Skip to Content
Linguablog | English | Vocabulary | “Whom” Is Dying — Should We Let It?

“Whom” Is Dying — Should We Let It?

By: Author Marcel Iseli

Posted on Last updated:

“Whom” Is Dying — Should We Let It?

Sharing is caring!

If ‘whom’ were a person, it’d be the one at a dinner party correcting everyone’s grammar and quoting Shakespeare before dessert. It sounds formal, stiff, and maybe a little smug — but for some reason, it’s still hanging around in our emails and official letters.

Most people avoid it. Some people use it to sound clever (often badly). And others? They just guess and hope no one notices.

So yes — ‘whom’ is dying. The question is: should we finally let it go, or does it still serve a purpose in the wild jungle that is English grammar?

Key Takeaways
🧠 ‘Whom’ Is the Object Form: Traditionally, ‘whom’ is used when referring to the object of a sentence, as in “To whom did you speak?”
📉 Natural Grammar Decline: English lost most of its case system centuries ago, which made ‘whom’ feel increasingly awkward and unnecessary in everyday speech.
🗣️ Speech vs. Writing: Native speakers rarely use ‘whom’ in conversation, but it still appears in formal writing, legal texts, and certain fixed expressions.
📚 Clarity in Complex Sentences: In rare cases, ‘whom’ can make long or grammatically tricky sentences easier to understand — but most people just rewrite the sentence instead.
⚖️ Use It or Lose It: There’s no grammatical crime in ditching ‘whom.’ Use it if you like sounding precise — ignore it if it gets in the way of natural writing or speaking.

A Brief Funeral for a Word Nobody Really Knows How to Use

Let’s be honest: if ‘whom’ were a person, it would be the type who corrects your dinner-party grammar and brings a cheese platter labeled in Latin. It’s the word that shows up in formal letters, dusty textbooks, and emails from people who say “per my last message” unironically.

And guess what?
It’s dying. Slowly. Painfully. Publicly.
The question is: should we let it?

Chapter 1: ‘Whom’ — The Grammar Fossil Nobody Asked For

Once upon a time — like, pre-Netflix, pre-electricity, pre-vowels-as-we-know-them — English was a case-heavy language. You didn’t just have “who” for everything. You had different versions of words depending on what the word was doing in the sentence. Subject? Object? Possessive? You bet your declensions it mattered.

Back then, ‘whom’ made total sense. It was the objective form of ‘who.’ You used it when the person was on the receiving end of an action.

Whom did you stab with a misplaced semicolon?

Old English had:

  • Hwā = who (subject)
  • Hwām = whom (object)

You know, back when we had letters like ƿ and thought the word “knight” needed a “k” and a “gh” for dramatic effect.

Chapter 2: The Fall of the Case System (and Everyone Cheered)

Then came Middle English — aka English with a hangover from the Norman Conquest. And suddenly, the language started letting itself go. Cases? Gone. Gendered nouns? Bye. Inflection? Who needs it.

English became chill. Too chill for “whom.”

Word order stepped in to do the heavy lifting, and “who” started doing double duty — subject, object, emotional support.

Still, ‘whom’ survived. Kind of like a guy who wasn’t invited to the party but showed up in a tuxedo anyway.

Chapter 3: How to Use ‘Whom’ (If You Insist)

Let’s do this. The basic trick is:

  • If you’d answer the question with he/she, it’s who.
  • If you’d answer with him/her, it’s whom.

Example:
Whom did you see at the pub?
→ You saw him → ✅ Whom

But honestly? If you’re doing this calculation in real-time mid-conversation, you’re going to sound like a robot buffering in front of a human sentence.

Most people say:
Who did you see at the pub?
Nobody dies. Communication happens. Grammar purists weep softly.

Chapter 4: Why Some People Still Cling to It

Let’s not pretend whom is entirely useless. It can add clarity in twisted sentence labyrinths.

The applicant whom the committee believed to be the strongest was actually a hologram.

Is “who” technically okay there? Debatable. Is “whom” more precise? Slightly. Will most people just rewrite the sentence to avoid the whole mess? Absolutely.

Also, ‘whom’ survives in fossilized expressions:

  • “To whom it may concern”
  • “For whom the bell tolls”
  • “Whom do I have to bribe to get decent Wi-Fi in this hotel?”

Chapter 5: Is It Actually Dying?

Yes. And it’s not a new thing. Even Shakespeare used “who” in places grammarians today would throw fits over. This isn’t Gen Z’s fault (for once).

Linguists have been calling this a natural case simplification for centuries. Language likes to be lazy. If people understand “Who are you talking to?” then nobody’s reaching for “Whom are you talking to?” unless they’re angling for tenure or writing passive-aggressive HOA notices.

That’s the thing: whom is now a status marker, not a grammatical necessity.

Chapter 6: Let It Go… or Not?

Here’s the real answer:
If you like ‘whom’ — use it.
If it gives you anxiety — don’t.
If you’re not sure — default to ‘who.’
Nobody’s arresting you. The Grammar Police resigned in 2007.

But if you’re using it wrong just to sound fancy?

Well. That’s the linguistic equivalent of wearing a monocle upside down. We’re judging you.

Final Words (RIP?)

Whom is basically the Latin of English grammar — intellectually rich, mostly dead, and still lurking in the background of formal institutions.

So should we let it die?

Honestly?
Let it shuffle off into dignified semi-retirement. Give it a gold watch. Let it pop up in legal contracts and gravestone inscriptions. And the rest of us can move on, unburdened by the ghost of grammar past.

Just… don’t say “whomst.” That one’s cursed.

By Author Marcel Iseli

Posted on Last updated: