Who Versus Whom

It's not a 'pretence'; I really am a middle class Englishman who went to public school and later university in the 1960s and 1970s. If you want to call that being a 'fancy pants high society bugger' and advance it as an argument, then you are (I was going to say 'even more of an idiot'') exactly the idiot I thought you were.

A recording of my speech would reveal that I talk like a contemporary BBC radio announcer (Radio 3 or 4, not 1 or 2)

I'm not sure where you think a recording of my writing would be found (there's quite a lot of my random jottings on here)

Basically, how I represent myself here is not a 'pretence'. This is how I am.

Wow, you picked out the one part of my post that makes me look bad. You should work for Fox News! And what do you mean, "a willy-nilly choice"? I happen to know the rules quite well. Also, authors are one thing. How many people do you run into who actually SAY "whom"? How many of them use it correctly? Unless you work at some prestigious place, I'm going to guess the majority of them don't bother with it. Wait... are you still confident that whether you use whom/who is a choice? Please, PLEASE, read this:
http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/who-versus-whom
I find it very unlikely that there are two synonymous words just one letter away from each other. There are rules, people! Again, I understand that most people won't actually apply the rules, but I just want to make sure nobody thinks it's a choice.

Mika, please accept this in the manner it is being given, that is a charitable one.
Mignon Fogarity, or whatever she calls herself, aka Grammar Girl, doesn't know what she is talking about.

I suggested that you read what the CGEL has to say.

The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language - Cambridge ...
www.cambridge.org/uk/linguistics/cgel/
The definitive grammar for the new millennium, written by an international team of more than a dozen linguists and ...
‎Cambridge Grammar Of English - ‎Contents listing - ‎Reviews - ‎Meet the authors

Would you like some more links as proof? Here:
http://www.grammarbook.com/grammar/whoVwhom.asp
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/who_vs_whom
http://www.grammar-monster.com/lessons/who_whom.htm
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/words/who-or-whom
http://www.elearnenglishlanguage.com/blog/english-mistakes/who-vs-whom/
...and hundreds more
I just checked my library's website and they do not carry your book. They only have "The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages". I will keep looking, though, I'd love to see a book that apparently disagrees with every other qualified person; I think that'd be fun!

What leads you to believe that those are qualified persons, Mika?

Oxford describes who/whom much the same as the CGEL but with less detail.

What they do say,

"Some people do still follow these rules but there are many more who never use whom at all. The normal practice in current English is to use who in all contexts, ... "

illustrates that speakers do have a choice, save for a few limited situations.

The pretence comes from you pretending you always use whom. When the pretenders' own writing and speech is analyzed, it's found that you idiots don't follow your own silly prescriptions ('your' meaning cribbed). This happens because these are not natural to the language.

Witness recent McTag with both feet in his mouth.

I think that one would be extremely valuable for finding out how language really works, Mika.

The CGEL is really academic if you know what I mean.

Oh, really? So I don't know how language really works? I have acknowledged several times that the use of "whom" is rare; I even admitted that I never say it, yet I don't know how language works? I'm afraid you don't understand how being a respectable human being works! And in the future, if you address me (which I hope you won't), please use my full name. Meekah Ahnah.I joined this site to help people, not to get in an argument with someone whom I conjecture joined this site to provoke others. I apologize for this outburst; I'm just at my wit's end. Have a good day.

MA: Oh, really? So I don't know how language really works?

//////////

That was a reference to your choice of sources, MA, the grammar girl. She doesn't know how language works.

MA: I have acknowledged several times that the use of "whom" is rare; I even admitted that I never say it, yet I don't know how language works?
///////////////////

That just left me wondering why you would then insist there is a rule which says you're wrong every time you fail to use WHOM.

Just an amateur here, no claim to expert knowledge, but I think the "who" is correct. I limit my use of "whom" to situations where it is the object of a preposition, "for whom the bell tolls." So then the following two sentences would be correct (spoken to someone approaching a desk for information): "Who did you wish to see?", "To whom did you wish to speak?", or more awkwardly, "Whom did you wish to speak to?" So see who, speak to whom. In the given sentence, "she supposed it was he," is just as good as, "she supposed it was him," perhaps better, so I don't think that gives a clue to the who/whom selection. The same problem occurs with the subject/object analysis, is her brother the subject of Anne's suspicion, making it whom under the rules, or is the brother the subject of the prepositional phrase, "of her brother," to which the following phrase refers, making it "who"? I don't think it's clear, so that doesn't help, either. Only the lack of a preposition makes me go with "who".

bm

I think "who" refers to "brother" and is a subject, rather than the object of the the verb "supposed" ... but I am not ready to explain why.

Yes, now I am pretty sure.

He was the one she suspected it was. The whom is not correct, 'he' takes the subjective form.

Hi Mboog
I will go for "whom"