Nope. I am simply showing the substitution pattern. In fact, if you search for "substitution pattern" you will see it many times on the pages of this thread, and it being set up by @daemon right at the very start of this thread. So no, you do not see what I am doing. You see what you want to see me doing, so you can tell me I am wrong. But what you claim to see has nothing to do with what I am in fact doing whatsoever. I await a single example that disproves the substitution pattern with much interest.
Yes, he's referring to those, but those isn't whom, and not only is it those, but those is referring to a group which is exactly what I originally said. That sentence can use who and would mean exactly the same thing: so now you can say to people who you can speak informally ... same meaning. The objective of that him/he exactly was to show how a sentence doesn't work when replacing pronouns, but it isn't actually dictating how who and whom is used. It's saying it's LIKE that, but it's not actually the difference between him and he. I read all posts, but a lot of them are either wrong or don't make sense. Sorry, but when you're born and raised in England and you have spoken the language all your life, you kind of understand it, especially the subtle aspects that many don't.
I know what you mean by substitution pattern, it's just a fancy term for an example. Which substitution pattern? The medal one? The medal one was who, and I even said it was who, and yes, that him and he thing did give an example of how the replacement of pronouns grammatically fixes the sentence, but it has nothing to do with how whom is used.
Oh, I did not intend to make you feel inadequate. Knowing those terms doesn't make anybody a better writer. And I actually am only this comfortable with them, because learning their definitions was part of Latin class. Predicate is simply the fancier word given to the main verb in a sentence. There are a few additional rules, but basically, it's the verb. Conjunctions are words that join parts of a sentence together like "and" and "or". Dependent clause is a clause / sentence which cannot be on its own, because some information is missing. There you go. Now you know as much about this as I do. Concerning the entire debate... maybe we should all agree to disagree? Everybody has got their own take on how language works. And that's good, otherwise all texts would be written in the same style.
You have got to be kidding me. He's referring to them. The people you can speak informally to. Goodness.
No, it isn't. Not one whit. Why do you continue with this he/him thing, and leave out the also mentioned those / them thing? Your recollection is incomplete. Noone has ever said it shows how whom is used. All that is being claimed is when it is used.
He's referring to those who you can speak informally with, or them who you can speak informally with? Goodness is right ... Or how about people who you can speak informally with?
So basically you've all been going on about that medal concept all along? Haha!! That stuff is elementary, dude. It was very obvious it was who not whom from the get go. I'm talking about the use and characteristics of whom, that's far more important and gives far more detail when determining its grammatical use.
Nope. Haha!! I have no idea what medal concept you're on about. What I do know, is that there is not a single example in this thread that disproves the pattern.
You just ended a sentence with a preposition. I think they don't mind that any more, but a proper English speaker would know better. people with whom you can speak informally you can speak informally with them but you think it's you can speak informally with those Hint: it's not.
Well there isn't going to be because you can't really disprove an example. The example being that whom (the pronoun) didn't work with the context given, LIKE the pronouns, him and he, didn't work with the substitute context given. But though they differ in the same way, they are NOT the same. All you and daemon gave were examples of how the incorrect pronoun doesn't work in a sentence, but that has NOTHING to do with how whom is used in context. It's true that whom can't always replace who because it'll be grammatically incorrect, but it's simple grammar than most people understand, like replacing he with him. Tell me, when should we use whom? I want to hear your understanding of the word.
Yes, for the purposes of communication, it is fine. "Who we goin' out with?" Is also understandable ("fine"). But grammatically incorrect. If you want to know the correct selection of who or whom, use the pattern offered by @daemon at the start of the thread. As a suggestion, it would pay to use it in narrative within your writing also, unless it's obviously written in the voice of a character for whom the language does not fit. When it comes to speech or dialog, however, it is far better to write as if the words were being spoken by contemporaries of the period of your writing.
It's not an example. It's a pattern. When making a dress, a pattern is used to make the dress, but the pattern is not an example of the dress. The dress is an example of the pattern in use. The pattern -- if correct -- will allow the dress to be made, every time, without fail. Examples of the pattern in use are the actual dresses that are made and they prove the pattern works. You can disprove a pattern by following it to make an item of clothing and showing that the item made (the example) is not in fact what the pattern was meant to produce. If you can provide a single sentence (example) that disproves the pattern then the pattern will be disproved.
Who are we going out with? Isn't grammatically incorrect. You don't 'select' whom, you use it for emphasising or stressing context, and the context depends on whether it is grammatically usable in exchange of who. You can use other pronouns to determine whether whom works, but it doesn't dictate the use of whom. Yes, whom is used more frequently in period work -- something I've also mentioned before -- but surely you can use to more effect than a pompous old aristocrat from the 19th century?
Pedantically speaking, it is completely incorrect. For starters you shouldn't end a sentence with a preposition. Language entropy means this rule is now dismissed, but back in the proper English days, it was taught. Keep in mind -- this is not a discussion on whether someone should use who or whom, it's a discussion on when to use it.
Go to England and say that. There isn't 'proper English,' only the generalised version which we teach to foreigners. The reason why it would have been 'dismissed,' if ever taught at all, is because it's complete stupidity. Probably another example of pseudo-academics trying to implement rules in an ever-evolving medium. It's grammatically correct, and if anyone ever considered it not to be, then they were wrong, because there is actually no rational reason as to why you couldn't end a sentence with a preposition.
Entropy is a thing. People get lazy, and the language evolves, but most of the evolution is due to laziness. Americans have dropped the use of "of" when indicating amounts now, as an example.
Just curious. The reason why it would have been 'dismissed,' if ever taught at all, is because it's complete stupidity. Shouldn't it be: The reason why it would have been 'dismissed,' if ever taught at all, is that it's complete stupidity. "Why" could probably be omitted here, and a better sentence would be: The reason it would have been 'dismissed,' if ever taught at all, is that it's complete stupidity.
Not even going to try to reason with you anymore, since you have made it clear that you think you are right just because you are English and you think everyone else is wrong. But if you could actually show me where I contradicted myself when I said "who" is the nominative relative pronoun and "whom" is the objective relative pronoun, then I would be interested.
The method in which you use to rationalise whether who or whom can be used through the him/he analogy is correct. Suggesting that him/he dictates how whom or who is used is incorrect. Who and whom are their suggested pronouns, but they have nothing to do with him and he, or them and those; they don't translate in the same context. But I'm sure you'll find contradictions if you look back in the thread, and if you don't, then you're not looking hard enough.
"that" is a complementizer. It lets the following clause function as a single word in the sentence. It would have been 'dismissed,' if ever taught at all, for a reason. The reason is x. x = "it's complete stupidity." In "The reason is x", "x" is a single word, but it refers to a statement. You can replace "x" with the complementizer followed by the statement "x" refers to: It would have been 'dismissed,' if ever taught at all, for a reason. The reason is that it's complete stupidity. The sentence functions as if the bold clause were a single word. Now let's insert the first sentence into the second sentence as a parenthetical: The reason (it would have been 'dismissed', if ever taught at all, for this reason) is that it's complete stupidity. We will turn the parenthetical into a relative clause (which functions as an adjective that modifies "reason") by replacing "this reason" with the relative pronoun "which" and by moving the phrase in which the relative pronoun appears to the beginning of the clause: The reason for which it would have been 'dismissed', if ever taught at all, is that it's complete stupidity. Then we can replace "for which" with "why": The reason why it would have been 'dismissed', if ever taught at all, is that it's complete stupidity. So you are right, the sentence is valid with the word "that". However, I am not sure if "because" is valid. It sounds perfectly fine to me, but it might be invalid in the most technical sense. Why would it have been 'dismissed', if ever taught at all? Because it's complete stupidity. Technically, that answer is grammatically invalid. It is a sentence fragment. "because it's complete stupidity" is actually a dependent clause that is supposed to function as an adverb, e.g. "It would have been dismissed because it's complete stupidity." (This clause functions as an adverb that modifies the verb "dismissed".) Therefore, in this sentence: The reason why it would have been 'dismissed', if ever taught at all, is because it's complete stupidity. uses a clause that behaves like an adverb as a predicate nominative. I honestly do not know if it is valid to use an adverb as a predicate nominative. I am inclined to say yes. As for omitting "why": The reason it would have been 'dismissed', if ever taught at all, is that it's complete stupidity. Again, I am not sure if this is valid. I am inclined to say yes because "why" stands for "for which", "which" is a relative pronoun in a restrictive clause, and there are other times when we omit relative pronouns in restrictive clauses. For example: I want to buy one. But it is too expensive. The one that I want to buy is too expensive. The one I want to buy is too expensive.
I'm not spending the next 30 minutes going through this thread to satisfy your desires. Do it yourself.
