Omission of "whom"

Question

Hello. again ^^"I met the man whom you loved."I learned "whom" can be omitted.but I am wondering it is possible to omit the folloing "Whom" "An old woman, whom he had seen before, opend the door.I think it is impossble. but I am not sure why.Is it correct?please, help T.T

Avangi · Accepted Answer

To my ear, the difference lies in whether or not the clause is essential. In this case, it's non-essential (set off by commas) and cannot be omitted.

The door was opened by an old woman he had seen before.

When you put the pause in, "he had seen before" seems awkward without it's object.

Cool Breeze · Answer

LeeSang"An old woman, whom he had seen before, opened the door.

The comma cannot be left out because the relative clause is nonrestrictive or nondefining. Both terms are used. Please use the Search Box to find out more about restrictive and nonrestrictive relative clauses.

CB

Cool Breeze · Answer

You beat me, Avangi!

CB

Avangi · Answer

So tell me, my friend, what's the difference between "essential" and "defining"?  I have a hard enough time coming up with one, let alone two.  <img src="http://www.EnglishForward.com/emoticons/emotion-42.gif"/>  - A.

Renan torres-rivero · Answer

Whom is not used very often in spoken English. Who is usually used as the object pronoun, especially in questions: Who did you invite to the party?
The use of whom as the pronoun after prepositions is very formal:
- To whom should I address the letter?
- He asked me with whom I had discussed it.

In spoken English it is much more natural to use who and put the preposition at the end of the sentence:
Who should I address the letter to?
He asked me who I had discussed it with.

In defining relative clauses the object pronoun whom is not often used. You can either use who or that, or leave out the pronoun completely:
The family (who / that / whom) I met at the airport were very kind.

In non-defining relative clauses who or, more formally, whom (but not that) is used and the pronoun cannot be left out:

Our doctor, who/whom we all liked very much, retired last week.

This pattern is not used very much in spoken English.

Cheers!

;-)

Cool Breeze · Answer

AvangiSo tell me, my friend, what's the difference between "essential" and "defining"?

I don't think there's any difference. Different terms are used to describe the same thing. I don't think I had ever heard "essential" before I hit EF. That doesn't of course mean that the term is worse than mine.

I got curious and checked some of my grammar books written by native speakers to find out what terms they use. Michael Swan talks about identifying and non-identifyingrelative clauses. Otto Jespersen doesn't use any terms! He doesn't discuss that aspect at all!

A. J. Thomson and A. V. Martinet usedefining and non-defining. I often talk about restrictive and non-restrictiveclauses. I wonder where I have picked them up...

CB

LeeSang · Answer

thanks All, folks ^^

Avangi · Answer

You're welcome, Lee.

Thanks, CB. Re this collection of terms - essential & non-; defining & non-; identifying & non-; restrictive & non- - do any or all of them have applications in grammar other than the one under discussion here? - that is, the relationship of a relative clause's relative pronoun to its antecedent?? CJ used the term "referent" recently. Does that differ in any significant way from an "antecedent?" I suppose it could relieve us of worrying about which comes first. (Sorry, I'm not much of a student these days.)

Anonymous · Answer

Essential, restrictive, non-essential and non-restrictive are terms used in American English.

Defining and non-defining is British English.

It doesn't matter which terms you use, they all mean the same thing.

Cool Breeze · Answer

Avangi CJ used the term "referent" recently. Does that differ in any significant way from an "antecedent?"

I don't think so. Relative clauses are simple and straightforward in English grammar compared with the use of participles. I mean that there are few, if any, exceptions and the use of the comma is strictly regulated. Such rigidity isn't always peculiar to English grammar!

This is how Webster's Dictionary definesreferent:

1. the object or event to which a term or symbol refers.

And antecedent:

4. Gram. a word, phrase, or clause, usually a substantive, that is replaced by a pronoun or other substitute later, or occasionally earlier, in the same or in another, usually subsequent, sentence. In Jane lost a glove and she can't find it, Jane is the antecedent of she and glove is the antecedent of it.

The dictionary doesn't have a specifically grammatical definition for referent, but there cannot be any doubt with regard to what Jim means with it.

As I am not very well versed in grammatical terms used in the USA, perhaps I had better not say anything about possible applications for "defining" etc. outside relative clauses. I certainly use the terms only to refer to relative clauses but other members may use them differently.

Incidentally, my apologies if this text looks odd on your screen. The quotes from the dictionary widen the left-hand margin inexplicably on my screen. Hopefully the final layout is better. This is a new problem. The font size also increases automatically!

CB

Omission of "whom"

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions