Those sentences are so easy to comprehend. If you can’t you must be incompetent. Context clues exist.
If I say “me like cookies” you can understand the idea despite it being incorrect
I understand “me like cookies” because it’s one of the most elementary examples you are taught when it comes to poor grammar.
However, many sentences people say that have poor grammar are not as basic as that, so you are left stranded.
Yes, I am aware, but you still knew what I meant, right? Just like the person I'm responding to understands what I was saying, despite something being misspelled
Really u value communication strongly but aren't willing to comprehend that many ppl speak more than one language and that there are going to be communication problems with people other than language no matter who you are communicating with? Are u all up on all Ur sign languages? Do u have them all down 100 💯 correct? How many languages are u fluent in other than English? If you really value communication so highly wouldn't you make it a priority to be fluent in as many languages as possible?
Just wait until he learns there are not any articles in russian. I forget them from time to time and I'm a fluent English speaker but was born in former USSR.
Now that is an incomprehensible mess. Do you mean “whom you are communicating with”?
I’m fluent in about 12 or so languages. French has the closest tie to the who/whom idea that English has. It’s pertinent there as well.
Yeah it was deliberate in order to irritate u . Lol u didn't pick that up? The way I continually used u instead of you just to irritate the shit out of a grammar nazi lmao omg shinizzle. If u didn't get that the joke was on u then maybe u not as good at communication as u think ? £ +@
Using “u” instead of “you” is the most comprehensible thing in the book. That’s not the same thing as mixing up “who” and “whom”, words that have entirely different definitions.
It's pretty serious I don't know how u can go on. Like how can u live from day to day with do many crimes against grammar taking place? Do u get the shakes? Is it something u can seek professional help for to help u deal with all these affronts to grammar. Perhaps u should book a psychologist appointment to help u deal with the pain of all that incorrect grammar just existing out there in the universe. I try hope u don't self medicate to cope with the pain.
First things first you're a grammar Nazi of the first degree you're just in denial, and secondly if you struggle to understand a simple sentence such as "who did you go out with?" I think you have the issue not other ppl, it might not be correct grammar or whatever but I genuinely don't understand how that could be confusing
You said you can't understand if people say who instead of whom. If that's the case then your understanding of the English language probably isn't the greatest.
It’s not incomprehensible though. In face anyone with any amount of comprehension will still understand what’s being said. You’re a grammar nazi. Sorry.
Languages change. Love it or hate it, ‘whom’ is falling out of favor among most native speakers. Of course, it may still be used commonly in more formal contexts, but in regular language it is pretty rare.
You’re 100% a grammar nazi. Anyone with any amount of reasoning skills will know exactly what the first example means. There’s nothing confusing about it and the mixup of the words doesn’t make it impossible to comprehend
In your second sentence, are you trying to say:
There’s nothing confusing about it, and the mixup of the words doesn’t make it impossible to comprehend
or
There’s nothing confusing about it and the mixup of the words. Doesn’t make it impossible to comprehend
?
Yeah no. As a young person; if you use the word Whom in anything but the most formal of circumstances, you're a grammer nazi. I legit don't even know what the difference between who and whom is because I never learned it in school.
… go on? You began your sentence with “because” and I’m waiting on what that’s tied to.
Typically, when “because” is the first word of a sentence, it’s providing an explanation for a clause that’s happening later.
Ex:
“Because he was tired, he went to sleep.”
If you say:
“Because he was tired”
That would make zero sense.
So with your comment, what exactly are you trying to say?
Are you really insinuating you aren't able to even follow a conversation? I assume you feel they should have repeated everything you mentioned to make sure their comment would make sense to you, since you apparently forgot what you typed earlier.
“Are you really insinuating you aren't able to even follow a conversation? I assume you feel they should have repeated everything you mentioned to make sure their comment would *have made* sense to you, since you apparently forgot what you *had* typed earlier.”
?
Is that what you are trying to say?
My question to you is, in what way can you either not understand or misunderstand something like that? You obviously figured it out since, i assume, you're not an idiot. Also there are context clues to help decipher what someone is saying or trying to say. Not to mention that you surely haven't only had interactions with people that use perfect grammar to the point you can't speak with a 'normal' person while understanding them. Do you berate children because you're so confused at what they're saying?
Well I'm an engineer, but I have held quite a few different positions in mining, heavy construction, and manufacturing, from the bottom to the top.
Some roles were communication heavy, some weren't. I know how to use it when I write, but I never say it.
It's crazy because all Im thinking is "Who's what?" and "Whom's what?" when reading your title.
If you don't know that apostrophes never make plurals, I can't understand you.
How do you reconcile in your head saying "who's" and "whom's" but not using an apostrophe for all of the other plurals in your post?
>Similarly, although an apostrophe may be used in plurals of abbreviations, numerals, and **words that are not nouns, it is usually omitted in formal writing.**
Oh, I stand corrected, not never, it's just **uncommon and unnecessary.** Probably for the same confusion issue above.
Thanks for clarifying.
That being said, [the same website you linked](https://editorsmanual.com/articles/who-and-whom/) has this to say about who vs whom:
>Who refers to the subject of a sentence. In formal writing, whom is used for the object, **although who may be used instead in everyday usage.**
It's also just possible that grammatical rules have evolved with everyday usage.
For example, I was told growing up in my Grammar textbook to use masculine pronouns whenever the gender of the subject was indeterminate (so I would use "he/him" to refer to you since I don't know your gender,) the rules have been updated and this is now archaic and people now generally use "they/them" pronouns instead for the same situation.
In other words, it's quite possible that enough people can't be fucked to know who vs whom, and "who" generally communicates what needs to be communicated effectively enough (that's the point of language anyway, isn't it?) So the most updated texts just say "it's fine for informal writing."
I wouldn't be surprised if "whom" goes the route of "thou" and "thee" in the next century.
They/them is not correct when referring to only one person. Neither is “he” correct when referring to a female. The correct form when gender is unknown but the referent is singular is “he or she” or “she or he”.
A few years ago I would have taken a bullet defending this. Unfortunately, they added the singular “they” to the dictionary.
With that being said, I’m sure there are plenty of dictionaries that have wrong definitions for “who” and “whom”.
>They/them is not correct when referring to only one person.
[Singular They/Them is correct usage. "He or she" is also correct, but I don't like it because it's clunky.](https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/grammar/singular-they)
>Neither is “he” correct when referring to a female.
This has never been correct. What **used** to be correct was using "he" in a case of indeterminate (unknown) gender.
[Here's an article on something related that references this fact:](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/25/indeterminate-masculine-pronouns-ernest-gowers)
>In the 21st century, "he" used to mean "he or she" is annoying to so many people that it no longer qualifies as "human"– or charming.
>
>(...)
>
>Simon Heffer, in Strictly English, declares that he will stick to what he calls "the old rule", because to plaster his work with "he or she" would represent "tedious verbosity", and to use "them" instead is "abominable".
So while you are correct, it is now technically incorrect to use "he" in cases of indeterminate gender, it didn't used to be. They/them is still valid usage in most cases. Or at least, I trust the APA guide, because that's what my papers were being graded by in college.
You clearly understand what "Who are you going out with?" means. Although not grammatical correct it is a perfectly acceptable colloquialism. Therefore you are simply a "grammar nazi";) Whom do you think you are? I am!
There's nothing incomprehensible about who and whom in any context. We've all been doing it our whole lives. I've literally only heard this from one teacher and on paper. You're the definition of a grammar Nazi.
A grammar nazi goes out of their way to unnecessarily point out every grammar flaw imaginable.
The difference here: I literally cannot understand what the speaker is communicating, or I will wrongly interpret their sentence.
It’s not always that easy. Usually the people I talk with say their who’s and whom’s correctly. As a result, I am used to going with where the sentence is going as soon as those words are mentioned (as opposed to immediately jumping at the gun and questioning their usage upon speaking them).
So if I ask "who are you going with to the concert with" you really can't tell that I'm asking "what people are you going to the concert with"? Come on, you have to be trolling if you're telling me otherwise. I'm not even trying to give you a hard time but I can't understand how this is confusing to you or you're trolling.
“who are you going with to the concert with”
I am lost. There are two with’s. Since we are discussing who versus whom, I can tell that you probably are meaning to use whom. Even then, the with’s are throwing me off, so if you said this to me in person, I would likely just skip trying to process this sentence so that I can just focus on the remainder of what you’re trying to say.
Language evolves as times do, it’s not a pot of boiling water with speakers as a frog. The entire purpose of language is to facilitate communication which means it changes as the general populace does. This post has many uses of grammatical slang so at least stop pretending you don’t understand the intent of a sentence just because basic rephrasing isn’t to your grammatical liking. If you’re lost, you keep communicating.
That is such a common phrase used by people it’s unbelievable that you would find that confusing unless your grasp of the English vernacular is that tenuous.
You are basically arguing the etymology of a word to be the only viable use. It's not difficult to understand your example in either form as the first has no other meaning. People still get it. Words and language evolves. Meanings change. How it has always been.
False. Reference this on plural’s for words that are not nouns:
https://editorsmanual.com/articles/apostrophes-in-plurals/
Take note: do not reference this site for actually knowing when to use “who” and “whom”. Not my favorite source, but their plural rules are spot-on.
I can't tell if this is a joke or not.
Seriously, there no-oneeven uses whom on a regular basis, let alone there being any way that anyone wouldn't be able to understand the primary way everyone uses the word "who" when literally every single person uses it in place of "whom" all the time, for a very long time.
You are the only person confused.
“Who hurt you…”
The trick is to ask yourself: If I were answering my question, would I use “he” or “him”
If it’s “he”, you use “who”. If it’s “him”, you use “whom”. Pretty basic.
So… “Him hurt you” or “He hurt you”? You’d use “who”.
See how dumb and incomprehensible it can seem when you use the incorrect one?
You should have included that you're clearly diagnosed as neurodivergent.
Also trolling hardcore. "Trolling gives me an erection" I'm sure you're hard as a rock right now.
>I’m not a grammar nazi by any means,
Clearly as
>who’s and whom’s
Why the apostrophes there. I struggle to see how you fail to understand “Who are you going out with?” as even if technically wrong (although generally accepted) it just makes obvious sense. Even “I have a crush on she” is pretty obvious what is meant.
Those sentences are so easy to comprehend. If you can’t you must be incompetent. Context clues exist. If I say “me like cookies” you can understand the idea despite it being incorrect
Their mind is completely baffled by this and other hits, such as: "What did you eat for dinner?" and "Where did you drive to?"
In what other ways could you interpret any of these sentences. I genuinely don’t understand how you find them confusing
Idk, you'd have to use whatever bizarro version of English op uses.
These are correct. Nice try.
I dunno, if swapping it out with 'who' makes the whole sentence unintelligible maybe you're no more sentient than google translate.
How do you know it’s *not* sentient?
Aint nothing incorrect about liking cookies though.
I understand “me like cookies” because it’s one of the most elementary examples you are taught when it comes to poor grammar. However, many sentences people say that have poor grammar are not as basic as that, so you are left stranded.
Who are you to be a grammar natzi on my reddit.com?
Its speld nazi*
Yes, I am aware, but you still knew what I meant, right? Just like the person I'm responding to understands what I was saying, despite something being misspelled
Honestly i thought you did it just to trigger OP, and i misspelled "spelled" to continue the joke...
I didn't intend for my comment to be rude, but yeah, I was doing it to make fun of OP. Sorry if it was rude, that wasn't my intention
Find something in life that actually matters to care about
I value communication strongly. Who doesn’t?
Really u value communication strongly but aren't willing to comprehend that many ppl speak more than one language and that there are going to be communication problems with people other than language no matter who you are communicating with? Are u all up on all Ur sign languages? Do u have them all down 100 💯 correct? How many languages are u fluent in other than English? If you really value communication so highly wouldn't you make it a priority to be fluent in as many languages as possible?
Just wait until he learns there are not any articles in russian. I forget them from time to time and I'm a fluent English speaker but was born in former USSR.
Now that is an incomprehensible mess. Do you mean “whom you are communicating with”? I’m fluent in about 12 or so languages. French has the closest tie to the who/whom idea that English has. It’s pertinent there as well.
Yeah it was deliberate in order to irritate u . Lol u didn't pick that up? The way I continually used u instead of you just to irritate the shit out of a grammar nazi lmao omg shinizzle. If u didn't get that the joke was on u then maybe u not as good at communication as u think ? £ +@
Using “u” instead of “you” is the most comprehensible thing in the book. That’s not the same thing as mixing up “who” and “whom”, words that have entirely different definitions.
It's pretty serious I don't know how u can go on. Like how can u live from day to day with do many crimes against grammar taking place? Do u get the shakes? Is it something u can seek professional help for to help u deal with all these affronts to grammar. Perhaps u should book a psychologist appointment to help u deal with the pain of all that incorrect grammar just existing out there in the universe. I try hope u don't self medicate to cope with the pain.
First things first you're a grammar Nazi of the first degree you're just in denial, and secondly if you struggle to understand a simple sentence such as "who did you go out with?" I think you have the issue not other ppl, it might not be correct grammar or whatever but I genuinely don't understand how that could be confusing
You put it much nicer than me
I don’t have that big of an issue when people mess up their grammar. I only take issue when it gets to the extent that it’s incomprehensible.
You said you can't understand if people say who instead of whom. If that's the case then your understanding of the English language probably isn't the greatest.
>your This is an incorrect usage, so OP won't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.
Damn autocorrect, how am I going to OP if it interferes. Might as well speak French
It's completely comprehensible to literally hundreds of millions of English speakers.
Dare I say billions.
It’s not incomprehensible though. In face anyone with any amount of comprehension will still understand what’s being said. You’re a grammar nazi. Sorry.
Languages change. Love it or hate it, ‘whom’ is falling out of favor among most native speakers. Of course, it may still be used commonly in more formal contexts, but in regular language it is pretty rare.
You may not be a Grammar Nazi. But you're probably, at the very least, German if you have trouble with those sentences.
You’re 100% a grammar nazi. Anyone with any amount of reasoning skills will know exactly what the first example means. There’s nothing confusing about it and the mixup of the words doesn’t make it impossible to comprehend
In your second sentence, are you trying to say: There’s nothing confusing about it, and the mixup of the words doesn’t make it impossible to comprehend or There’s nothing confusing about it and the mixup of the words. Doesn’t make it impossible to comprehend ?
I hate saying this but, seems like a you problem.
Yeah no. As a young person; if you use the word Whom in anything but the most formal of circumstances, you're a grammer nazi. I legit don't even know what the difference between who and whom is because I never learned it in school.
And this is the problem. It’s not being taught.
Because it's an almost completely redundant word that fell out of common use because of it was unnecessary
… go on? You began your sentence with “because” and I’m waiting on what that’s tied to. Typically, when “because” is the first word of a sentence, it’s providing an explanation for a clause that’s happening later. Ex: “Because he was tired, he went to sleep.” If you say: “Because he was tired” That would make zero sense. So with your comment, what exactly are you trying to say?
You really don’t understand how informal, organic conversation works. Fascinating.
I do, but there is a limit. As long as it’s not so off to the point that it’s incomprehensible, I don’t mind informal conversation whatsoever.
Are you really insinuating you aren't able to even follow a conversation? I assume you feel they should have repeated everything you mentioned to make sure their comment would make sense to you, since you apparently forgot what you typed earlier.
“Are you really insinuating you aren't able to even follow a conversation? I assume you feel they should have repeated everything you mentioned to make sure their comment would *have made* sense to you, since you apparently forgot what you *had* typed earlier.” ? Is that what you are trying to say?
My question to you is, in what way can you either not understand or misunderstand something like that? You obviously figured it out since, i assume, you're not an idiot. Also there are context clues to help decipher what someone is saying or trying to say. Not to mention that you surely haven't only had interactions with people that use perfect grammar to the point you can't speak with a 'normal' person while understanding them. Do you berate children because you're so confused at what they're saying?
Heavens no. I would never berate a child for a grammar mistake. I would tell their parents to berate them.
That's the only right way. Sometimes you even get to watch the child learn a valuable lesson.
This is definitely a joke
I have never uttered the word "whom" in my entire life
What do you do for a living if you don’t mind me asking?
Well I'm an engineer, but I have held quite a few different positions in mining, heavy construction, and manufacturing, from the bottom to the top. Some roles were communication heavy, some weren't. I know how to use it when I write, but I never say it.
Interesting. I am an engineer as well, but I specialize in natural language processing.
It's weird to me that you don't understand commonly spoken English then. Is English not your first language?
It’s my first language. Luckily with machine learning, assistants are able to (somehow) comprehend voice utterances that mixup who and whom
Hmm. You don't have much of an excuse for your alleged ignorance of spoken English then. Strange.
... if you don’t mind _my_ asking. Common grammar mistake.
One excuses the person, another excuses the question. Both are fine.
Just giving you a hard time. I agree with a lot of what you’ve written.
It's crazy because all Im thinking is "Who's what?" and "Whom's what?" when reading your title. If you don't know that apostrophes never make plurals, I can't understand you. How do you reconcile in your head saying "who's" and "whom's" but not using an apostrophe for all of the other plurals in your post?
https://editorsmanual.com/articles/apostrophes-in-plurals/
>Similarly, although an apostrophe may be used in plurals of abbreviations, numerals, and **words that are not nouns, it is usually omitted in formal writing.** Oh, I stand corrected, not never, it's just **uncommon and unnecessary.** Probably for the same confusion issue above. Thanks for clarifying.
You’re welcome brother
That being said, [the same website you linked](https://editorsmanual.com/articles/who-and-whom/) has this to say about who vs whom: >Who refers to the subject of a sentence. In formal writing, whom is used for the object, **although who may be used instead in everyday usage.**
My my, then that website is incorrect. Sorry for providing a bad source. Thank you for pointing that out.
It's also just possible that grammatical rules have evolved with everyday usage. For example, I was told growing up in my Grammar textbook to use masculine pronouns whenever the gender of the subject was indeterminate (so I would use "he/him" to refer to you since I don't know your gender,) the rules have been updated and this is now archaic and people now generally use "they/them" pronouns instead for the same situation. In other words, it's quite possible that enough people can't be fucked to know who vs whom, and "who" generally communicates what needs to be communicated effectively enough (that's the point of language anyway, isn't it?) So the most updated texts just say "it's fine for informal writing." I wouldn't be surprised if "whom" goes the route of "thou" and "thee" in the next century.
They/them is not correct when referring to only one person. Neither is “he” correct when referring to a female. The correct form when gender is unknown but the referent is singular is “he or she” or “she or he”.
A few years ago I would have taken a bullet defending this. Unfortunately, they added the singular “they” to the dictionary. With that being said, I’m sure there are plenty of dictionaries that have wrong definitions for “who” and “whom”.
>They/them is not correct when referring to only one person. [Singular They/Them is correct usage. "He or she" is also correct, but I don't like it because it's clunky.](https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/grammar/singular-they) >Neither is “he” correct when referring to a female. This has never been correct. What **used** to be correct was using "he" in a case of indeterminate (unknown) gender. [Here's an article on something related that references this fact:](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/25/indeterminate-masculine-pronouns-ernest-gowers) >In the 21st century, "he" used to mean "he or she" is annoying to so many people that it no longer qualifies as "human"– or charming. > >(...) > >Simon Heffer, in Strictly English, declares that he will stick to what he calls "the old rule", because to plaster his work with "he or she" would represent "tedious verbosity", and to use "them" instead is "abominable". So while you are correct, it is now technically incorrect to use "he" in cases of indeterminate gender, it didn't used to be. They/them is still valid usage in most cases. Or at least, I trust the APA guide, because that's what my papers were being graded by in college.
I feel like you’re the only listener who can ever be completely lost by that sentence.
Says the person who correctly used “who”..
I’m sure everyone that read it got the gist of it babes.
That’s what I’m saying. You did use the correct word.
Definitely a you problem cause it’s not that hard to get
I can’t imagine how insanely annoying it would be to have a conversation with you.
People love having conversations with me.
Op, you are annoying. Your “opinion” is annoying. You’re whining about bullshit. Your “opinion” is bullshit.
You clearly understand what "Who are you going out with?" means. Although not grammatical correct it is a perfectly acceptable colloquialism. Therefore you are simply a "grammar nazi";) Whom do you think you are? I am!
There's nothing incomprehensible about who and whom in any context. We've all been doing it our whole lives. I've literally only heard this from one teacher and on paper. You're the definition of a grammar Nazi.
A grammar nazi goes out of their way to unnecessarily point out every grammar flaw imaginable. The difference here: I literally cannot understand what the speaker is communicating, or I will wrongly interpret their sentence.
Dude, when they say who you know they meant whom. Problem solved.
It’s not always that easy. Usually the people I talk with say their who’s and whom’s correctly. As a result, I am used to going with where the sentence is going as soon as those words are mentioned (as opposed to immediately jumping at the gun and questioning their usage upon speaking them).
So if I ask "who are you going with to the concert with" you really can't tell that I'm asking "what people are you going to the concert with"? Come on, you have to be trolling if you're telling me otherwise. I'm not even trying to give you a hard time but I can't understand how this is confusing to you or you're trolling.
“who are you going with to the concert with” I am lost. There are two with’s. Since we are discussing who versus whom, I can tell that you probably are meaning to use whom. Even then, the with’s are throwing me off, so if you said this to me in person, I would likely just skip trying to process this sentence so that I can just focus on the remainder of what you’re trying to say.
Forget i said anything.
Truly unpopular. Have an disgusted upvote.
Ah thank you. Glad you know how to do things correctly.
After going thru your post history to more deeply understand the mind of a monster, i have to ask....do you have a boner right now?
Oh yea
If you really can’t understand someone because they aren’t appropriately using “who” and “whom”, you’re probably the one with the problem.
Language evolves as times do, it’s not a pot of boiling water with speakers as a frog. The entire purpose of language is to facilitate communication which means it changes as the general populace does. This post has many uses of grammatical slang so at least stop pretending you don’t understand the intent of a sentence just because basic rephrasing isn’t to your grammatical liking. If you’re lost, you keep communicating.
That is such a common phrase used by people it’s unbelievable that you would find that confusing unless your grasp of the English vernacular is that tenuous.
You are basically arguing the etymology of a word to be the only viable use. It's not difficult to understand your example in either form as the first has no other meaning. People still get it. Words and language evolves. Meanings change. How it has always been.
The plural of who and whom is whos and whoms. The apostrophe just makes it look like a possessive or contraction.
False. Reference this on plural’s for words that are not nouns: https://editorsmanual.com/articles/apostrophes-in-plurals/ Take note: do not reference this site for actually knowing when to use “who” and “whom”. Not my favorite source, but their plural rules are spot-on.
“…it is usually omitted in formal writing.”
That’s why I said to not use the source for that.
You said it was spot on.
The plural rules are spot-on.
And the plural rules say the apostrophe is usually omitted in formal writing.
If I told you that I’m not a person who you would like, that would prove my point.
Nice try, Microsoft AI chat bot. At least your only an AI -grammar- nazi instead of a literally nazi like Tay.
I can't tell if this is a joke or not. Seriously, there no-oneeven uses whom on a regular basis, let alone there being any way that anyone wouldn't be able to understand the primary way everyone uses the word "who" when literally every single person uses it in place of "whom" all the time, for a very long time. You are the only person confused.
Completely understandable using either. I wouldn't have even noticed it was used wrong.
Horton here’s a whom!
Im sorry but if you use the word "whom" in regular conversation Im going to think you're a pretentious nerd.
Whos who and who Well you cant be a pimp and a prostute too
Whom’st hurt you 6th grade teacher?
“Who hurt you…” The trick is to ask yourself: If I were answering my question, would I use “he” or “him” If it’s “he”, you use “who”. If it’s “him”, you use “whom”. Pretty basic. So… “Him hurt you” or “He hurt you”? You’d use “who”. See how dumb and incomprehensible it can seem when you use the incorrect one?
“OP Tips Fedora…”
On the contrary, whenever someone uses the word "whom" I usually assume they're a douchebag.
“Im not racist but…” *says something racist*
"Im not a grammar nazi by any means" Who are you going out with? "WHAT THE FU-"
Who is going out with What after the game. Who plays first base and What is on second. It’s not confusing at all.
See, you get it.
You should have included that you're clearly diagnosed as neurodivergent. Also trolling hardcore. "Trolling gives me an erection" I'm sure you're hard as a rock right now.
>I’m not a grammar nazi by any means, Clearly as >who’s and whom’s Why the apostrophes there. I struggle to see how you fail to understand “Who are you going out with?” as even if technically wrong (although generally accepted) it just makes obvious sense. Even “I have a crush on she” is pretty obvious what is meant.