Daily Kos

View Story | 555 comments

  •  can't eat enough to vomit enough (none / 0)

    What a load of crap.  

    get behind the dem nominee whomever he is

    After carefully deliberating a Newsweek poll, what? In any event, that sentence--which isn't the word I want, but I'm tired--made me mad: "[G]et behind the dem nominee[,] WHOEVER he is," not "WHOMEVER." Why on earth would it be "whom"?

    •  Don't make yourself look even stupider, please (none / 1)

      WHy on earth would it be "whom"?

      Whom is the object form of the defenite pronoun who.

      Nominative form is who.

      You are getting confused because it could be a sentence itself, but although it is an independent clause it is still the anteceedent of nominee. And any pronoun for nominee has to be in objective form because nominee is the object.  

      Objective
      Get behind whom?
      Get behind him?

      Nominative:
      Get behind who?
      Get behind he?

      See how little sense it makes whenever you use the nominative forms?

      Pull your head out of your ass

      •  Um... (none / 0)

        A bit dramatic for someone who forgot to spellcheck. Moving right along...
      •  Might want to remove your own head first (none / 0)

        "Nominee" is the antecedent of "whomever" in your sentence, so you described it incorrectly when you said that the word whomever "is still the anteceedent[sic] of nominee."

        One clue on that score should have been the fact that the ANTEcedent comes before the pronoun that refers to that antecedent.  Ante means before.  Get it?

        More importantly, the case of the pronoun (either nominative or objective) is NOT dependent on the case of its antecedent.  The pronoun's case depends upon the use of the pronoun in its own clause.

        Therefore, the correct way to express the above is indeed:  "Get behind the Dem nominee, whoever he is."  Whoever is a predicate nominative in the dependent clause.

        So you are the one who is confused.  Your assertion that "any pronoun for nominee has to be in objective form because nominee is the object" is just plain wrong.

        How does this sound to you?

          I will vote for the candidate whom speaks best in the debate.

        Sounds wrong, doesn't it?  Although the antecedent is candidate, and candidate is objective here, there's no way that "whom" can serve as the subject for the dependent clause.

        The correct version would read:  I will vote for the candidate who speaks best in the debate.

        Alternately, you might say:  I will vote for the candidate whom the party chooses.

        There, whom is correct, because it is the object of the clause -- "The party chooses whom?"

        So please, heed your own warnings, and don't make yourself look any stupider.

      •  Might want to remove your own head first (none / 0)

        "Nominee" is the antecedent of "whomever" in your sentence, so you described it incorrectly when you said that the word whomever "is still the anteceedent[sic] of nominee."

        One clue on that score should have been the fact that the ANTEcedent comes before the pronoun that refers to that antecedent.  Ante means before.  Get it?

        More importantly, the case of the pronoun (either nominative or objective) is NOT dependent on the case of its antecedent.  The pronoun's case depends upon the use of the pronoun in its own clause.

        Therefore, the correct way to express the above is indeed:  "Get behind the Dem nominee, whoever he is."  Whoever is a predicate nominative in the dependent clause.

        So you are the one who is confused.  Your assertion that "any pronoun for nominee has to be in objective form because nominee is the object" is just plain wrong.

        How does this sound to you?

          I will vote for the candidate whom speaks best in the debate.

        Sounds wrong, doesn't it?  Although the antecedent is candidate, and candidate is objective here, there's no way that "whom" can serve as the subject for the dependent clause.

        The correct version would read:  I will vote for the candidate who speaks best in the debate.

        Alternately, you might say:  I will vote for the candidate whom the party chooses.

        There, whom is correct, because it is the object of the clause -- "The party chooses whom?"

        So please, heed your own warnings, and don't make yourself look any stupider.

      •  Of course it is NOT 'whom' (none / 0)

        My poor benighted friend - you don't even know what a linking verb is (also known as a "copula), and you're waxing authoritatively on a grammatical matter. (And then there were the serial misspellings. Ouch!)

        The verb "to be," from which the inflected verb "is" comes, is a linking verb - NOT a transitive verb. Linking verbs NEVER have objects, therefore the objective form WHOMever is incorrect. Rather, it takes a SUBJECT compliment, in this case WHOever.

        It is for this same reason that, when answering the phone, for example, one says "This is HE" or This is SHE," NOT "This is him" or "This is her."

        Does one say "WHOM is that person?" Of course not.

        Last example...

        "I don't know WHO he is, but WHOever he is, he seems pretty ignorant"

        Get it?

      •  Of course it is NOT 'whom' (none / 0)

        My poor benighted friend - you don't even know what a linking verb is (also known as a "copula), and you're waxing authoritatively on a grammatical matter. (And then there were the serial misspellings. Ouch!)

        The verb "to be," from which the inflected verb "is" comes, is a linking verb - NOT a transitive verb. Linking verbs NEVER have objects, therefore the objective form WHOMever is incorrect. Rather, it takes a SUBJECT compliment, in this case WHOever.

        It is for this same reason that, when answering the phone, for example, one says "This is HE" or This is SHE," NOT "This is him" or "This is her."

        Does one say "WHOM is that person?" Of course not.

        Last example...

        "I don't know WHO he is, but WHOever he is, he seems pretty ignorant"

        Get it?

View Story | 555 comments