--nerd alert--

[flightlessgump]

Jer and I were listening to The Eagle on our way back home, and the song "Should I Stay (or Should I Go)" pops on. One of the lyrics "Si no me quieres, líbrame; Exactly whom I'm supposed to be" Jer looks and me and asks "Did he use whom right there?" to which I responded "yup

Comments

[agentchang]

My vote, off the top of my head without googling this up, goes to no, it is not used correctly in that case. "Whom" is typically used as an indirect object; in this case it is a "(supposed) to be" verb, which isn't really an action.

...This is what happens when you take The Class from Hell (aka Mr. Jordan's 11th Grade English).

[flightlessgump]

The reason I was looking at this "whom" as an indirect object is that a proper response could have been "you're suppose to be that guy over there!" Thus, if we treat "whom" to be "that guy over there", then it is obvious that the who is separate from the subject of the sentence ("I"), and thus needs to be an indirect object.

You can see why I truncated the discussion...

[bluejer]

Chang's right. The to be verb is used to describe the subject, the subject is not acting upon "who". It's the same reason you'd say "This is he" when someone asks for you on the phone. I had to google it :)

[agentchang]

Well I don't know if this changes things, but after thinking about it some more last night (lol), I realized I was wrong about the verb being "(supposed) to be" the verb in the original sentence was "am", and "supposed to be whom" is all part of a past participle acting as an adjective.

I dunno if "whom" in a participle would be correct or not.

[warrensgal]

most importantly, i just lost respect for the eagle for playing "should i stay or should i go"

[rc_cola]

There are already two slang plural "you"'s in America. Y'all if you're in the south and Yinz if you're in Pittsburgh. I guess in california you could just say vos and everyone would know what you're saying.