Would The use of nominative "whom" please be reopened?

At the outset, I referenced the more general question which I had already read but didn't answer my question, so that mine wouldn't be closed as a duplicate.

With profuse thanks to subsequent and instructive comments by user Araucaria, I'm interested in learning about other answers and glosses.

Supplementary: Thanks for the answer. I have just emended my original to declare that I don't, veritably, know whether it should be who or whom. My guess in favour of who is predicated on those links, but is this wrong, thanks to user Araucaria's many examples and comments?

2nd Supplmentary: Alas, this question was closed again so I thought to elucidate it. Moderator in his answer below writes: 'you know it.' Sadly, I don't (know the answer). Moderator's 3rd paragraph also says 'You are certain.' Sadly, I'm not. I had updated my question by virtue of the many conrete, valid examples evidence against the use of who.

  • 5
    The question as stated is pretty closable; no matter how much you state it is not a duplicate, it is. Now if you want to modify your question into one that involves Araucaria's examples, that is another matter (asking about a subculture that uses 'whom' differently from the mainstream). Edit your question and then we'll vote. – Mitch Jul 3 '14 at 14:44
  • @Mitch How's it a duplicate? User F.E. wrote in revisions: 'The "duplicate thread" doesn't seem to have an answer to the OP's question.' I don't see the answer either? – Greek - Area 51 Proposal Jul 7 '14 at 9:51
  • LePressentiment: The question is a duplicate. Not all questions are answered well, it is not guaranteed that that question has a good answer for itself. The point is that a good answer to that question would be a good answer to this question. That enough people have voted this as duplicate means that they feel that there are no nuances to your question that the other question doesn't already take into account. – Mitch Jul 7 '14 at 21:52
  • 1
    @Mitch The problem's that, quite the opposite, the question wasn't duplicate. It's only duplicate if you ignore the evidence and beg the question (in the proper sense of the term). The question's been being asked recently on prestigious linguistics and English language blogs (often lauded on this site by people who frequent both ELU and Meta). The question posed on the blogs is very simple: Why's this form acceptable in such instances - or perhaps it isn't? They seem to know the answer to "When's whom normally used in R-clauses" but they find the OP's question worthy. Are they silly dolts? – Araucaria - Not here any more. Jul 9 '14 at 1:41
  • @Araucaria: I understand you're not happy with the closing as duplicate. I'm only giving you my opinion (one out of at least 10 others) why. Please ask a new question, along with references to these other linguistic and English blogs too so we can all find out what the other ideas are about the subject. We are sincerely interested in the extra information. Instead of worrying about the closure, just ask the new question. – Mitch Jul 9 '14 at 2:20
  • 2
    @Mitch You haven't answered my question ... – Araucaria - Not here any more. Jul 9 '14 at 7:02
  • 1
    @Mitch I'm a bit confused. Would you like me to ANSWER the question, or would you like me to ASK the same one again? – Araucaria - Not here any more. Jul 9 '14 at 7:09
  • @Araucaria Thank you for your continued support. Please feel free to edit my question to update it or ask another. I'll enjoy your contributions either way! – Greek - Area 51 Proposal Jul 9 '14 at 7:58
  • 1
    @Araucaria: I'm saying neither answer the closed one (you can't because it has been closed) nor ask the same one (because it will likely be closed also. Ask a new one. If that gets closed as duplicate then it's probably not new enough. To make it new, it probably shouldn't be about what is right who or whom in sentence X, but to ask something about the prevalence of who or whom in certain contexts (or all contexts) and if people are consistent in their use corresponding to function that the prescriptive rule uses. – Mitch Jul 9 '14 at 10:52

Your question was closed per the comments on it. The closure has been explained. The question is loaded, the premise as stated is wrong, and you know it.

Speaking of the comments, it only got closed by one mod after an extended discussion between yourself and a different mod, so the closure wasn't exactly unilateral or unexpected. (And of course mods can't help their close votes being unilateral, that's by design.) In the course of that discussion you did try to improve the question, which we do acknowledge as something most people never even bother with. You just didn't quite get there, is all.

You are certain that it should be who, and have consulted a number of places that all confirmed it should be who, but you still go ahead and ask, "I don't apprehend why whom is correct". All we can do at that point is repeat right back "well, it is not". Which people did, in comments and an answer alike. So there's little point in keeping the question open in its current form.

Canonical questions exist precisely so that we don't have to have a dedicated question for every single typo in the history of mankind. More to the point, we cannot explain the reasoning behind every single typo (or whether it is indeed a typo, hypercorrection, a brain fart, an OCR bug, or plain incompetence). Only the author will know. Perhaps not even him.

With all that said, the duplicate close reason is a very soft one. The softest of them all. It basically says two things:

  1. Whether or not your question is closed, it will stick around forever. So you lose nothing.
  2. Whether or not your question is closed, you are unlikely to receive insight apart from that which has already been supplied. So again, you lose nothing.

You are welcome to edit your question to be substantially different, though if you already got an answer to your original question — which you did —, you are best advised to post that different question from scratch, because otherwise you'd be doing a disservice to the person who answered your original question and whose answer will no longer match the edited version. (If it still does, then the edit is arguably not substantial by definition.)

  • 1
    Thanks. Please enlighten me of any suggestions for improvement. – Greek - Area 51 Proposal Jul 6 '14 at 8:27
  • Since this question was reclosed, I thought to elucidate. 'you know it.': I don't (know the answer). Your 3rd paragraph says 'You are certain,' but sadly I'm not. I updated my question because the many examples evidence against ' "well, it is not"'. Does this explain my interest in this question? – Greek - Area 51 Proposal Jul 7 '14 at 9:53

@LePressentment. I feel sympathetic to your displeasure over the closure of your question. I too have experienced similar frustrations several times when my questions were closed for a simple reason of being ‘off-topic” without being given any specific or concrete reasons.

But I realized that a closed question can be reopened by revising or improving the wording or structure of your question. As a unique example, I once posted a question under the heading, “’Battle-hardened’’ is this a typo?,” regarding the word used in the headline of the New Yorker's article, which was closed as an off-topic question. I complained it in Meta User, then received a suggestion from the user whom I respect to alter the wording of the heading as “’Battled-hardened,’ is this one of New Yorker’s renowned idiosyncrasies?”

You will know the difference. If I preconceive it a typo which seems to be very likely, it's no use for asking it as a question. I followed his suggestion and rewrote the title. The question was re-opened. It means I got 5 reopen-votes to offset close-votes simply by revising the heading. It was very valuable advice for me.

I’m simply giving you an example of the blame (though I’m not sure of whether this wording is right or not) for a close-vote being shared mutually by posters and reviewers of the question.

I hope both parties work constructive on ‘win-win’ relationship.

  • Thanks. I'm grateful for your sympathy. Please enlighten me on any suggestions for improvement. – Greek - Area 51 Proposal Jul 6 '14 at 8:28
  • Should readers understand that you have read the previously revised question itself, the comments on the page and also the answers. Are you answering this question solely on the basis of the question here on Meta? I'm asking because it is difficult to judge your response here without this information. Thank you in anticipation of your response. – Araucaria - Not here any more. Jul 9 '14 at 1:21
  • @Araucaria.I read his previous question. But I didn’t peruse at full length because I thought answer is clear from the context of the quoted line, “persons whom it is foreseeable are likely to be harmed by ....” I took ‘it is foreseeable’ just an insertion, therefore the relative pronoun should be ‘who.’ I wasn’t inclined to read through detailed answers, because it’s physically and intellectively beyond my ability to follow a long argument. – Yoichi Oishi Jul 9 '14 at 20:36
  • Cont.My answer wasn’t specific to who, whom question. I noticed the OP mentioned whether ‘whom’ is ‘typo’ or not in his question, and it reminded me of the episode of one of my questions being closed when I asked if “battled–hardened” is typo or not, and simply told the OP that closed vote can be retrieved by rewording or restructuring the question as a generalization before complaining closure. – Yoichi Oishi Jul 9 '14 at 20:36

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .