Who vs Whome
-
Ok. So I look up the site daily on my phone. I'm not happy that the tag line is "for those who code". It should be whome, right? Just me? Maybe >_<
-
Andy Lanng wrote:
It should be whome, right?
No, because "whome" is not a word. :-D /ravi
My new year resolution: 2048 x 1536 Home | Articles | My .NET bits | Freeware ravib(at)ravib(dot)com
Isn't the W silent? Whomer Simpson? :-D
Nish Nishant Consultant Software Architect Ganymede Software Solutions LLC www.ganymedesoftwaresolutions.com
-
Fer us wot sndz cdz URGNTZZZZZ!!!!!
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
what I've tried: womb, hoooome, hohum
Arguing with a woman is like reading the Software License Agreement. In the end, you ignore everything and click "I agree". Anonymous
-
Can I 5* this
You may, but can you?
-
Ok. So I look up the site daily on my phone. I'm not happy that the tag line is "for those who code". It should be whome, right? Just me? Maybe >_<
"Whom" is the object of a prepositional phrase, an indirect object, or a direct object. English only makes sense once you learn a different language. (less sense in most cases!) Here is how I verify... Translate to Spanish. If it is only "quien" (missing accent), then it is "who". If it is "de quien" (missing accent), then it is "whom". literally: "of whom, from whom, to whom"
-
Ok. So I look up the site daily on my phone. I'm not happy that the tag line is "for those who code". It should be whome, right? Just me? Maybe >_<
Nope, the grammar is correct! (for those who [write] code). You would *not* say "for those whom write code".
If you think hiring a professional is expensive, wait until you hire an amateur! - Red Adair
-
Ok. So I look up the site daily on my phone. I'm not happy that the tag line is "for those who code". It should be whome, right? Just me? Maybe >_<
AFAIK, the only way to correctly determine when to who vs. whom, is to use grammar rules that don't really exist in the English language (unless you're a linguist). Native German speakers get this right by intuition, because German does have those rules. It boils down to whether the pronoun refers to the accusative object ('who'), or the dative object ('whom'). Here's a really bad analogy for us geeky types: Using the C++ or C# member access operators, . is 'who', and -> is 'whom'. A better example would be the sentence "Who did what to whom?". Commence flame wars re: ...but isn't "Who" in that example actually the subject (in the grammatical sense)?
Eagles my fly, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
-
who, unless specified. E.g. Though shall not use who when referring to a person or persons, though shall use whom instead.
You mean "Thou"? :laugh:
-
Ok. So I look up the site daily on my phone. I'm not happy that the tag line is "for those who code". It should be whome, right? Just me? Maybe >_<
-
You mean "Thou"? :laugh:
-
Yep, a slight path alteration, but not recursive.
-
Nope, the grammar is correct! (for those who [write] code). You would *not* say "for those whom write code".
If you think hiring a professional is expensive, wait until you hire an amateur! - Red Adair
Not unless you were a stuffy know-it-all!
-
Not unless you were a stuffy know-it-all!
LOL! Funny the stuff we get into arguments about in these threads, eh? ;-)
If you think hiring a professional is expensive, wait until you hire an amateur! - Red Adair
-
LOL! Funny the stuff we get into arguments about in these threads, eh? ;-)
If you think hiring a professional is expensive, wait until you hire an amateur! - Red Adair
Actually, I think most of us need a chuckle and the more preposterous something is, the better.
-
Ok. So I look up the site daily on my phone. I'm not happy that the tag line is "for those who code". It should be whome, right? Just me? Maybe >_<
It's right here, "Who code" is a compound noun in itself. The people who code. "Whom" would be right in "For whom? Well, for those who code!"
-
AFAIK, the only way to correctly determine when to who vs. whom, is to use grammar rules that don't really exist in the English language (unless you're a linguist). Native German speakers get this right by intuition, because German does have those rules. It boils down to whether the pronoun refers to the accusative object ('who'), or the dative object ('whom'). Here's a really bad analogy for us geeky types: Using the C++ or C# member access operators, . is 'who', and -> is 'whom'. A better example would be the sentence "Who did what to whom?". Commence flame wars re: ...but isn't "Who" in that example actually the subject (in the grammatical sense)?
Eagles my fly, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
qmartens wrote:
better example would be the sentence "Who did what to whom?"
:thumbsup: I like that as it fits in with my "he did that to him" rule.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
-
It's right here, "Who code" is a compound noun in itself. The people who code. "Whom" would be right in "For whom? Well, for those who code!"
Slow down! i'm still trying to get my head round Python. I haven't got time to learn English as well.
We're philosophical about power outages here. A.C. come, A.C. go.
-
Slow down! i'm still trying to get my head round Python. I haven't got time to learn English as well.
We're philosophical about power outages here. A.C. come, A.C. go.
Did Horton chime in? He only hears 'who'...
-
Slow down! i'm still trying to get my head round Python. I haven't got time to learn English as well.
We're philosophical about power outages here. A.C. come, A.C. go.
Most of Python's syntax is English-like. Which reminds me, I've read a blog post a while ago, from a Russian dude who learned programming before he learned English so both he and his teacher just memorized "print" as a meaningless token instead of English-like term "Well, this might output something".
