4 ms·
Forgive me, as this is completely tangential to your point, but it should be "according to whom". A simple explanation: https://www.grammarly.com/blog/who-vs-
by omginternets 10y ago
Forgive me, as this is completely tangential to your point, but it should be "according to whom". A simple explanation: https://www.grammarly.com/blog/who-vs-whom-its-not-as-complicated-as-you-might-think/ https://www.grammarly.com/blog/who-vs-whom-its-not-as-compli... :)
Call me silly, but I think grammar is important. I hope you don't take this the wrong way!
Edit: lol, I thing I made a typo earlier.
- eliudnir 10y ago"I thing" <-- while knocking OP's grammar? Yes, I'm silly too :)
- bamurphymac1 10y agoI thing so too, friend.
- thaumasiotes 10y agoThing of this as the logical extension of the analysis "you've got another thing coming". ;D
- averagewall 10y agoCan it be ambiguous to only use who instead of whom? If not, then it's probably not important, just feels painful for people who know the rules. That's as much an indictment of the rule itself as it is of people breaking it.
- thaumasiotes 10y agoNo, it can't[1]. However, vestigial marking of present-tense third-person-singular verbs is going strong and pretty much nobody considers the fact that it's completely useless as an argument against doing it. The difference is that nearly everyone doesn't know the who/whom rule -- it is dead -- while nearly everyone does know the living pres.3sg rule, and they have trouble violating it even if in the abstract they might like to. [1] The strongest argument in this direction is that no one in the modern day knows what whom means or under what circumstances it appears, meaning that when a whom is encountered it can only make them more confused.
- danaliv 10y agoWatch this and get back to us. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7E-aoXLZGY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7E-aoXLZGY
- utternerd 10y agoI don't, you're certainly right and I even questioned myself as I wrote it.