WHO vs. WHOM...

[redcandle]

I think I understand the difference but I wanted to be sure...

Do we say: Whom do you want to see?

Can't I say "Who" in this situation?! I'm confused because in that case the
sentence - "Who would you like to be?" is wrong, right? That's weird for me..

[ms.jones]

Teoretycznie 'Whom do you want to see?' jest poprawne ale na codzien in real
life ludzie uzyliby 'who' - who do you want to speak to? who do you want to see?
Moja stara (1986, Allen, Living English Structure)ksiazka z cwiczeniami mowi:
'Whom? This form has almost disappeared from spoken British English. It is
found only in the most formal form of writing. Foreign students need not learn
it for their own use. It is not required in any of the interrogative exercises
in this book if they are done orally.'
Tu masz proste i dokladne wyjasnienie z BBC:
www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/youmeus/learnit/learnitv47.shtml

+ good rule rule of thumb:

If you can’t get who and whom straight, try this trick: rephrase the sentence
to get rid of who or whom. If you find you’ve replaced who/whom with he, she,
or they, who is correct. If you find you’ve replaced who/whom with him, her, or
them, then whom is correct. For example, suppose you have the question Who/whom
is the most famous A-list star eating lunch at Elaine’s? Rephrase it: She is
the most famous A-list star eating lunch at Elaine’s. Since you’ve used she,
you know who is correct in the original question: Who is the most famous A-list
star at Elaine’s? Another example: Vaughn wondered who/whom he would kiss next.
Rephrase: Vaughn would kiss her next. Since the rephrased sentence uses her,
you know whom is correct: Vaughn wondered whom he would kiss next.

www.sparknotes.com/writing/style/topic_187.html
Who would you like to be? - na pewno tutaj nikt nie uzylby 'whom'.

Jak mi sie te dwa placza to tlumacze na polski - (do)kogo?, komu? = whom,
reszta= who. Jak pokazuja przyklady: 'Who do you think you are?' i 'Who is
who' , polskie 'kim' = who. Mam nadzieje ze znowu tego nie poplatalam :)

[butchcassidyandthesundancekid]

Z Collinsa:
Usage. In formal English, careful writers always use whom when the objective
form of who is required. In informal contexts, however, many careful speakers
consider whom to be unnatural, esp. at the beginning of a sentence: "who were
you looking for?" Careful speakers usually prefer whom where it closely follows
a preposition: "to whom did you give it?" as contrasted with "who did you give
it to?"

[axxolotl]

Careful speakers usually prefer whom where it closely follows
> a preposition: "to whom did you give it?" as contrasted with "who did you give
> it to?"

True, but really, who talks like that?

[kaya11]

Bottom line:
Whom - formal and unnatural
Who - common and useful

[chris-joe]

Przyznam, ze zaskoczylo mnie wasze gremialne niemal usmiercanie "whom". Nawet
ze strony Brytyjczykow.
Po tej stronie Atlantyku, tu w Kanadzie, czy tez w USA slyszy sie WHOM w miare
czesto, widuje jeszcze czesciej. To prawda, mozna zyc bez WHOM, mozna WHOM
takze prawie nigdy w zyciu nie uzyc bez ryzyka kompromitacji. Jednak jest ono w
uzyciu.
W pewnych kregach -nie mowie tu wcale o snobach jezykowych, ale o ludziach z
pewnym wyksztalceniem, czy tez z "kulturalnymi aspiracjami"- WHOM jest bardziej,
niz mile widziane.

Uzycie WHOM dla nas Polakow powinno byc dosc latwe do zrozumienia, bo jezyk
polski jest fleksyjny- czyli ma przypadki rzeczownika. Angielski niegdys takze
je posiadal, a uproscil sie jedynie w trakcie swego rozwoju. WHOM jest wlasnie
taka "zywa skamielina" z tamtych czasow.

Prosta regula:
WHO- mianownik
WHOSE- dopelniacz
WHOM- reszta przypadkow (procz Wolacza:)