The confusing "Who/Whom"

We are working to determine who it belongs to.

The above sentence is taken from a news item in a popular English daily.

The 'who' in the sentence does not appear to be grammatically correct and this will become more noticeable if the sentence is rewritten as "We are working to determine it belongs to who."

Obviously, 'who' (which is in the subjective case) cannot be used there. We need a 'whom' (which is in the objective case) to be the object of the preposition 'to' and hence, the sentence should have been "We are working to determine whom it belongs to."

The use of 'who/whom' has confused many writers including experienced ones.

For a simple guide on how to use 'who/whom', please see my earlier postings of February 5, 2011 and September 28, 2009.

Use of Present Perfect Tense against its Rule

In my last posting of March 25, 2011, a common mistake was mentioned therein.

Another frequent error committed by writers appears in the following sentence found in a news item dated March 28, 2011 of the same popular English daily.

THE last European principal of the prestigious Penang Free School here, J.M.B, Hughes has passed away at his home in United Kingdom on March 16, five days after his beloved wife Jean passed away on March 11.

The present perfect can give a starting time or an amount of time only if we use the words 'since' and 'for'.

Hence, the sentence in question should have been written as "THE last European principal of the prestigious Penang Free School here, J.M.B, Hughes passed away at his home in United Kingdom on March 16, five days after his beloved wife Jean passed away on March 11."

Inconsistencies in Sentence

THE world has been gripped by the unfolding crisis in the northeast of Japan where an earthquake, tsunami and nuclear catastrophe has killed lives, damaged property and now threaten to sour sentiment and confidence in the world's third-largest economy.


The above sentence is the first paragraph of an article in a popular English daily.

Earthquake, tsunami and nuclear catastrophe appear to have been treated by the writer as one event/occurrence/disaster which has killed lives, damaged property. The writer has followed with the use of a plural verb 'threaten'. How inconsistent is the treatment of the subject/s of these verbs?

To be grammatically sound, such sentence should have been "THE world has been gripped by the unfolding crisis in the northeast of Japan where an earthquake, tsunami and nuclear catastrophe have killed lives, damaged property and now threaten to sour sentiment and confidence in the world's third-largest economy."


This a very common pitfall for writers who write long sentences unless they exercise extreme care.