Whom vs who

[woowoo22]

TAAT

"Whom would you like to send to Mars"

Surely who? I hope so, as the above grates.

I think it might be right. Possibly. Whom is used for the object of the sentence and who the subject. I think 'you' is the subject of the sentence. Maybe.

On the other hand, whom is horrible and falling out of use, so it's almost always who.

I'm also very tired and mainly came to Pedants' Corner to relieve my feelings about 'of' instead of 'have' and other, simpler things. I'm not actually a reliable authority in grammar.

Bloody phone. On, not in. Ffs.

Yes, whom is correct. "I would send him to Mars", not "I would send he to Mars". But I agree it sounds cumbersome.

I used the word in a French lesson the other week (I teach secondary MFL) - I wouldn't have, but I just couldn't bring myself to say "the person who (aaarrrgh) you are talking to".

One of the students said "What word is that miss? Whom??? Is that Spanish?" No, it's just an English word, that's your mother tongue...

The number of "of"s on MN tonight is starting to make me wonder if these threads will be used by future linguistics teachers to show when it finally became common usage.
Que is also driving me nuts. Where the fuck is Manuel?

The Whom/Who thing: I know what you mean, I really want it to be who as well. But I think it might be correct to say whom as that is the subject of send.

Whom cares?

(Sorry. Couldn't resist)

The 'ofs' are bothering me, too

Oh excellent. I could almost feel my brain clunking as I worked it out. I've hidden some 'ofs' and am cheered.

I wish we had been taught grammar better at school but I have clearly been taught more than a lot of posters.

The "ofs" are driving me mad too, it's not only the "ofs" it's the aggressive defence of them by those who think it doesn't matter. It's no wonder that Matthew Wright referred to MN last week as illiterate harridans which saddens me greatly

Isn't 'whom' to be used in the dative case, rather than simply for the object?
I'm trying to think of German examples now, which is rather hot on the dative.
But I thought it was used when there is an implied 'to whom', 'from whom', and so on.
Is it really falling from use? Poor old dative: following the subjunctive into gentle oblivion.

I've just told a lot of abusive and unkind posters slagging off an OP who used "of" instead of "have" to shut the fuck up and have a bit of empathy.

Let's not dirty our nice little PC by carrying it on over here, shall we?

Last time I looked PC was for talking about language, not other people's shortcomings.

Yes, whom is correct. Yes, it's falling out of usage. Yes, probably, "of" will become acceptable standard usage in years to come. Like the R will be dropped from February. Language is a constantly evolving organism. Which is what makes it beautiful. Deal with it.

And this is now the third thread today where those criticising other people's errors are making far more themselves.

For shame.

deliciously gratifying when it happens though

The Oatmeal has an amusing comic describing correct usage of whom and who:
theoatmeal.com/comics/who_vs_whom

Nope. I would genuinely like to know if it's dative or simple direct object substitute. I have to do a test on this soon and what I've been reading in the guidelines simply doesn't chime with what I learnt/ how I used it.
The is the Pedants' section and I figure I can get an answer here.

Drank sangria - I usually think you are fairly reasonable but your answer was cuntish, frankly, and didn't help me at all.
I'm sure it gave you a glow of self-righteous pleasure but I think I'll just wait here and hope a linguist comes along.
A helpful linguist.

I'm actually quite pissed off now. I feel like a little, old lady, who's been beaten up by someone too scared to actually deal with RL bastards, but who looks for small, safe victims, then bests them up, claiming loudly that they're "Beating up the Fash!!"

Go and take out your shit sex life on someone in RL.

Peace and love, Cat

Er, I was referring to the posters on this thread criticising the use of "of" instead of "have" on other MN threads.

But, whatever.

It's a straightforward direct object btw.

Thank you, Oatmeal. Genuinely.

No, Sangria, it was to me because you mentioned the falling out of usage thing.

Seriously, I wasn't talking to you. And I shall be very careful not to do so in future, because quite frankly, your second post to me sounds positively deranged. "Beating up the fash" "little old ladies" "shit sex life".

Just wow.

Sorry. I think Sangria was referring to me, I got my subjects and objects in a twist.

Sangria: I do realise that language is organic; it's one of the joys of communication. I personally dislike the use of "of" in the place of "have" but you're right, it doesn't affect anyone's ability to understand what's being communicated, and it does seem to be coming into common usage.

You is right, innit.