is almost gone, we are left with no word for disinterested.

I mean this, not the student one.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51SGEX23W9L.jpg

Yes we do - "nonplussed"!

Actually I've made two mistakes there - one is for "nonplussed", which I always use wrong, and the other is for "disinterested", when what I mean to be talking about was "uninterested". Argh I am infected!

i dont think that means the same thing does it?
xpost lol

-_-
The word "nonplussed"

Certainly, spoken English is often ungrammatical, and the written language gets more ungrammatical with its increasing informality.

This is so wrong I don't know where to start

What's wrong with it? Are you arguing that in speech people adhere more to grammatical rules than in formal writing? Adhere equally?

I'm not saying that there isn't a grammar (set of guidelines/rules about language use and structure) to everyday speech or informal writing. I'm just saying that it is less obedient to Strunk & White, et al.

I would think when there are plenty of people under the age of 21 who refuse - outright refuse - to spell properly or even write words out in full on line because "its only the internet who gives a fuck?" is far more of concern than wether we lose the "less/fewer" or "who/whom" distinction...but pick one's battles and all that, I suppose.

French has certain cases that you only use while writing or reading. In one sense they're "useless" since they are duplicated by other cases. But the very fact that one never speaks them confers a meaning - a literariness - that other languages without these cases lack.

a lot of the literariness of the passe simple etc. comes out of the fact that they've fallen out of use in spoken french - I guess this is a good parallel with 'whom' - sounds froofy and literary only because it's falling out of use.

I'd argue that this is one of the reasons why 'for whom the bell tolls' sounds good to nabisco's ear - and I'd also guess that, even though it's a good title either way - back when ernie wrote it, the title didn't have the effect that it does today

so, I mean, by this argument we should allow lots of things to fall out of use and expand our toolbox of literary-sounding english

(also - what I meant to highlight, and maybe didn't, in the first sentence is that they once WERE used in spoken french)

^^^ I realize that weird sentences like this undermine any grammar argument I bring to the table