Topic: ATTN: whom it may concern
Anonymous A started this discussion 11 years ago #41,008
Syntax joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later[^] [v] #545,198
Niggers tongue my anus.
Syntax joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 14 minutes later, 18 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #545,202
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 21 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #545,204
@OP
The accusative form whom should never be used as the subject of a finite clause; that is the role reserved for the nominative who.
Whom should always be used when a preposition immediately precedes it (as in the person to whom it was sent), and, except in very informal style, the same is true when a verb immediately precedes it (You saw whom?).
Where a relative clause modifying a noun of human gender is formed with the gap in a non-subject position, formal style requires whom as the relative pronoun: thus the person whom they hired or the person whom I told you about.
Formal style calls for whom as the human-gender interrogative word where it has non-subject function (Whom did they hire?), though this is rare in conversation and could sound a bit pompous.
In cases where a relative or interrogative human-class pronoun is associated with subject function in a subordinate clause that is not the main clause in which it is preposed, usage is divided, but many prescriptive authorities regard whom as incorrect; they would recommend the person who the police thought was responsible rather than the person whom the police thought was responsible, as the relative pronoun is understood as the subject of was responsible (even though it is not the subject of the whole relative clause, the police thought was responsible).
OK, so you're probably just now waking up from the nap you took after falling asleep during the third point. But never mind, fellas, because here's the best part:
None of this complicated crap makes the slightest bit of difference! You see, Wired didn't check the syntactic contexts. They simply counted whoms.
In other words, it doesn't matter whether you use whom correctly! In general, women don't know about the proper rules for whom any more than men do.
Sure, they're interested in seeking out intelligent men to have sex with. And the idea of breeding with brainy guys who will think of creative ways to protect the offspring and carry home food is built into them by natural selection. The obvious inference, then, is that women view the mere occurrence of whom as a proxy for actual evidence of intelligence.
The fact is that incorrect uses of whom occur rather frequently. "Whom did they think was underwriting the signage …," journalist Ari L. Noonan cleverly wrote in a Culver City online newspaper recently. But to laugh at Noonan for making a grammatical error would be to miss the point. What's important is that if you and he are both using online dating services, he will get more sex than you unless you up the frequency of whom in your writing.
The accusative form whom should never be used as the subject of a finite clause; that is the role reserved for the nominative who.
Whom should always be used when a preposition immediately precedes it (as in the person to whom it was sent), and, except in very informal style, the same is true when a verb immediately precedes it (You saw whom?).
Where a relative clause modifying a noun of human gender is formed with the gap in a non-subject position, formal style requires whom as the relative pronoun: thus the person whom they hired or the person whom I told you about.
Formal style calls for whom as the human-gender interrogative word where it has non-subject function (Whom did they hire?), though this is rare in conversation and could sound a bit pompous.
In cases where a relative or interrogative human-class pronoun is associated with subject function in a subordinate clause that is not the main clause in which it is preposed, usage is divided, but many prescriptive authorities regard whom as incorrect; they would recommend the person who the police thought was responsible rather than the person whom the police thought was responsible, as the relative pronoun is understood as the subject of was responsible (even though it is not the subject of the whole relative clause, the police thought was responsible).
OK, so you're probably just now waking up from the nap you took after falling asleep during the third point. But never mind, fellas, because here's the best part:
None of this complicated crap makes the slightest bit of difference! You see, Wired didn't check the syntactic contexts. They simply counted whoms.
In other words, it doesn't matter whether you use whom correctly! In general, women don't know about the proper rules for whom any more than men do.
Sure, they're interested in seeking out intelligent men to have sex with. And the idea of breeding with brainy guys who will think of creative ways to protect the offspring and carry home food is built into them by natural selection. The obvious inference, then, is that women view the mere occurrence of whom as a proxy for actual evidence of intelligence.
The fact is that incorrect uses of whom occur rather frequently. "Whom did they think was underwriting the signage …," journalist Ari L. Noonan cleverly wrote in a Culver City online newspaper recently. But to laugh at Noonan for making a grammatical error would be to miss the point. What's important is that if you and he are both using online dating services, he will get more sex than you unless you up the frequency of whom in your writing.
(Edited 43 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 7 minutes later, 28 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #545,206
Anonymous D replied with this 11 years ago, 13 minutes later, 42 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #545,209
@previous (A)
Not confusing at all.
> incorrect uses of whom occur rather frequently
> None of this complicated crap makes the slightest bit of difference!
> Whom is rare in conversation and can sound a bit pompous.
> In other words, it doesn't matter whether you use whom correctly! In general, women don't know about the proper rules for whom any more than men do.
Not confusing at all.
> incorrect uses of whom occur rather frequently
> None of this complicated crap makes the slightest bit of difference!
> Whom is rare in conversation and can sound a bit pompous.
> In other words, it doesn't matter whether you use whom correctly! In general, women don't know about the proper rules for whom any more than men do.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 8 minutes later, 50 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #545,210
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 6 minutes later, 57 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #545,212
You fucking idiots. Who is only used in the nominative and vocative cases. Whom is used in the accusative and dative, and as object of the preposition. Fucking idiots.
Meowt (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #545,227
Triptych !!/xkPL9myM joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 2 hours later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #545,247
Anonymous E replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #545,248
Triptych !!/xkPL9myM replied with this 11 years ago, 6 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #545,249
@previous (E)
I'm not. I just hated the class I learned cases in, and hate that I dropped it two weeks from the end of it because I'd fail.
I'm not. I just hated the class I learned cases in, and hate that I dropped it two weeks from the end of it because I'd fail.
Anonymous E replied with this 11 years ago, 34 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #545,252
@previous (Triptych !!/xkPL9myM)
Terrible. You should be ashamed. You can pass it. Take it again. All educated people should know a few ancient and modern languages, and have a tight grasp of grammar and linguistics.
Terrible. You should be ashamed. You can pass it. Take it again. All educated people should know a few ancient and modern languages, and have a tight grasp of grammar and linguistics.
Triptych !!/xkPL9myM replied with this 11 years ago, 29 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #545,253
Anonymous E replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #545,254
Triptych !!/xkPL9myM replied with this 11 years ago, 32 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #545,259
Anonymous E replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #545,260
@previous (Triptych !!/xkPL9myM)
To be educated, one must be educated in all areas, not just in some.
To be educated, one must be educated in all areas, not just in some.
