 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / May 2009Who/Whom
Whom Will Obama Choose for Vatican Ambassador? Whom should President Obama appoint as his ambassador to the Vatican? Shouldn't that be "who" in both cases? > Who Will Obama Choose for Vatican Ambassador? > Who should President Obama appoint as his ambassador to the Vatican? > > Shouldn't that be "who" in both cases? Look. It is! > Whom Will Obama Choose for Vatican Ambassador? > Whom should President Obama appoint as his ambassador to the Vatican? > > Shouldn't that be "who" in both cases? I'd say "who", but according to the traditional rules, it should be "whom". The rule for questions calls for "whom" when the answer could be "him" or "her" or "them", not "he" or "she" or "they". -- Jerry Friedman > Whom Will Obama Choose for Vatican Ambassador? > Whom should President Obama appoint as his ambassador to the Vatican? > > Shouldn't that be "who" in both cases? No. it should be "who cares" , The Vatican is nothing but a pedophile coddling digrace of an institution. > No. it should be "who cares" , > The Vatican is nothing but a pedophile coddling digrace of an > institution. Actually, I'd prefer an English usage answer to a political answer, but to be honest, the Vatican isn't a pedophile coddling digrace of an institution. It's a homosexual coddling digrace of an institution. >> No. it should be "who cares" , >> The Vatican is nothing but a pedophile coddling digrace of an [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >be honest, the Vatican isn't a pedophile coddling digrace of an >institution. It's a homosexual coddling digrace of an institution. Its doors are open to all good deviants. >> No. it should be "who cares" , >> The Vatican is nothing but a pedophile coddling digrace of an [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >be honest, the Vatican isn't a pedophile coddling digrace of an >institution. It's a homosexual coddling digrace of an institution. Shouldn't this be posted in alt.sexuality.preferences?  SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk >> No. it should be "who cares" , >> The Vatican is nothing but a pedophile coddling digrace of an [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > be honest, the Vatican isn't a pedophile coddling digrace of an > institution. It's a homosexual coddling digrace of an institution. What consenting adults do is there business. The Vatican snuck Cardinal Law out of Boston before the State could really get at him and put him in charge of one of the church's major basilicas. >>> No. it should be "who cares" , >>> The Vatican is nothing but a pedophile coddling digrace of an [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > really get at him and put him in charge of one of the church's major > basilicas. There, there, now, Ray. You have let your emotional reactions upset your good spelling sense. >>> No. it should be "who cares" , >>> The Vatican is nothing but a pedophile coddling digrace of an [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Cardinal Law out of Boston before the State could really get at him > and put him in charge of one of the church's major basilicas. Why did the State want to put him in charge of one of the church's major basilicas? SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The General Theorem of Usenet 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Information: If you really want to Palo Alto, CA 94304 |know the definitive answer, post |the wrong information, and wait for kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |someone to come by and explain in (650)857-7572 |excruciating detail precisely how |wrong you are. http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | Eric The Read >> No. it should be "who cares" , >> The Vatican is nothing but a pedophile coddling digrace of an [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > be honest, the Vatican isn't a pedophile coddling digrace of an > institution. It's a homosexual coddling digrace of an institution. I know that "usage" generally refers to the language as she is spoke, but now and then I get an urge to _want_ some more precise punctuation. I notice that "egg coddler(ing)" appears frequently sans hyphen on a Google search. At least you and Ray didn't combine the pairs into big motherf..king words. >> Whom Will Obama Choose for Vatican Ambassador? >> Whom should President Obama appoint as his ambassador to the Vatican? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >No. it should be "who cares" , >The Vatican is nothing but a pedophile coddling digrace of an institution. That is well illustrated in the logotype designed for the Catholic Church's Archdiocesan Youth Commission in 1974: http://designarchives.aiga.org/entry.cfm/eid_9051 To answer the original query, the "whom" in both cases could be described as "correct", formal", "old-fashioned", "literary", while "who" would be "colloquial", "modern", "casual" or downright "wrong", depending on your point of view. SignatureJames >>> Whom Will Obama Choose for Vatican Ambassador? >>> Whom should President Obama appoint as his ambassador to the Vatican? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > while "who" would be "colloquial", "modern", "casual" or > downright "wrong", depending on your point of view. > >> Whom Will Obama Choose for Vatican Ambassador? > >> Whom should President Obama appoint as his ambassador to the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Catholic Church's Archdiocesan Youth Commission in 1974: > http://designarchives.aiga.org/entry.cfm/eid_9051 Oh dear, oh Lord. DC -- > Whom Will Obama Choose for Vatican Ambassador? > Whom should President Obama appoint as his ambassador to the Vatican? > Shouldn't that be "who" in both cases? No. In dialects in which 'whom' survives, it is appropriate in both sentences. SignatureLars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> usenet@larseighner.com 98 days since Rick Warren prayed over Bush's third term. Obama: No hope, no change, more of the same. Yes, he can, but no, he won't. >> Whom Will Obama Choose for Vatican Ambassador? >> Whom should President Obama appoint as his ambassador to the Vatican? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > In dialects in which 'whom' survives, it is appropriate in both > sentences. In some such dialects. I appear to have it, but only directly following prepositions. (And then only when not under contrastive stress.) So I would use "who" in those examples. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Pious Jews have a category of 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |questions that can harmlessly be Palo Alto, CA 94304 |allowed to go without an answer |until the Messiah comes. I suspect kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |that this is one of them. (650)857-7572 | Joseph C. Fineman http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> Progs Scripts broadcast: >>> Whom Will Obama Choose for Vatican Ambassador? >>> Whom should President Obama appoint as his ambassador to the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > following prepositions. (And then only when not under contrastive > stress.) So I would use "who" in those examples. There are some of us who for formal use still haven't given in to the latest general recommendations for casual writing. I'll go with "whom" in the OP's sentences. I accept the use of "who" in all cases as an idiot-proof usage that'll be accepted by most critics. Yes, I'm old. Using "whom" and "whomever" where "who" and "whoever" belong is a far worse offense, as it points out the writer's desire to be thought of as knowlegeable in the matters of language, but it achieves the opposite. There's quite a bit of that going around in the daily rags. SignatureSkitt (AmE) >>> Progs Scripts broadcast: > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >knowlegeable in the matters of language, but it achieves the opposite. >There's quite a bit of that going around in the daily rags. Says whom? SignatureJames > >>> Progs Scripts broadcast: > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I say what Skitt said. [ ... ] > >Using "whom" and "whomever" where "who" and "whoever" belong is a far worse > >offense, as it points out the writer's desire to be thought of as > >knowlegeable in the matters of language, but it achieves the opposite. > >There's quite a bit of that going around in the daily rags. > > Says whom? Okay, okay, it's a joke, not a real question. But in fact (as James surely knows) American newspapers are so copy-editing-disabled that they are constantly printing things like "He is the one whom I believe can lead us out of trouble." "Whom ... can lead us"? (The situation isn't helped when we are forced to concede the correctness of "He is the person whom we trust to lead us out of trouble.") I was going to compose a villanelle on this topic, but I considered the competition ... SignatureBob Lieblich Sticking to limericks (where I essay verse at all) >>> Using "whom" and "whomever" where "who" and "whoever" belong is a >>> far worse offense, as it points out the writer's desire to be [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I was going to compose a villanelle on this topic, but I considered > the competition ... Here's the latest "whom" blunder" (from Yahoo!): http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090430/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_automakers By BEN FELLER, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama announced Thursday that Chrysler would head into bankruptcy with the aid of up to another $8 billion in taxpayer money, a last-resort attempt to quickly restructure the struggling giant. He blasted hedge-fund creditors whom he said held out for a richer deal. SignatureSkitt (AmE) >>>> Using "whom" and "whomever" where "who" and "whoever" belong is a >>>> far worse offense, as it points out the writer's desire to be [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > struggling giant. He blasted hedge-fund creditors whom he said held > out for a richer deal. I wonder if it would help those who aren't sure about "who" or "whom" to employ "commafication" to resolve the issue. If the final sentence of the Feller para had commas around "he said," it may have been more obvious that "who" was the right word. Dropping "he said" might have had the same result. SignatureMaria Conlon > Says whom? Says meem. --Jeff SignatureThe comfort of the wealthy has always depended upon an abundant supply of the poor. --Voltaire |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.