New Yorker “Who”/“Whom”
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Has The New Yorker changed its "who"/"whom" policy? Recently, I noticed--for the first time in fifteen years of more or less consistent readership---two occasions I considered non-standard, both from 2018:
A couple weeks after that, a woman in California called the police on
three black women whom she thought were behaving suspiciously.
("Smelling the Coffee" by Jelani Cobb, June 4 and 11, 2018)
and
They spoke to P.J. and to the men memorialized in Kavanaugh's 1982
calendar as Timmy and Squi, along with Mark Judge, whom Ford says
watched Kavanaugh pin her down and try to undress her.
("Bystanders to History" by Amy Davidson Sorkin, October 15, 2018).
Compare these to the magazine's long history of making the opposite choice in this context:
Warren targeted the one person in the White House who she believed
could stop the legislation: the First Lady.
("The Virtual Candidate" by Ryan Lizza -- and at least 20 others containing the phrase "who he believed," and 298 containing "who he thought," for a quick and dirty initial survey. [Perhaps notably, the magazine seems to have started insisting on commas around such clauses not long before its apparent switch to "who."])
What explains this change?
writing-style subjects grammatical-case whom
edited 2 days ago
Dan Bron
25.7k1186120
asked Nov 4 at 17:18
SAH
2,20521231
|
show 8 more comments
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Has The New Yorker changed its "who"/"whom" policy? Recently, I noticed--for the first time in fifteen years of more or less consistent readership---two occasions I considered non-standard, both from 2018:
A couple weeks after that, a woman in California called the police on
three black women whom she thought were behaving suspiciously.
("Smelling the Coffee" by Jelani Cobb, June 4 and 11, 2018)
and
They spoke to P.J. and to the men memorialized in Kavanaugh's 1982
calendar as Timmy and Squi, along with Mark Judge, whom Ford says
watched Kavanaugh pin her down and try to undress her.
("Bystanders to History" by Amy Davidson Sorkin, October 15, 2018).
Compare these to the magazine's long history of making the opposite choice in this context:
Warren targeted the one person in the White House who she believed
could stop the legislation: the First Lady.
("The Virtual Candidate" by Ryan Lizza -- and at least 20 others containing the phrase "who he believed," and 298 containing "who he thought," for a quick and dirty initial survey. [Perhaps notably, the magazine seems to have started insisting on commas around such clauses not long before its apparent switch to "who."])
What explains this change?
writing-style subjects grammatical-case whom
edited 2 days ago
Dan Bron
25.7k1186120
asked Nov 4 at 17:18
SAH
2,20521231
4
... or their copyediting has recently broken down for these kinds of expressions.
– Peter Shor
Nov 4 at 17:26
@PeterShor My sense is not. 1) These are (at least) two examples that are extremely proximal in terms of date. 2) Any instance of "who"/"whom" raises, I would imagine quite automatically, even a mediocre copyeditor's attention. 3) I have learned it is in general incorrect to suspect The New Yorker's copyediting. (Although there are a decent number of examples to the contrary, they usually arise when The New Yorker starts working with a non-English language.)
– SAH
Nov 4 at 17:45
1
If this is a new policy, it's one that flagrantly disagrees with most prescriptive grammarians. So I would really rather attribute this to carelessness than to idiocy on the part of the New Yorker. Maybe they hired a new copyeditor who doesn't understand the grammar of these expressions, and they haven't figured out that they need to explain it to them yet.
– Peter Shor
Nov 4 at 18:14
1
Even though I personally think that who and whom can coexist if used in the right contexts, I also understand and support those who in our current time have made a stylistic choice to use who in every context. But I'm simply not going to get behind using whom in every context. ;)
– Jason Bassford
Nov 4 at 18:34
1
@SAH: I agree. When the New Yorker gets it wrong, it shows that the traditional who/whom distinction is totally dead.
– Peter Shor
Nov 5 at 0:09
|
show 8 more comments
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Has The New Yorker changed its "who"/"whom" policy? Recently, I noticed--for the first time in fifteen years of more or less consistent readership---two occasions I considered non-standard, both from 2018:
A couple weeks after that, a woman in California called the police on
three black women whom she thought were behaving suspiciously.
("Smelling the Coffee" by Jelani Cobb, June 4 and 11, 2018)
and
They spoke to P.J. and to the men memorialized in Kavanaugh's 1982
calendar as Timmy and Squi, along with Mark Judge, whom Ford says
watched Kavanaugh pin her down and try to undress her.
("Bystanders to History" by Amy Davidson Sorkin, October 15, 2018).
Compare these to the magazine's long history of making the opposite choice in this context:
Warren targeted the one person in the White House who she believed
could stop the legislation: the First Lady.
("The Virtual Candidate" by Ryan Lizza -- and at least 20 others containing the phrase "who he believed," and 298 containing "who he thought," for a quick and dirty initial survey. [Perhaps notably, the magazine seems to have started insisting on commas around such clauses not long before its apparent switch to "who."])
What explains this change?
writing-style subjects grammatical-case whom
edited 2 days ago
Dan Bron
25.7k1186120
asked Nov 4 at 17:18
SAH
2,20521231
Has The New Yorker changed its "who"/"whom" policy? Recently, I noticed--for the first time in fifteen years of more or less consistent readership---two occasions I considered non-standard, both from 2018:
A couple weeks after that, a woman in California called the police on
three black women whom she thought were behaving suspiciously.
("Smelling the Coffee" by Jelani Cobb, June 4 and 11, 2018)
and
They spoke to P.J. and to the men memorialized in Kavanaugh's 1982
calendar as Timmy and Squi, along with Mark Judge, whom Ford says
watched Kavanaugh pin her down and try to undress her.
("Bystanders to History" by Amy Davidson Sorkin, October 15, 2018).
Compare these to the magazine's long history of making the opposite choice in this context:
Warren targeted the one person in the White House who she believed
could stop the legislation: the First Lady.
("The Virtual Candidate" by Ryan Lizza -- and at least 20 others containing the phrase "who he believed," and 298 containing "who he thought," for a quick and dirty initial survey. [Perhaps notably, the magazine seems to have started insisting on commas around such clauses not long before its apparent switch to "who."])
What explains this change?
writing-style subjects grammatical-case whom
writing-style subjects grammatical-case whom
edited 2 days ago
Dan Bron
25.7k1186120
asked Nov 4 at 17:18
SAH
2,20521231
edited 2 days ago
Dan Bron
25.7k1186120
asked Nov 4 at 17:18
SAH
2,20521231
edited 2 days ago
Dan Bron
25.7k1186120
edited 2 days ago
Dan Bron
25.7k1186120
edited 2 days ago
Dan Bron
25.7k1186120
25.7k1186120
asked Nov 4 at 17:18
SAH
2,20521231
asked Nov 4 at 17:18
SAH
2,20521231
asked Nov 4 at 17:18
SAH
2,20521231
2,20521231
4
... or their copyediting has recently broken down for these kinds of expressions.
– Peter Shor
Nov 4 at 17:26
@PeterShor My sense is not. 1) These are (at least) two examples that are extremely proximal in terms of date. 2) Any instance of "who"/"whom" raises, I would imagine quite automatically, even a mediocre copyeditor's attention. 3) I have learned it is in general incorrect to suspect The New Yorker's copyediting. (Although there are a decent number of examples to the contrary, they usually arise when The New Yorker starts working with a non-English language.)
– SAH
Nov 4 at 17:45
1
If this is a new policy, it's one that flagrantly disagrees with most prescriptive grammarians. So I would really rather attribute this to carelessness than to idiocy on the part of the New Yorker. Maybe they hired a new copyeditor who doesn't understand the grammar of these expressions, and they haven't figured out that they need to explain it to them yet.
– Peter Shor
Nov 4 at 18:14
1
Even though I personally think that who and whom can coexist if used in the right contexts, I also understand and support those who in our current time have made a stylistic choice to use who in every context. But I'm simply not going to get behind using whom in every context. ;)
– Jason Bassford
Nov 4 at 18:34
1
@SAH: I agree. When the New Yorker gets it wrong, it shows that the traditional who/whom distinction is totally dead.
– Peter Shor
Nov 5 at 0:09
|
show 8 more comments
4
... or their copyediting has recently broken down for these kinds of expressions.
– Peter Shor
Nov 4 at 17:26
@PeterShor My sense is not. 1) These are (at least) two examples that are extremely proximal in terms of date. 2) Any instance of "who"/"whom" raises, I would imagine quite automatically, even a mediocre copyeditor's attention. 3) I have learned it is in general incorrect to suspect The New Yorker's copyediting. (Although there are a decent number of examples to the contrary, they usually arise when The New Yorker starts working with a non-English language.)
– SAH
Nov 4 at 17:45
1
If this is a new policy, it's one that flagrantly disagrees with most prescriptive grammarians. So I would really rather attribute this to carelessness than to idiocy on the part of the New Yorker. Maybe they hired a new copyeditor who doesn't understand the grammar of these expressions, and they haven't figured out that they need to explain it to them yet.
– Peter Shor
Nov 4 at 18:14
1
Even though I personally think that who and whom can coexist if used in the right contexts, I also understand and support those who in our current time have made a stylistic choice to use who in every context. But I'm simply not going to get behind using whom in every context. ;)
– Jason Bassford
Nov 4 at 18:34
1
@SAH: I agree. When the New Yorker gets it wrong, it shows that the traditional who/whom distinction is totally dead.
– Peter Shor
Nov 5 at 0:09
4
4
... or their copyediting has recently broken down for these kinds of expressions.
– Peter Shor
Nov 4 at 17:26
... or their copyediting has recently broken down for these kinds of expressions.
– Peter Shor
Nov 4 at 17:26
@PeterShor My sense is not. 1) These are (at least) two examples that are extremely proximal in terms of date. 2) Any instance of "who"/"whom" raises, I would imagine quite automatically, even a mediocre copyeditor's attention. 3) I have learned it is in general incorrect to suspect The New Yorker's copyediting. (Although there are a decent number of examples to the contrary, they usually arise when The New Yorker starts working with a non-English language.)
– SAH
Nov 4 at 17:45
@PeterShor My sense is not. 1) These are (at least) two examples that are extremely proximal in terms of date. 2) Any instance of "who"/"whom" raises, I would imagine quite automatically, even a mediocre copyeditor's attention. 3) I have learned it is in general incorrect to suspect The New Yorker's copyediting. (Although there are a decent number of examples to the contrary, they usually arise when The New Yorker starts working with a non-English language.)
– SAH
Nov 4 at 17:45
1
1
If this is a new policy, it's one that flagrantly disagrees with most prescriptive grammarians. So I would really rather attribute this to carelessness than to idiocy on the part of the New Yorker. Maybe they hired a new copyeditor who doesn't understand the grammar of these expressions, and they haven't figured out that they need to explain it to them yet.
– Peter Shor
Nov 4 at 18:14
If this is a new policy, it's one that flagrantly disagrees with most prescriptive grammarians. So I would really rather attribute this to carelessness than to idiocy on the part of the New Yorker. Maybe they hired a new copyeditor who doesn't understand the grammar of these expressions, and they haven't figured out that they need to explain it to them yet.
– Peter Shor
Nov 4 at 18:14
1
1
Even though I personally think that who and whom can coexist if used in the right contexts, I also understand and support those who in our current time have made a stylistic choice to use who in every context. But I'm simply not going to get behind using whom in every context. ;)
– Jason Bassford
Nov 4 at 18:34
Even though I personally think that who and whom can coexist if used in the right contexts, I also understand and support those who in our current time have made a stylistic choice to use who in every context. But I'm simply not going to get behind using whom in every context. ;)
– Jason Bassford
Nov 4 at 18:34
1
1
@SAH: I agree. When the New Yorker gets it wrong, it shows that the traditional who/whom distinction is totally dead.
– Peter Shor
Nov 5 at 0:09
@SAH: I agree. When the New Yorker gets it wrong, it shows that the traditional who/whom distinction is totally dead.
– Peter Shor
Nov 5 at 0:09
|
show 8 more comments
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f471504%2fnew-yorker-who-whom%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
4
... or their copyediting has recently broken down for these kinds of expressions.
– Peter Shor
Nov 4 at 17:26
@PeterShor My sense is not. 1) These are (at least) two examples that are extremely proximal in terms of date. 2) Any instance of "who"/"whom" raises, I would imagine quite automatically, even a mediocre copyeditor's attention. 3) I have learned it is in general incorrect to suspect The New Yorker's copyediting. (Although there are a decent number of examples to the contrary, they usually arise when The New Yorker starts working with a non-English language.)
– SAH
Nov 4 at 17:45
1
If this is a new policy, it's one that flagrantly disagrees with most prescriptive grammarians. So I would really rather attribute this to carelessness than to idiocy on the part of the New Yorker. Maybe they hired a new copyeditor who doesn't understand the grammar of these expressions, and they haven't figured out that they need to explain it to them yet.
– Peter Shor
Nov 4 at 18:14
1
Even though I personally think that who and whom can coexist if used in the right contexts, I also understand and support those who in our current time have made a stylistic choice to use who in every context. But I'm simply not going to get behind using whom in every context. ;)
– Jason Bassford
Nov 4 at 18:34
1
@SAH: I agree. When the New Yorker gets it wrong, it shows that the traditional who/whom distinction is totally dead.
– Peter Shor
Nov 5 at 0:09