“Whom” has played a smaller and smaller role in
literature, as shown here. But any grumbling about
the shift is liable to look silly later. One 17th-century
writer called replacing “thou” with “you” a “corrupt
and unsound form of speaking”—and thou surely
knowest we didn’t take heed. In a few generations,
complaints about “whom” will look just as pointless.%of^ All^WordsinEnglish-LanguageBooks*
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.(^18001820184018601880190019201940196019802000)
If some fanciness is
good, then surely
more fanciness is
better. Clever texters
add “d’ve” for flair.
The first known
sarcastic use of
“whomst.” Thanks,
Insta gram user
fkinsnapss.
Internet researcher Limor
Shifman argues that memes
with a slapdash feel see
more resurgences like these:
Pixelated graphics and
disarrayed language make
it easier to play along.
by Gretchen McCulloch/ illustration by Kate Bingaman-Burt
*S
CA
NN
ED
B
Y^ G
OO
GL
E^ B
OO
KS
N
GR
AM
S
Relative Google Search Frequency
Use in Books
Whomst Whomst’d’ve
Nov 2016
10
25
50
75
100
Sep 2018 Jun 2019
Pe
ak
Zi
lch
BY THE NUMBERS
whomst’d’ve
thought?
THE INTERNET LOVES TO CREATE
words, but it can also bring aged terms
back from the fringes—with a twist. Take
“whomst’d’ve” (that’s whom+did+have).
It sounds like a joke (and it is), but it’s also
an example of how language is living and
growing before our screen-gazing eyes.
Originally, “whom” indicated when “who”
was an object (“they saw whom?”) instead
of a subject (“who saw them?”). But we don’t
use such “-m” forms elsewhere—youm and
whichm, anyone?—so people use “whom”
less and less. Now it often just serves to
make a phrase sound fancier, which the net
is stretching to new extremes. Where will it
all end? Whomst knows!
14 FALL 2019 • POPSCI.COM