“Who,” not “whom,” is used for the subject of a relative clause.
He’s the one who stole the money.
This seems simple. But as I’ve noted before, somehow we go all to pieces if a phrase of attribution comes between the subject and the verb in the relative clause.
He’s the one [who? whom?] the police think stole the money.
Don’t be led astray. The relative pronoun is still the subject of the verb “stole,” so we still need “who,” not “whom.” If you’re not sure, mentally remove the attribution phrase and it’s clear:
He’s the one who [the police think] stole the money.
Another way to check: Remember that “who” is the same case as “he” or “she,” and “whom” is the same case as “him” or “her.” You would never say:
The police think him stole the money.
And we should never say:
He’s the one whom [the police think] stole the money.
And yet we get this wrong constantly, causing no end of dismay among our careful readers. Here are three lapses over just a few days.
•••
That year, certain analysts, whom Goldman believed had job offers from private-equity firms or hedge funds, were pulled into conference rooms and asked, point blank, about their employment plans, according to an analyst in that class and another person briefed on the matter.
Remove the attribution “Goldman believed,” and it’s clear that the relative pronoun serves as the subject of the verb “had.” Make it “who … had job offers.” (Note, too, how long and complicated the sentence is, with six commas. That makes it more likely that we’ll stumble over the grammar.)
•••
One showed two young men on the pavement, whom he said were the kidnappers.
Make it “who,” the subject of “were.” Note that the grammar would be different if we said something like “whom he identified as the kidnappers.” In that case, the relative pronoun is the direct object of the verb “identified,” so “whom” is correct — just as we would say “he identified them as the kidnappers,” not “he identified they as the kidnappers.”
•••
The young woman, Carol Loomis, navigated the magazine’s “Mad Men”-like culture, on one occasion slapping a married colleague whom, she delicately recalled, “had an agenda.”
And once again. Make it “who,” the subject of “had.”
In a Word
This week’s grab bag of grammar, style and other missteps, compiled with help from colleagues and readers.
•••
The result is much like that in other aspects of American medicine: Huge price variations for the same item or service.
What follows the colon is not a complete sentence, so “huge” should not be capitalized.
•••
In 2009, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a young Nigerian who was on a flight to Detroit from Amsterdam, attempted to detonate an Asiri-built bomb that had been sewed into his underwear.
We first said “sowed,” then tried to fix it but didn’t quite succeed. Make it “had been sewn.”
•••
Perhaps more important, the visit reflected tensions among Seoul and Tokyo, the United States’ key allies in the region, as China tries to exploit South Korean wariness of Japan stemming from Japan’s colonial dominance of the Korean peninsula in the early 20th century.
Make it “tension between” the two.
•••
Since the ouster of Dov Charney as chief executive, a deluge of news media attention and intrigue have pounded the company.
Don’t be led astray by the prepositional phrase “of news media attention and intrigue.” The subject, “deluge,” is singular and requires a singular verb: “has pounded.”
•••
No place, however, surrenders to tradition as reluctantly as Wimbledon, where one of the Big Four has won the past 11 years.
In context, the intended meaning appears to be “surrenders tradition” or “surrenders its traditions.”
•••
In his mind and online persona, Gilberto Valle left little doubt about the depths of his depravation: In communications over the Internet, he imagined subjecting women he knew to sex-related torture and, in some cases, murder and cannibalism.
The unusual noun “depravation” means the act of depraving or corrupting; what we wanted was “depravity,” meaning the state of being depraved.
•••
His 72-year-old father, who according to Forbes data is worth more than $5 billion, has also been a benefactor to Christian causes, famously aiding the troubled Oral Roberts University with more than $70 million in 2007.
Ah, yes, who could forget this famous gift from 2007? Well, probably most of us. Skip the “famously.”
•••
After helping Mr. Kelleher get the airline off the ground, Mr. King liked to pitch in as a pilot on some of the company’s routes, his son said.
If intended, the joke seems strained. If not, it still seems strained.
•••
City Room has dug up articles from The New York Times archives during the past week that tell tales of city summers past.
We’ll end the series with a couple articles that are all about the heat.
“New York Times” is a modifier here, so “the” goes with “archives” and should be lowercase (or make it possessive, using the full name: “The New York Times’s archives”). Also, we need “of” in the expression “a couple of articles.”
•••
[Op-ed] This could mean another lost year for us as a nation, as Congress wiles away the time in anticipation of a changing of the guard in 2016.
Changed in time for print to “whiles,” the homophone we wanted.
•••
Nothing in the contraceptive coverage rule prevented the companies’ owners from worshiping as they choose or advocating against coverage and use of the contraceptives they don’t like.
From the stylebook:
advocate. As a verb, it should take a direct object: She advocates mandatory recycling laws. Not She advocates for mandatory recycling laws or, worse, She advocates against mandatory recycling laws. In noun constructions, do not use anti-, as in anti-sweatshop advocates and anti-abortion advocates.