I have just read a sentence something like this:
“He is just one of 100 journalists who [Country X] is putting to work in Washington, D.C.”
Am I correct in thinking that (in formal writing), the pronoun should be “whom,” the object of the verb “is putting”?
Thank you.
Technically ‘whom’ is the object of the verb ‘is putting’ and the subject of the verb is ‘Country X’. I think it is simpler to omit ‘whom’ altogether.
Alan
I don’t think you are. If you use ‘whom’, it will mean ‘journalists’. In that case the country’s name would become necessary.
Hi THL,
Don’t follow you. It is correct to use ‘whom’ no question about that - the verb is ‘is putting’.
Thank you, Alan and THL, for your replies.
Hi James,
I think the seeming disagreement above might stem from the fact that it is a bit fuzzy whether or not you actually intended to include ‘Country X’ in the sentence. The fact that you put it in brackets tends to make it appear to be an optional alternative.
Based on the wording, though, the sentence really only works with ‘Country X’ included. And in that case, ‘whom’ is the formally correct choice.
The word ‘who’ would be correct with this wording, for example:
Having said all that, the word ‘who’ is sometimes used instead of ‘whom’ nowadays. And as you’ve probably heard, that is slowly becoming more acceptable, especially in contexts that are not ultra-formal.
[color=darkblue]____________________________________________
[size=75]“It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education.” ~ Albert Einstein[/size]
Thank you, ESL Expert.
I did not use the name of the country mentioned in the article, for I am a very discreet person who did not want to possibly embarrass any of our
international readers.
Your points are all well-taken and very helpful. As was Alan’s observation that many speakers (presumably in speech) would simply omit any relative
pronoun.
James
Alan,
How can I coin a sentence for this using ‘whom’?
“He is just one of 100 journalists whom has begun to work in Washington, D.C.”
Is this sentence alright?
No, that’s not correct. Also the latter half of the sentence relates to the journalists, so you need the plural:
… journalists who have begun to work…
No. It should be :
“He is just one of the 100 journalists who have begun to work in Washington, D.C.”
You could also say: He is just one of a 100 journalists who … This maintains the unspecified nature of the comment.
By using a numeral, the phrase looks equivalent to ‘… one of a one-hundred journalists…’
I assume you mean ‘… one of a hundred journalists…’
When we write 100, 1000 etc we mean or read them as a hundred, a thousand etc. The use of ‘a’ can be superfluous and is likely to render a different interpretation like yours. The definite article is more apt, because the sentence refers to a specific group comprising a hundred journalists.
Yes THL, I get the point as Bev has already pointed out that it should be ‘a hundred’.
Alan
Thanks, Alan.
Hi, can anyone please suggest a good translation for плохая примета? There doesn’t seem to be an equivalent in English or German. Many thanks, Torsten[YSaerTTEW443543]
TOEIC listening, photographs: Selling outside[YSaerTTEW443543]
Hi Torsten,
For my Google translator it means misfortune, bad luck, unfortunate, unlucky.
Unfortunately, none of those translations really work here.[YSaerTTEW443543]
TOEIC listening, photographs: An evening outdoors[YSaerTTEW443543]
bad sign?
" ein schlechtes Anzeichen" is in german “плохая примета” I would say so.