"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.
WHOSE. Mr. George Washington Moon discountenances the use of _whose_ as the possessive of _which_. He says, "The best writers, when speaking of inanimate objects, use _of which_ instead of _whose_." The correctness of this statement is doubtful. The truth is, I think, that good writers use that form for the possessive case of _which_ that in their judgment is, in each particular case, the more euphonious, giving the preference, perhaps, to _of which_. On this subject Dr. Campbell says: "The possessive of _who_ is properly _whose_. The pronoun _which_, originally indeclinable, had no possessive. This was supplied, in the common periphrastic manner, by the help of the preposition and the article. But, as this could not fail to enfeeble the expression, when so much time was given to mere conjunctives, all our best authors, both in prose and verse, have now come regularly to adopt, in such cases, the possessive of _who_, and thus have substituted one syllable in the room of three, as in the example following: 'Philosophy, _whose_ end is to instruct us in the knowledge of nature,' for 'Philosophy, _the_ end _of which_ is to instruct us.' Some grammarians remonstrate; but it ought to be remembered that use, well established, must give law to grammar, and not grammar to use."