You are not who/whom I wanted to see.
Who or whom, and why?
And what would you substitute to get rid of the question altogether?
Alicia
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Got Editing Questions?
If you have an editing question you'd like us to address, feel free to send it to rasley at gmail dot com. We like reader questions because they save us from having to think up post topics on our own. ;)
Readers' Choice for Top Ten Blog Posts
- 1. Top Ten Reasons the Editor Doesn't Love What Your Critique Group Loves
- 2. How to Put It Together Into One Neat Tweet
- 3. Marks of the Amateur - Starting a List
- 4. When Unnamed Characters Speak
- 5. Character-Driven/Plot-Driven
- 6. The Words Not Spoken, the Steps Not Taken
- 7. This Was in the Comments, But It's a Great Question, So Let's Discuss--
- 8. Dialogue Tags
- 9. Enjambment in Fiction
- 10. Thoughts on Pacing - Nothing Brilliant
Readers' Choice for Best Series by Alicia
Readers' Choice for Best Series by Theresa
Readers' Choice for Best Series by Both Editors
Theresa's Dubious Honor
Useful Sites for Writers
Blog Archive
When Theresa's not reading manuscripts, she's reading:
Labels
- action (26)
- active prose (12)
- acts (1)
- adjectives (10)
- advanced stuff (1)
- advanced training (1)
- adverbs (10)
- advice (2)
- agents (4)
- agreement (3)
- alliteration (1)
- American vs. British English (2)
- antagonist (3)
- antiheroes (12)
- art (1)
- audiobooks (1)
- author (2)
- author rights (1)
- authorial negation (3)
- authority (2)
- backstory (7)
- body parts (7)
- books (1)
- books we read (37)
- call to action (1)
- causation (4)
- chapters (2)
- character (81)
- characters (3)
- classes (2)
- classics (3)
- clauses (10)
- climax (2)
- coherence (1)
- coincidence (1)
- comedy (8)
- commas (10)
- concrete (1)
- conferences (20)
- conflict (18)
- conjunctions (5)
- contests (33)
- contracts (1)
- copy editing (9)
- Critique (1)
- Critique groups (7)
- danglers (7)
- deep pov (28)
- deep stuff (25)
- denouement (1)
- description (22)
- detail (4)
- details (1)
- deuteragonist (1)
- dialect (4)
- dialogue (38)
- dialogue beats (7)
- dialogue tags (6)
- direct publishing (9)
- double negatives (1)
- ebooks (3)
- editing (24)
- editors (24)
- electronic reading (1)
- ellipses (3)
- emotion (27)
- endings (15)
- epilogues (2)
- ETIQUETTE (1)
- examples (62)
- excerpts (1)
- exercises (23)
- exposition (13)
- eyes (2)
- fairy tale (1)
- feedback (1)
- film (13)
- first person pov (5)
- first sentence (1)
- flashback (4)
- foils (6)
- foreshadowing (1)
- formatting (1)
- frames (1)
- freewriting (2)
- fun stuff (5)
- future of story (2)
- genre (6)
- gerunds (1)
- goals (1)
- grammar (52)
- guest post (5)
- headhopping (2)
- hero (9)
- hooks (1)
- horror (1)
- horror books (1)
- hyphens (3)
- idea (1)
- inciting incident (1)
- innovation (2)
- interior monologue (9)
- internal conflict (1)
- irish (1)
- irony (3)
- journal (1)
- Kindle (4)
- life (3)
- line editing (63)
- links (36)
- lists (4)
- log lines (16)
- manuscript (1)
- mark of the amateur (11)
- melodrama (1)
- memoir (1)
- memory (1)
- metafiction (1)
- metaphor (4)
- middle (1)
- modals (1)
- modifiers (14)
- motif (9)
- motivation (7)
- multiple POV (4)
- mystery (4)
- names (4)
- nano (2)
- narration (1)
- narrative (8)
- narrative summary (6)
- new media (1)
- nouns (5)
- omniscient (2)
- openings (60)
- ordinary world (7)
- other (42)
- outline (2)
- pacing (12)
- paragraphs (37)
- participial phrases (23)
- participles (3)
- passive voice (9)
- past participles (3)
- Pen Olympics (18)
- pennames (1)
- perception (1)
- personal (7)
- phrases (1)
- pitching (28)
- plot (64)
- plotting (3)
- poetry (16)
- poetry plotting deep thoughts (1)
- polls (2)
- possessive (1)
- POV (51)
- POV contest (11)
- PR (14)
- predicates (5)
- prepositions (8)
- principles (1)
- productivity (14)
- progressive verbs (1)
- prologue (5)
- promotion (3)
- pronouns (11)
- proofreading (2)
- prose (5)
- protagonist (12)
- publishing (1)
- publishing industry (93)
- punchlines (1)
- punctuation (33)
- query letters (15)
- quotations (1)
- quotes from writers (1)
- read and revise like an editor (2)
- reader expectations (5)
- readers (2)
- redlines (12)
- reinventing (4)
- rejections (4)
- relative clauses (3)
- reversals (6)
- reviews (2)
- revising (8)
- revision (5)
- revision letters (8)
- romance (8)
- rule (1)
- rules (4)
- scene (3)
- scene charts (1)
- scenes (58)
- scenes pov setting emotion character (1)
- secondary characters (4)
- self-publishing (2)
- semicolons (2)
- sense of smell (4)
- sentence combining (5)
- sentence construction (2)
- sentence fragments (10)
- sentence structure (37)
- sentences (89)
- sequels (3)
- sequence (2)
- series - Alicia's sample line edits (45)
- series - Johnny and Drago (8)
- series- ongoing rants on PPPs (9)
- setting (31)
- settings (1)
- short stories (1)
- short stories Plot structure (1)
- show don't tell (5)
- simile (1)
- slang (1)
- smart stuff (2)
- sound (1)
- stephen king (1)
- story (7)
- stream of consciousness (2)
- structure (33)
- style (7)
- subject/verb agreement (2)
- submissions (57)
- subordinate clauses (4)
- subplots (3)
- subtext (10)
- symbolism (1)
- synopsis (11)
- syntax (2)
- teaching (1)
- tech (1)
- technique (1)
- tense (5)
- tension (3)
- terms (1)
- theme (24)
- thought (1)
- thought tags (1)
- three acts (1)
- tone (1)
- topic sentences (1)
- transitions (6)
- tritagonist (1)
- turning points (1)
- TV shows (23)
- typography (5)
- usage (10)
- verbs (27)
- villains (3)
- vocabulary (2)
- voice (50)
- word choice (1)
- words (41)
- workshop (5)
- worldview (2)
- writer control (1)
- writer's block (3)
- writers (3)
- writing advice (1)
- writing process (3)
Posts
18 comments:
Hmm! I think "who" must be right (or ... more right?), but only because "whom" strikes my ear as incorrect. Whom would work in a construction like "...the one [or man/woman/etc.] whom...", though. In dialog, I'd leave it at "who", since I don't think the entire sentence would work in the mouth of someone who'd use "whom" correctly. Or, more likely, I'd dump it in favor of some more specific noun.
"I didn't want to see you?"
"You are not the person I wanted to see."
I'm a strong believer in rewriting the sentence to avoid getting the grammar wrong!
You are not who I wanted to see.
Because "are" is a linking verb, and so a noun following it is not an object of a verb. (EG: "It is I," not "It is me.") "Whom" is an object pronoun.
Alternative: "I wanted to see somebody else."
::crosses fingers::
"You are not the droids I am looking for."
"Who the heck are you, and where's the guy I'm looking for?"
Seriously, though, I flip-flopped about a dozen times trying to figure out if the word in question was part of the subject or the object of this wonky sentence. After thinking about it for far too long, I'd rewrite the whole sentence for clarity's sake!
I'd rather write: You are not the pronoun I wanted to see.
I believe "who" is the correct pronoun as it is functioning as the subject complement of "you."
Probably ten years ago now, an editor friend told me to stop using whom altogether. He's British. I listened. I think of whom as being a British thing, probably incorrectly. I just spent a week in the woods with a Brit. I don't think he used whom once. It could have been the setting, though.
Like others have done, it's easiest to replace who/whom with something like "You are not the person I wanted to see."
I would use who. I don't know if that's correct or not, but the line appears to be dialog. Unless the speaker is a grammarian they would probably say who.
I understand this answer doesn't qualify me for the position of Grammar Monarch.
You are not who I wanted to see.
If I was concerned about the grammar rule, I'd look up this one. But I'm not. If "whom" is correct, then the sentence rings ajar.
It is a tilt, a place that will pull the reader from the narrative.
This stands whether this is a line of dialogue (in which case Krystal Claxton is also correct) or not.
Incidentally, if I were writing the dialogue of someone who had perfect English, I would learn the applicable grammar rule because this character would occasionally speak in a jarring manner.
I agree that whom sounds awkward, but if I've broken down the sentence correctly, "you" is the object, so "whom" is correct.
You are not whom I wanted to see.
To eliminate the question, I'd be more specific or rewrite the sentence.
You are not the manager I wanted to see.
I wanted to see someone else.
I don't want to see you. Go away. ;)
I think it's "whom," but I am very uncertain about it. I'd write "You aren't the one I wanted to see" instead. And as someone else pointed out already, it looks like dialogue, and in that case I would probably just put "who" because that sounds like more natural dialogue.
This is why we love this blog... but I have no idea of the right answer. (could look it up in my book, but I LOVE the discussion going on here :) I would re-structure the sentence. Yes. Then I would find the grammar rule, read it until my eyes glazed over, then hope for Alicia or Theresa to bring it up so I had a chance of understanding it :)
Or, if I desperately needed to know, I'd go look in the archives under their grammar bits. If you think I'm kidding...
Whom is correct because whom is in the objective case. As in "I wanted to see "him", not "he." Whom is the object of the infinitive verb. You would not say "He came to see I."
A lot of ways to do away with this awkwardness have already been posted. You could simply say "You are not the one I wanted to see." Or "I wanted to see someone else, not you." Or many variations.
It is objective ("whom" is the object of the relative clause, not the main clause, btw), but I'm with you guys-- let's just rewrite it and avoid the weird clanging noise that says it sounds wrong.
"You're not the one I wanted to see."?
Alicia
I like all the very technical reasons for 'whom.'
Whom is correct but here's an easy way to test it:
Replace who/whom with he/him (may require some rewording of the sentence). If he fits, it's who. If him fits, it's whom. Him and whom both end in m.
So, 'I didn't want to see him.'
Therefore:
You are not whom I wanted to see.
Keeping the sentence with the correct "whom" would say volumes about what kind of person this character was.
I'd ope for simpler and less of a direct statement:
"Oh. It's you."
There's something to be said for re-writing to avoid the question, but there's also something to be said for learning the rules so that you can confidently answer the question.
When I was a kid, I had trouble remembering the spelling of necessary, so I simply avoided it by writing unneeded instead. After a while, I realized that limiting myself wasn't always the best choice. I forced myself to memorize the correct spelling. Now I have two choices where I used to have just one.
Knowing whether it's who or whom gives you more freedom: you can make the sentence correct (for a highly educated character) or purposely incorrect (for a typical speaker) or you can rephrase it (which may often be the best answer).
This is a hard one, and I can't answer it with 100% confidence. I think I'm going to spend some time learning so I have all my options next time.
Post a Comment