| 单词 | who |
| 例句 | who pronounUSAGE who, whom Edward Sapir, the philosopher of language, prophesied that “within a couple of hundred years from to-day not even the most learned jurist will be saying ‘Whom did you see?’ By that time the whom will be as delightfully archaic as the Elizabethan his for its. No logical or historical argument will avail to save this hapless whom”. ( Language; 1921.) A safer bet might be that no one will be spelling to-day with a hyphen. In any event, writers in the twenty-first century ought to understand how the words who and whom are correctly used. Who, the nominative pronoun, is used (1) as the subject of a verb ( it was Kate who rescued the dog); and (2) as the complement of a linking verb, i.e., as a predicate nominative ( they know who you are). Whom, the objective pronoun, is used (1) as the object of a verb ( whom did you see?); and (2) as the object of a preposition ( the person to whom we're indebted). It's true that in certain contexts, whom is stilted. That has long been so: “Every sensible English speaker on both sides of the Atlantic says Who were you talking to? [—not Whom —] and the sooner we begin to write it the better.” (J. Y. T. Greig, Breaking Priscian's Head; ca. 1930.) But there are other constructions in which whom remains strong—and more so in American English than in British English. Although writers have announced the demise of whom, it persists in American English—e.g.: • “Susan McDonough's classroom is filled with primary-school children of different ages, all of whom are lagging behind in reading skills.” ( Washington Post; Sept. 28, 1997.) • “He was implicated in the murder of a man whom his workers caught tampering with some stone blocks.” ( SmartMoney; Oct. 1, 1997.) (In this sentence, that might work more naturally than whom.) The correct uses of who are sometimes tricky. But if the pronoun acts as the subject of a clause, it must be who, never whom —e.g.: “Alan Alda, who you quickly realize is sorely missed on TV, stars as Dan Cutler, a type-A personality advertising executive.” ( Sun-Sentinel [Fort Lauderdale]; May 20, 1994.) ( Who is the subject of is.) While the subject of a finite verb is nominative ( I know she is good), the subject of an infinitive is in the objective case ( I know her to be good). The same is true of who and whom. Strictly, whom is always either the object of a verb or preposition, or else the subject of an infinitive—e.g.: “Do all you can to develop your intuition—this will help you to know when to act and when to wait, whom to be cautious about and whom to trust.” ( Washington Times; July 9, 1997.) But often journalists don't get it right, perhaps because they consider the word stuffy—e.g.: • “And he [nominee Stephen G. Breyer] promised, following the admonition of the late Justice Arthur Goldberg, who [read whom ] he served as a law clerk 30 years ago, to do his best to avoid footnotes.” ( Washington Post; May 17, 1994.) • “A polite, helpful 11-year-old who [read whom ] everybody called Jake was fatally shot in his bedroom in this small rural town on Thursday, and a 13-year-old friend was charged hours later with killing him.” ( New York Times; Sept. 3, 1994.). (Replacing who with that would also work naturally here.) • “Those friends include Myra Guarino, 62, of Valdosta, who [read whom ] Mrs. Helms represents in a suit against the manufacturer of silicone breast implants.” ( New York Times; July 7, 1995.) In the citations just listed, who is defensible in informal contexts. But the objective who is not idiomatically normal after a preposition. For example, one of whom is something of a set phrase—e.g.: “Parents proudly whooped it up for the players, not one of who [read one of whom ] wore shoulder pads.” ( USA Today; Jan. 27, 2003.) Among the toughest contexts in which to get the pronouns right are those involving linking verbs. We say, for example, who it is for the same reason we say this is he, but some very good writers have nodded. In any event, whom shouldn't be used as the subject of any finite verb—e.g.: • “The distinguished political and social philosopher Russell Kirk used the word ‘energumen’ to describe. .. whom [read who ] it is I agitate against.” (William F. Buckley, The Jeweler's Eye; 1969.) ( Who is needed as the inverted subject of is: it is who, as in it is he.) • “Police went to several addresses looking for a 17-year-old whom [read who ] they thought was staying with his aunt.” ( San Francisco Chronicle; Apr. 20, 1994.) ( Who is needed as the subject of was.) • “In the other corner are the anti-Stratfordians, the heretics and conspiracy theorists of literature, most of them devoted amateurs whose dogged sleuthing and amassing of evidence (albeit mostly circumstantial) continues to enlarge the body of contention that Shakespeare wasn't himself. But if not he, then whom [read who ]?” ( Washington Post; May 17, 1994.) ( Who is needed in a parallel phrasing with he.) • “But Beck ought to serve as an inspiration for a host of other superb golfers whom [read who ] naysayers claim ‘can't win the big ones.’ ” ( Sky; Sept. 1995.) ( Who is needed as the subject of can't win.) • “Sam divorced in 1969, and is survived by his son, Sam III, his wife, Angela, and their daughter, Samantha, of Clarksville, Tennessee; and by his daughter, Marguerite, the mother of Matthew and Grace, whom [read who ] all lived with Sam in Austin.” ( Austin American-Statesman; Feb. 10, 1996.) ( Who is needed as the subject of lived.) William Safire takes an interesting approach for those who fear seeming pedantic (by using whom) or being incorrect (by using who for whom): “When whom is correct, recast the sentence.” ( New York Times; Oct. 4, 1992.) Thus “Whom do you trust?” becomes, in a political campaign, “Which candidate do you trust?” The relative pronoun that can also substitute in many situations. But one commentator, Steven Pinker, calls Safire's suggestion an “unacceptable pseudo-compromise.” And Pinker has a point: “Telling people to avoid a problematic construction sounds like common sense, but in the case of object questions with who, it demands an intolerable sacrifice. People ask questions about the objects of verbs and prepositions a lot.” ( The Language Instinct; 1994.) Moreover, a phrase such as which person is wordier and slightly narrower than who or whom. Perhaps the most sensible approach was the one taken by Robert C. Pooley in 1974: “Considering the importance some people place on mastery of [the textbook rules for whom ], the schoolbooks may be justified in distinguishing the case forms for the relative pronouns for literary usage. But to insist that these literary and formal distinctions be made in informal writing and speech as necessary to achieve ‘correctness’ is to do violence to the readily observed facts of current usage.” ( The Teaching of English Usage, 2d ed.; 1974.) Who is the relative pronoun for human beings (though that is also acceptable); that and which are the relative pronouns for anything other than humans, including entities created by humans. But writers too often forget this elementary point—e.g.: “The best borrowers are grabbed by the banks and financial institutions who [read that ] are in a position now to offer finer rates.” ( Business Standard; Oct. 25, 1997.) Some inattentive writers use which in referring to human beings—e.g.: “The bakery employs 11 people, two of which [read whom ] are English (non-Amish) women, and one who is a salesman.” ( Plain Dealer [Cleveland]; June 13, 1995.) That, of course, is permissible when referring to humans: “the people that were present” or “the people who were present.” Editors tend, however, to prefer the latter phrasing.Usage notes show additional guidance on finer points of English usage. |
| 随便看 |
英语同义词词典收录了14896条英语词条，基本涵盖了全部常用同义词或反义词的辨析及翻译，是英语学习的有利工具。