PDA

View Full Version : They speak of liberty and justice, but for who?



demonfire922010
09-14-2012, 12:45 PM
Should be whom not who. Can't believe someone got paid for that line.

Slayer_WTF
09-14-2012, 12:49 PM
Eh?

playassassins1
09-14-2012, 12:50 PM
Why dedicate a thread to this? A minor mistake that ubi made...

notafanboy
09-14-2012, 12:52 PM
Call the grammar/spelling police quick !!!!!

demonfire922010
09-14-2012, 12:54 PM
It's pathetic that people who are paid to write for a living don't use proper grammar is why. Also it's sad that most people probably didn't know it was wrong.

SaintPerkele
09-14-2012, 12:56 PM
http://turnerwatson.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/grammar-nazi2.jpg

Also, English is not Connor's native language :D

Slayer_WTF
09-14-2012, 12:58 PM
Lol

demonfire922010
09-14-2012, 01:00 PM
People who don't care about knowledge shouldn't be allowed to have kids.

Locopells
09-14-2012, 01:09 PM
Whom, Lewis, whom!

Slayer_WTF
09-14-2012, 01:17 PM
People who don't care about knowledge shouldn't be allowed to have kids.

*facepalm*

xXHyperMidgetXx
09-14-2012, 01:29 PM
*facepalm*

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ma5vdqthnb1qdyg71o1_1280.jpg

kudos17
09-14-2012, 01:57 PM
I feel this is a little bit tricky. Now that you bring it up, whom sounds better to me, but would it really be the case?

I was taught that whom replaces an object, usually indirect. Not the subject.

Marie gives the paper to Sally.
Marie gives the paper to whom?
Who gives the paper to Sally?

Now:

"They speak of liberty and justice, but for who?"

They is the subject, followed by direct objects liberty and justice. But serves as a conjunction. The end of the sentence is a dependent clause. Preposition, subject. No predicate The subject is who, not whom.

This is where I wonder: Is the ending of the sentence, who, acting as a subject for a new sentence, or rather, an object of sorts? Since there is no verb directly addressing it - speak addresses liberty and justice - I have to assume it is not the object of anything. It is also obviously not a verb. So I believe that in this odd case, they are actually correct in saying who rather than who, unless I'm missing something./

Ork3n
09-14-2012, 02:17 PM
Until now i was WTF? Why whom and not who? And then kudo17 explained it.
Thanks man.

POP1Fan
09-14-2012, 02:21 PM
Actually is accepted that in speech "who" can replace "whom". Not while writing, though.

Mr_Shade
09-14-2012, 02:43 PM
Should be whom not who. Can't believe someone got paid for that line.

Official answer:

Connor is not a grammar expert.

English is not his first language.



;)

xXRyzonXx
09-14-2012, 03:09 PM
Should be whom not who. Can't believe someone got paid for that line.

What is that smell? Oh yeah, its jealousy and its coming from you demonfire922010.

itsamea-mario
09-14-2012, 03:15 PM
People who don't care about knowledge shouldn't be allowed to have kids.

This whole idea of grammar being the most important thing ever is very new, back in the days of classic writers they said stuff however they wanted, they didn't let stupid things like grammar and spelling get in the way. Read Shakespeare, i'm sure to your delicate grammar nazi mind it would be terrible.

And like Shade said, Connor isn't exactly an honours graduate from Cambridge, he's a Mohawk.

POP1Fan
09-14-2012, 03:28 PM
It's not wrong god **** it!

Serrachio
09-14-2012, 03:33 PM
A mod needs to Hidden Blade this thread.

POP1Fan
09-14-2012, 03:34 PM
A mod needs to Hidden Blade this thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsAjBMZARYk

ACfan443
09-14-2012, 03:39 PM
People who don't care about knowledge shouldn't be allowed to have kids.

This is actually hilarious.

Poodle_of_Doom
09-14-2012, 04:20 PM
And like Shade said, Connor isn't exactly an honours graduate from Cambridge, he's a Mohawk.

That sounds like if falls on the other side of the line bro....

LightRey
09-14-2012, 05:09 PM
I feel this is a little bit tricky. Now that you bring it up, whom sounds better to me, but would it really be the case?

I was taught that whom replaces an object, usually indirect. Not the subject.

Marie gives the paper to Sally.
Marie gives the paper to whom?
Who gives the paper to Sally?

Now:

"They speak of liberty and justice, but for who?"

They is the subject, followed by direct objects liberty and justice. But serves as a conjunction. The end of the sentence is a dependent clause. Preposition, subject. No predicate The subject is who, not whom.

This is where I wonder: Is the ending of the sentence, who, acting as a subject for a new sentence, or rather, an object of sorts? Since there is no verb directly addressing it - speak addresses liberty and justice - I have to assume it is not the object of anything. It is also obviously not a verb. So I believe that in this odd case, they are actually correct in saying who rather than who, unless I'm missing something./
The use of "whom" is not limited to the object. In fact I am quite sure (though not entirely certain) that it is always used if it is not the subject of a sentence.

POP1Fan
09-14-2012, 06:04 PM
The use of "whom" is not limited to the object. In fact I am quite sure (though not entirely certain) that it is always used if it is not the subject of a sentence.

I will repeat myself since I think everyone ignored my post...
"Who" is being accepted as a replacement for "whom" in actual speech, actual talking. It is, however, incorrect to use "who" instead of "whom" when writing. But when speaking, like Connor, it's not. This is not a mistake.

LightRey
09-14-2012, 06:31 PM
I will repeat myself since I think everyone ignored my post...
"Who" is being accepted as a replacement for "whom" in actual speech, actual talking. It is, however, incorrect to use "who" instead of "whom" when writing. But when speaking, like Connor, it's not. This is not a mistake.
whoopty-doo. I wasn't really referring to Connor.

POP1Fan
09-14-2012, 06:39 PM
whoopty-doo. I wasn't really referring to Connor.

I was not trying to correct you.

Locopells
09-14-2012, 07:11 PM
http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/4765/blackdudetf8.jpg

pacmanate
09-14-2012, 07:15 PM
I feel this is a little bit tricky. Now that you bring it up, whom sounds better to me, but would it really be the case?

I was taught that whom replaces an object, usually indirect. Not the subject.

Marie gives the paper to Sally.
Marie gives the paper to whom?
Who gives the paper to Sally?

Now:

"They speak of liberty and justice, but for who?"

They is the subject, followed by direct objects liberty and justice. But serves as a conjunction. The end of the sentence is a dependent clause. Preposition, subject. No predicate The subject is who, not whom.

This is where I wonder: Is the ending of the sentence, who, acting as a subject for a new sentence, or rather, an object of sorts? Since there is no verb directly addressing it - speak addresses liberty and justice - I have to assume it is not the object of anything. It is also obviously not a verb. So I believe that in this odd case, they are actually correct in saying who rather than who, unless I'm missing something./


THIS D00D NOES THE INGLIS!!!! WOooooooooooooooo!


No but seriously, who cares.

Noble6
09-14-2012, 07:44 PM
Haha this thread is hilarious *eats popcorn*.
As said before (tough english is not my naitive language) it's not so big deal if whom is replaced with who in spoken language.

Official answer:

Connor is not a grammar expert.

English is not his first language.



;)
+1
This.:D

LightRey
09-14-2012, 08:41 PM
I was not trying to correct you.
Then don't reply to my post with completely irrelevant information regarding it.

Legendz54
09-14-2012, 11:29 PM
Lol seriously, don't pop a vein over this, who cares.

Assassin_M
09-14-2012, 11:31 PM
There are people in this world who are snobbish, arrogant and are willing to shove it in our faces...

All I learned from this thread.. YATTA !!! I HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE !!

itsamea-mario
09-14-2012, 11:34 PM
There are people in this world who are snobbish, arrogant and are willing to shove it in our faces...

All I learned from this thread.. YATTA !!! I HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE !!

So long as you get the message across, who cares how?

kudos17
09-15-2012, 12:16 AM
The use of "whom" is not limited to the object. In fact I am quite sure (though not entirely certain) that it is always used if it is not the subject of a sentence.

Hm, but that's what I wonder. In the quote, "...but for who?", I wonder if "who" is being used as a subject or an object. After all, an object is generally the result of a subject and a verb, of which "who" does not seem to be. The only verb in the quote, "speak", refers to "liberty and justice", not anything else. Now, perhaps the "for" adds "who" to the resulted objects as well, but that's where I'm not sure. As it stands, I'm inclined to believe "who" is a separate subject, and should stay "who".


THIS D00D NOES THE INGLIS!!!! WOooooooooooooooo!


No but seriously, who cares.

Me, obviously, and the person who made this thread. Don't blow off something as trivial because you don't find it interesting. Language and grammar is my thing, and I like discussing it. I'm not a grammar-Nazi by any means, and at the end of the day I honestly couldn't care less if Connor should say "who" or "whom". But it does raise the question, which bobs around in my head.

LightRey
09-15-2012, 12:20 AM
Hm, but that's what I wonder. In the quote, "...but for who?", I wonder if "who" is being used as a subject or an object. After all, an object is generally the result of a subject and a verb, of which "who" does not seem to be. The only verb in the quote, "speak", refers to "liberty and justice", not anything else. Now, perhaps the "for" adds "who" to the resulted objects as well, but that's where I'm not sure. As it stands, I'm inclined to believe "who" is a separate subject, and should stay "who".



Me, obviously, and the person who made this thread. Don't blow off something as trivial because you don't find it interesting. Language and grammar is my thing, and I like discussing it. I'm not a grammar-Nazi by any means, and at the end of the day I honestly couldn't care less if Connor should say "who" or "whom". But it does raise the question, which bobs around in my head.
It's neither. It's "justice for whom", with 'for' being a preposition that demands a dativ I believe.

Black_Widow9
09-15-2012, 03:25 AM
Official answer:

Connor is not a grammar expert.

English is not his first language.



;)
Did you guys not see this?
The fact of the matter is when speaking a language it is entirely different than when you write it. No one talks like the written word. :/

Assassin_M
09-15-2012, 03:30 AM
Did you guys not see this?
The fact of the matter is when speaking a language it is entirely different than when you write it. No one talks like the written word. :/
Just please lock this..

An Official and VERY reasonable answer was given... Anyone else saying anything else is just useless..

Ork3n
09-15-2012, 04:05 AM
Just please lock this..

An Official and VERY reasonable answer was given... Anyone else saying anything else is just useless..

It was not official xD And why do you think it's useless to raise our knowledge?

Assassin_M
09-15-2012, 04:07 AM
It was not official xD And why do you think it's useless to raise our knowledge?
An Answer from a Mod is Official..

Raising Knowledge ? Where did I say that raising knowledge was useless ??

kriegerdesgottes
09-15-2012, 04:33 AM
http://turnerwatson.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/grammar-nazi2.jpg

also, english is not connor's native language :d

lol

ToniTorsi
09-15-2012, 07:07 AM
Whomgardium levosa!

xXRyzonXx
09-15-2012, 10:19 AM
This thread should seriously be closed... I have issues believe this guy isn't trolling..

Black_Widow9
09-16-2012, 12:24 AM
Since your question has been answered I'm going to lock this now.