who, not whom!

[Bill McBlueState]

Someone I know insists on using "whom" in her e-mails when "who" is the word she wants.

I don't care if someone uses "who" instead of "whom." That's become so common it doesn't really qualify as a mistake anymore.

But using "whom" where it's completely unwarranted is the very definition of sophomoric. x(

[Lefta Dissenter]

1. "Ask not for who the bell tolls... " (eom)

:P

[Worst Username Ever]

2. To whom are you speaking?

[realisticphish]

5. those whom use the word in the wrong places

:)


:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat

[miss_kitty]

3. and 'I', not 'myself'

Ugghhhhhhhhhh! cop talk. some police officer thought that 'Myself' sounded smart about 10 years ago and now EVERYBODY USES IT! :grr:

"Myself and Officer Soandso..." Dumbshit, it's "Officer Soandso and I..." Jeeeeeeezus! It's beyond the very definition of sophomoric; it's moranic.

[pagerbear]

7. But it's "me" and not "I" if it's objective case!

"If you think like LDSJock and I, you'll hurt yourself."

[miss_kitty]

9. Right . Myself was thinking of the

"Officer Soandso and I riddled the suspect with bullets" type of statement.
I use the trick-what if it's only me, how does the phrasing work, if myself am having trubble with it...

:P

[Patiod]

4. It's fallacy, misconception or misapprehension, NOT misnomer

Unless something is named wrongly - "Koala 'bear' is a misnomer, since the cuddly koala is a marsupial, not a bear"

Why does everyone seem to think that any misconception is a "misnomer"?

[miss_kitty]

6. because they're morans

and that's the way this country prefers it-more stupes=more cannon fodder.

:evilfrown:

[Dora]

8. Where's the love, baby...

I think the very definition of sophomoric is poop jokes.

Oh, please try not to let it get you down. I've wasted so much mental energy actually caring about other people's grammar habits. Finally figured out that it's not my business and that we all have our own sloppy language habits, even us grammarians.

I curse like a sailor, and too frequently I find myself speaking like a redneck: "might could," "I seen," and I rely far too much on "got" instead of "have, and I use "have" when I actually mean "must."

My husband in the past year has developed the odd turn of phrase, "no mal intent." I know that what he means to say is "no malice intended," or perhaps even "no malicious intent." This used to drive me nuts, and it took everything I had not to correct him. But he doesn't like to be corrected, and I like a peaceful relationship. If his imaginative vocabulary starts to effect his professional life or our social experience, then I might offer constructive criticism, but until then, I'm just happy he's speaking his mind.

[miss_kitty]

10. I generally leave people alone

if I know what they mean. It's petty and very very poor manners to correct.

But now, there are so many who speak professionally and are paid well for it (anchor people) who SHOULD make it a priorty to speak well. It's their job. But I guess they are too busy distorting the news to bother with grammar. Or vocabulary.

[RebelOne]

11. From "Action Grammar"

To determine which is correct, isolate the part of the sentence that starts with who or whom. Then try out each part -- using he for who and him for whom -- and select the best fit.

1. Isolate the part of the sentence that starts with who or whom.

Who is the best for the job?
Whom is the best for the job?

Substitute he for who, him for whom.

He is best for the job.
Him is best for the job.