The Student Room Group

Grammatical English Rules: When to use 'Who' vs. 'Whom'

Scroll to see replies

Original post by *Stefan*
The easiest way to differentiate between the two is this, imo:
Which: Used when the information introduced (with which) is helpful but not necessary. This means that one can fully understand what your sentence means without the details provided by which (it's called non-restrictive clause). Eg. The books, which have red pages, have been very helpful - the which clause adds extra information, which is not really necessary for the person you're talking to.
That: Used when the information introduced is necessary - called restrictive clause. Eg. The books that have red pages have been very helpful - the information is required, as it specifies that only books with red pages have been helpful (hence why it's called restrictive).
Got it?
Posted from TSR Mobile


Just quick clarification.

Which would be grammatically correct:

Schumpeter thought that capitalism will become a victim of its own success and will be replaced by socialism due to the election of social democratic parties which enact socialist legislation in parliament.

Schumpeter thought that capitalism will become a victim of its own success and will be replaced by socialism due to the election of social democratic parties that enact socialist legislation in parliament.
Original post by *Stefan*
The easiest way to differentiate between the two is this, imo:

Which: Used when the information introduced (with which) is helpful but not necessary. This means that one can fully understand what your sentence means without the details provided by which (it's called non-restrictive clause). Eg. The books, which have red pages, have been very helpful - the which clause adds extra information, which is not really necessary for the person you're talking to.

That: Used when the information introduced is necessary - called restrictive clause. Eg. The books that have red pages have been very helpful - the information is required, as it specifies that only books with red pages have been helpful (hence why it's called restrictive).

Got it?

Posted from TSR Mobile


Slightly confusing in that 'which' is also used restrictively. Also, 'hence why', really?
Reply 22
Original post by flibber
Just quick clarification.

Which would be grammatically correct:

Schumpeter thought that capitalism will become a victim of its own success and will be replaced by socialism due to the election of social democratic parties which enact socialist legislation in parliament.

Schumpeter thought that capitalism will become a victim of its own success and will be replaced by socialism due to the election of social democratic parties that enact socialist legislation in parliament.


Strictly speaking, the first one, because the clause adds unnecessary information (since people would expect that from such parties).
Original post by *Stefan*
Strictly speaking, the first one, because the clause adds unnecessary information (since people would expect that from such parties).


Got it! :smile:.
Reply 24
Original post by callum_law
Slightly confusing in that 'which' is also used restrictively.


It is not - in the first example, the information is additional, and is not needed for the meaning to be complete.

Original post by callum_law
Also, 'hence why', really?


Whilst the "why" is superfluous, I like to add it for emphasis :h:
Original post by Foo.mp3
We're always getting this wrong on TSR! Also had a friend ask me to explain it so figured I'd make a thread in case it's helpful to others too :h:
According to Oxford English Dictionaries: "who should be used in the subject position in a sentence, while whom should be used in the object position, and also after a preposition", but a handy basic/less abstract way to think of it is this:
You take a phrase (1), imagine using either he/she or him/her (whichever makes grammatical sense) in an alternative phrase that is otherwise effectively the same, instead of who or whom (2), and then determine which to use accordingly (colour code indicates which to use) (3) e.g.
Example A:
1) Your phrase:
My friend Hannah, wh.. has finally met the man of her dreams
2) Imagine:
My friend Hannah, she finally met the man of her dreams*
3) Determination:
The correct word to use is therefore who
Example B:
1) Your phrase:
My friend Hannah, for wh.. finally meeting the man of her dreams was wonderful
2) Imagine:
My friend Hannah, for her finally meeting the man of her dreams was wonderful*
3) Determination:
The correct word to use is therefore whom


The problem with this is that if you can't choose correctly between 'who' and 'whom', you're quite likely to suffer the same shortcoming in relation to 'he' and 'him'.

edit: so far as 'which' is concerned, the restrictive vs non restrictive clause 'rule' lacks any basis at all in historical usage as well as any other justification. 'Which' is perfectly acceptable in both situations.
Original post by Foo.mp3
A charming attitude indeed. I only hope that you may one day soon receive your full blessing, and are henceforth therefore able to live a more blessed (healthy/happy/secure) life e.g. with someone with whom you may expect to enjoy mutual benefits in this regard :crossedf:
'Henceforth' is generally used to mean 'from the present', and sounds quite odd in your usage. If you want to say 'from a future date', you should either find another formulation or coin the word 'thenceforth'.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by *Stefan*
It is not - in the first example, the information is additional, and is not needed for the meaning to be complete.



Whilst the "why" is superfluous, I like to add it for emphasis :h:




I just got that from the OED for you. You're welcome.

Also if you're prescribing these phantom rules, you should not be using the phrase 'hence why' which is grossly unsophisticated and proscribed by most grammarians, such as Fowler.
Original post by TimmonaPortella
The problem with this is that if you can't choose correctly between 'who' and 'whom', you're quite likely to suffer the same shortcoming in relation to 'he' and 'him'.

edit: so far as 'which' is concerned, the restrictive vs non restrictive clause 'rule' lacks any basis at all in historical usage as well as any other justification. 'Which' is perfectly acceptable in both situations.
'Henceforth' is generally used to mean 'from the present', and sounds quite odd in your usage. If you want to say 'from a future date', you should either find another formulation or coin the word 'thenceforth'.


Thereafter could work.
Reply 28
Original post by callum_law


I just got that from the OED for you. You're welcome.

Also if you're prescribing these phantom rules, you should not be using the phrase 'hence why' which is grossly unsophisticated and proscribed by most grammarians, such as Fowler.


Jeez aren't you annoying.

I don't see how the link disputes what I said...?

Have you ever read a single literary piece? Were you to do so, you'd see that many phrases which are grammatically wrong are used for their stylistic aspect...

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by *Stefan*
Jeez aren't you annoying.

I don't see how the link disputes what I said...?

Have you ever read a single literary piece? Were you to do so, you'd see that many phrases which are grammatically wrong are used for their stylistic aspect...

Posted from TSR Mobile

1. I said that 'which' is also used restrictively.
2. You said that was not correct.
3. I showed you the OED sense 8a of the entry 'which' which indicates that which is used reflectively.
4. You then say you don't know how the link disputes what you said.

People proving you wrong can be quite annoying, aye, bud. And now you're being condescending, Mr Dostoyevsky. Good luck with academia when you can't even argue to the point and have to resort to insulting someone.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by callum_law
Thereafter could work.



Thereafter could indeed work.

Original post by *Stefan*
Jeez aren't you annoying.
I don't see how the link disputes what I said...?
Have you ever read a single literary piece? Were you to do so, you'd see that many phrases which are grammatically wrong are used for their stylistic aspect...
Posted from TSR Mobile


You understand you're arguing that a usage which has demonstrably been maintained for a very long time is 'incorrect'? What possible basis could you have for that claim?

Language is about usage. You can sometimes maintain that one usage is more logical than another, but there's nothing inherently logical about your distinction between 'which' and 'that'. So you're stuck with appealing to usage... which is against you. You have absolutely no justification for the claim that your distinction is 'correct'.
Reply 31
Original post by callum_law
1. I said that 'which' is also used reflectively.
2. You said that was not correct.
3. I showed you the OED sense 8a of the entry 'which' which indicates that which is used reflectively.
4. You then say you don't know how the link disputes what you said.

People proving you wrong can be quite annoying, aye, bud. And now you're being condescending, Mr Dostoyevsky. Good luck with academia when you can't even argue to the point and have to resort to insulting someone.


I said it was "wrong" for the example I provided. All relative clauses can be used as restrictive clauses, but it is common practice to use "that" for restrictive clauses and "which" for non-restrictive clauses, when one does actually pay attention - simple; that's why I said "a good way to differentiate".

So, your purpose here was to prove me wrong and show how all-knowing you are, when all I tried to do is help? Shows a lot about how sad your life is (even more so when you didn't actually prove me wrong).

Considering how toxic you are on TSR (to the extent that you wouldn't want to name your university because you don't want to be recognised by potential classmates), I don't think you need me to characterise you. Truth hurts.

Thanks for the wishes :h:


Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by *Stefan*
I said it was "wrong" for the example I provided. All relative clauses can be used as restrictive clauses, but it is common practice to use "that" for restrictive clauses and "which" for non-restrictive clauses, when one does actually pay attention - simple; that's why I said "a good way to differentiate".

So, your purpose here was to prove me wrong and show how all-knowing you are, when all I tried to do is help? Shows a lot about how sad your life is (even more so when you didn't actually prove me wrong).

Considering how toxic you are on TSR (to the extent that you wouldn't want to name your university because you don't want to be recognised by potential classmates), I don't think you need me to characterise you. Truth hurts.

Thanks for the wishes :h:


Posted from TSR Mobile


All that arguing to the point, bud. Gotta love it. I don't even need to troll on this site; I just make insightful comments and people get angry, perhaps because they cannot stomach the idea that they are wrong. 'Which' is a restrictive pronoun, so your example was flawed. Just accept it, rather than trying to obfuscate by portraying me as some fiendish villain, which rather flatters me. In addition, you used a stupid phrase in 'hence why', which I sincerely pointed out to be constructive. To an educated speaker, the phrase makes you sound like someone off Jeremy Kyle complaining that they found their dad stealing their knickers. Again, just accept it and build on the knowledge you have uncovered so you don't make the same mistake again.
Reply 33
Original post by callum_law
All that arguing to the point, bud. Gotta love it. I don't even need to troll on this site; I just make insightful comments and people get angry, perhaps because they cannot stomach the idea that they are wrong. 'Which' is a restrictive pronoun, so your example was flawed. Just accept it, rather than trying to obfuscate by portraying me as some fiendish villain, which rather flatters me. In addition, you used a stupid phrase in 'hence why', which I sincerely pointed out to be constructive. To an educated speaker, the phrase makes you sound like someone off Jeremy Kyle complaining that they found their dad stealing their knickers. Again, just accept it and build on the knowledge you have uncovered so you don't make the same mistake again.


http://grammar.yourdictionary.com/grammar-rules-and-tips/when-to-use-which-or-that.html

And the more elaborate http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/that-or-which, from your own source, clearly explaining what I say, and explicitly proving you wrong.

I'll simply leave this here and laugh at your ignorance and arrogance. Thanks :smile:

Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by *Stefan*
http://grammar.yourdictionary.com/grammar-rules-and-tips/when-to-use-which-or-that.html

And the more elaborate http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/that-or-which, from your own source, clearly explaining what I say, and explicitly proving you wrong.

I'll simply leave this here and laugh at your ignorance and arrogance. Thanks :smile:

Posted from TSR Mobile


My source was the Oxford English Dictionary, not the Oxford Dictionaries Online. It's a common mistake to mix up any OUP dictionary with the OED, but the OED is the most serious English-language lexicographical aid used by students and professors alike. However, the ODO says clearly:

Do you sometimes wonder whether to use that or which in a sentence? In many cases, in British English, both words are equally correct.
She held out the hand which was hurt.
She held out the hand that was hurt.
(edited 8 years ago)
Reply 35
Original post by callum_law
My source was the Oxford English Dictionary, not the Oxford Dictionaries Online. It's a common mistake, but the OED is the most serious English-language lexicographical aid used by students and professors alike. However, the ODO says clearly:

Do you sometimes wonder whether to use that or which in a sentence? In many cases, in British English, both words are equally correct.
She held out the hand which was hurt.
She held out the hand that was hurt.


It feels so nice when one realises his mistake and tries to play back with a lighter tone.

Here's what I said:
Original post by *Stefan*
All relative clauses can be used as restrictive clauses, but it is common practice to use "that" for restrictive clauses and "which" for non-restrictive clauses, when one does actually pay attention - simple; that's why I said "a good way to differentiate".
Posted from TSR Mobile
- And that is exactly what the source demonstrates.

What you said is that "you're wrong, because which is restrictive", which is a mistake.

End of discussion.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by *Stefan*
It feels so nice when one realises his mistake and tries to play back with a lighter tone.
Here's what I said:
- And that is exactly what the source demonstrates.
What you said is that "you're wrong, because which is restrictive", which is a mistake.
End of discussion.
Posted from TSR Mobile


You are presenting this straw man that I was reporting that 'which' is only used as a restrictive pronoun. I always said it was used in both ways. That's very much why I said what you were making out was confusing, because it does have a restrictive and a non-restrictive use which your 'simple way' didn't take account of.

Original post by callum_law
Slightly confusing in that 'which' is also used restrictively. Also, 'hence why', really?


Original post by callum_law
1. I said that 'which' is also used reflectively. [My one actual mistake and you didn't pick up on it. Maybe because you don't know what a reflective pronoun is?]
2. You said that was not correct.
3. I showed you the OED sense 8a of the entry 'which' which indicates that which is used reflectively.
4. You then say you don't know how the link disputes what you said.
People proving you wrong can be quite annoying, aye, bud. And now you're being condescending, Mr Dostoyevsky. Good luck with academia when you can't even argue to the point and have to resort to insulting someone.


You can retrospectively make it seem as if you knew from the start that your guide was incredibly misleading, but I don't believe you did because otherwise you'd have put it in a much simpler way. You could have easily shown what a non-restrictive clause is (indeed you did), and then simply said that 'that' cannot be used that way. However, you produced this weak explanation based on common misconceptions and have replied with nothing but ad-hominem and irrelevant digs at me when I explained to you why it's wrong. Further, someone else even pointed out the same flaw in your explanation. Don't respond by trying to make out like I am trying to patronise you or get one up on you; I simply identified a flaw. You are far too precious when it comes to constructive criticism, hence why I think you should take a step back and have a think about how you conduct yourself.
(edited 8 years ago)
The posters whom didn't know these rules, are stupid to have not known them.

Spoiler

Reply 38
Original post by callum_law
You are presenting this straw man that I was reporting that 'which' is only used as a restrictive pronoun. I always said it was used in both ways. That's very much why I said what you were making out was confusing, because it does have a restrictive and a non-restrictive use which your 'simple way' didn't take account of.





You can retrospectively make it seem as if you knew from the start that your guide was incredibly misleading, but I don't believe you did because otherwise you'd have put it in a much simpler way. You could have easily shown what a non-restrictive clause is (indeed you did), and then simply said that 'that' cannot be used that way. However, you produced this weak explanation based on common misconceptions and have replied with nothing but ad-hominem and irrelevant digs at me when I explained to you why it's wrong. Further, someone else even pointed out the same flaw in your explanation. Don't respond by trying to make out like I am trying to patronise you or get one up on you; I simply identified a flaw. You are far too precious when it comes to constructive criticism, hence why I think you should take a step back and have a think about how you conduct yourself.


In the example I provided, "which" was used non-restrictively, thus yes, you were wrong. Alas, when the due attention is paid to this structure, it is very rare for someone to use "which" over "that" in a restrictive clause, and this is the reason I gave him this rule. An academic would correct a "which" into "that" when used in a restrictive manner on this account alone.

I'm not going to bother with that non-structured text, because I simply do not care. Cheerio.

Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Foo.mp3
A charming attitude indeed. I only hope that you may one day soon receive your full blessing, and are henceforth therefore able to live a more blessed (healthy/happy/secure) life e.g. with someone with whom you may expect to enjoy mutual benefits in this regard :crossedf:

Agreed, excepting those unfortunate souls who live in certain Muslim lands :sad:


That's all I have ever dreamed of really and a totally healthy one free from infectious colds and stomach cramps. I haven't been happy in a long time and I wish to be happy with someone who appreciates me and the impact I have in their life.

I know,had I lived in one of these lands i would have been killed before any illness could kill me

Quick Reply

Latest