As is well–known, whom is not a form much in use today.  (The tendency to avoid using whom, especially in informal situations, began much earlier, decades ago.)  But when a preposition precedes, there is no choice but to use whom; to whom, not to who. The preposition assigns objective case to the following noun / pronoun.

Nouns have no case forms except the possessive form. But personal pronouns and relative/ interrogative pronouns have case forms.  So while I spoke to the boy is correct To who did you speak is not.  It has to be To whom did you speak?

In relative clauses there is the possibility of separating the preposition from the relative pronoun and thus using who instead of whom. The boy to whom you spoke has a correct alternative The boy who you spoke to.  Now the preposition does not precede. We have moved the wh-word to the front of its clause leaving the preposition behind.

This is called ‘preposition stranding’ (prep. stranding for short). So there is no need to change who to whom. Actually even who can be dropped and then you can get The boy you spoke to.

Now and then one comes across in IE a construction like: These then were the common refrains to whomsoever one spoke to (DH.Nov. 3. 2007, p.12). Here you see the preposition appearing twice. It should be either to whomsoever you spoke or whosoever you spoke to. The preposition either moves with the relative pronoun and so it is not stranded; or it is stranded and so it cannot appear with the relative pronoun.

Even with relative pronouns which don’t have an object form the same rule applies.  The preposition is with the relative pronoun or at the end by itself.  It cannot appear in both positions.  (a.) The address to which you sent the letter.  (b) The address which you sent the letter to. (c.).* The address to which you sent the letter to. The sentence at (c) is ungrammatical. As between (a) and (b) the first one is the preferred one.

This suggests that prep. stranding, although quite common with the relative pronoun who, is not always possible or desirable with other relative words. At which time did you tell him to meet us? This is fine. But not: What time did you tell him to meet us at?  (From Quirk et al)

Both, at once

In an earlier issue of this column (Jan.31, 2008) I had discussed the inadvisability of using both with at once. Fowler who notes the point has a list of other words which also, in his opinion, are redundant: alike, equally, between. I am not quite sure that equally should be included in this list.   Let us take his own example.  We find both Lord Morley and Lord Livingstone equally anxious for a workable understanding. We can of course omit equally and write: We find both Lord Morley and Lord Lansdowne anxious for a workable understanding. But this doesn’t bring out the fact that both their Lordships are equally interested in arriving at a workable understanding.  Facts could have been different.  While both are interested one of them, say, Lord Morley, could have been more interested than the other. While Yediyurappa and Kumaraswwamy are both for holding elections to the state assembly, they are not equally anxious to hold it as early as possible.

Consider now the sentence: The International society is not afraid to invite comparisons between masters both old and new (Fowler). Supposing the writer had said The International Society is not afraid to invite comparisons between old and new masters. Both would have been eliminated.  But the sentence puts off to the very end that comparison is between masters and not just between old and new artists.  Some excitement and expectation is secured by putting masters first. And then not just masters but old and new.

The point is: tautology is to be condemned when it is a meaningless, illiterate repetition (We will meet at 11 a.m.  tomorrow morning). In some cases there may be some stylistic (rhetorical) justification. More generally verbiage has to be condemned when it is pointless and adds nothing to the force or meaning of a sentence.  Here is a typical example. …he tells her that in order for one to be educated he or she must read voraciously—DH.Sept. 5, 2007. Now consider this pruned version. He tells her that to be educated one must read voraciously. Which is better?

Contact the writer at ksyadurajan@yahoo.com

Maxims & Observations of Kay S. Wye.

Mumbai for Mumbaikars! Karnataka for Kannadigas! –Such slogans bring little credit to our land as a nation.  Churchill scoffed at the idea of freedom for India. ‘India is as much a nation’ he snorted, ‘as the equator’. Was Churchill after all right?