Who. There are few persons, even among the most cultivated, who do not make frequent mistakes in the use of this pronoun. They say, "Who did you see?" "Who did you meet?" "Who did he marry?" "Who did you hear?" "Who did he know?" "Who are you writing to?" "Who are you looking at?" In all these sentences the interrogative pronoun is in the objective case, and should be used in the objective form, which is whom, and not who. To show that these sentences are not correct, and are not defensible by supposing any ellipsis whatsoever, we have only to put the questions in another form. Take the first one, and, instead of "Who did you see?" say, "Who saw you?" which, if correct, justifies us in saying, "Who knew he," which is the equivalent of "Who did he know?" But "Who saw you?" in this instance, is clearly not correct, since it says directly the opposite of what is intended.
Who was little used as a relative till about the sixteenth century. Bain says: "In modern use, more especially in books, who is frequently employed to introduce a clause intended to restrict, define, limit, or explain a noun (or its equivalent); as, 'That is the man who spoke to us yesterday.'"
"Here the clause introduced by who is necessary to define or explain the antecedent the man; without it, we do not know who the man is. Such relative clauses are typical adjective clauses—i. e., they have the same effect as adjectives in limiting nouns. This may be called the restrictive use of the relative.
"Now it will be found that the practice of our most idiomatic writers and speakers is to prefer that to who in this application.
"Who is properly used in such coördinate sentences as, 'I met the watchman, who told me there had been a fire.' Here the two clauses are distinct and independent; in such a case, and he might be substituted for who.
"Another form of the same use is when the second clause is of the kind termed adverbial, where we may resolve who into a personal or demonstrative pronoun and conjunction. 'Why should we consult Charles, who (for he, seeing that he) knows nothing of the matter?'
"Who may be regarded as a modern objective form, side by side with whom. For many good writers and speakers say 'who are you talking of?' 'who does the garden belong to?' 'who is this for?' 'who from?'" etc.
If this be true—if who may be regarded as a modern objective form, side by side with whom—then, of course, such expressions as "Who did you see?" "Who did you meet?" "Who did he marry?" "Who were you with?" "Who will you give it to?" and the like, are correct. That they are used colloquially by well-nigh everybody, no one will dispute; but that they are correct, few grammarians will concede. See [That].
Whole. This word is sometimes most improperly used for all; thus, "The whole Germans seem to be saturated with the belief that they are really the greatest people on earth, and that they would be universally recognized as being the greatest, if they were not so exceeding modest." "The whole Russians are inspired with the belief that their mission is to conquer the world."—Alison.
Wholesome. See [Healthy].