current community

your communities

more stack exchange communities

company blog
Stack Exchange Inbox Reputation and Badges
tour help
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top
up vote 19 down vote favorite
2

I often hear people say something like

For whose benefit is that?

Should it not be

For whomse benefit is that

Who -> Whom
Whose -> Whomse

I know "whomse" is not a real word. My question is: why doesn't it exist?

share|improve this question
3  
Related: Accidental gap. – Matsmath yesterday
8  
Interesting question. This actually belongs to a principle in Indo-European languages with respect to the form of genitives; it should be allowed to ask such a question. – Cerberus yesterday
4  
The way things are going, in a few years we might expect 'Why is “whom” not a word?' – Edwin Ashworth 18 hours ago
up vote 37 down vote accepted

The easiest way to think about this is to compare to he him his:

Who gets the benefit? He gets the benefit.

To whom does the benefit accrue? The benefit accrues to him.

For whose benefit is that? That is for his benefit.

For whomse benefit is that? That is for hims benefit.

Obviously that last is unnecessary/wrong—in place of hims (or him's) we have his, and in place of whomse (or whom's) we have whose. (Also, sound aside, whose is no more related to who's than his is to he's.)

That's the quick-and-dirty, functional answer; it's also accurate that whose and whom evolved alongside each other, subject to different influences than what might make sense from our modern English point of view. From the OED Online:

whose, pron. Etymology: Middle English hwās, later hwǭs, whǭs, altered form of hwas, hwes, Old English hwæs (< **χwasa*) genitive of hwá and hwæt, through the influence of hwā, hwǭ who pron., hwām, hwǭm whom pron. (Later Middle English whas probably represents an unstressed variant.)

—"whose, pron." OED Online. Oxford University Press, June 2016. Web. 20 August 2016.

share|improve this answer
    
This is a great explanation in my opinion, thank you – Albert Renshaw yesterday
    
It does raise other questions though... Where does the "e" in "whose" come from? If it actually means "who's", and and the word "his" doesn't have an "e", then it doen't really seem necessary. – Mr Lister 1 hour ago
up vote 27 down vote

There aren't two different nominative/objective pairs

Who -> Whom
Whose -> *Whomse

Instead, there's three choices

  • Who - Nominative
  • Whom - Objective
  • Whose - Possessive

Who can't be both objective and possessive.

share|improve this answer
2  
Times like these I wish I could accept two answers. Thanks for the explanation; it does feel if I say something like "For who(m)se dog did you buy the collar" is is both objective and possessive, but that's probably just an error in the way my brain "feels" about the sentence haha. – Albert Renshaw yesterday
1  
@AlbertRenshaw: Examples of nominative and objective: I like her. She ignores me. Who likes whom?   Examples of possessive: My dog ate my homework. Our team visited their stadium. Tomorrow, their team will visit our stadium.   See how the possessive is the same for the subject and the object.  (Indirect object and object of preposition are no different: He gave her a ring. His father proposed to his mother.) – Scott yesterday
5  
@AlbertRenshaw: No, your brain is correct: in for whose dog, the noun group whose dog is together the object of the preposition; but internally, inside the noun group, whose is a possessive noun modifying dog. So there are both an object and a possessive/genitive there, though not at the same level. But the object is only indicated at the group level, and the group as a whole cannot show object status—except when the entire group is a single word whom. – Cerberus 20 hours ago
up vote 14 down vote

In all Indo-European languages that I know, a genitive modifies a noun but does not agree with this noun, not even in languages with elaborate paradigms. In other words, the form of the genitive doesn't change when the form of the noun it belongs to changes. An example from Latin:

Magna Minerva est dea. "The great Minerva is a goddess."

Amicus Vulcanus est deus. "Friend Vulcanus is a god."

Vulcanus est amicus Minervae. "Vulcanus is Minerva's friend."

Video amicum Minervae. "I see Minerva's friend."

As you see, the form of the genitive doesn't change, while the noun that the genitive modifies (amicus/amicum) changes form to indicate that it is subject or object, respectively. Only adjectives can change their form if they belong to a noun, not genitives. It is the same in English.

share|improve this answer

protected by Kit Z. Fox♦ 9 hours ago

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.