Poll of the Day > For those of you whom like Subway....

(+) Yeah! (+)

All clauses have a subject, whether implied or otherwise. Relative dependent clauses are not different in that. You used an object as a subject. That is incorrect to do.

Also, English isn't Latin, nor is it even based on Latin. You may as well bring up Russian or Mandarin into the discussion for all that's worth. It doesn't apply here at all.

Sahuagin posted...

BigOlePappy posted...

The pronoun would become "Dass" in this case which is what I am used to syntactically. I was referencing the first clause with the second clause via whom (would be Dass or Cui in an inflected language), but I was told the correct relative pronoun in that syntax is "that" even though I'm using the first clause in the dative case.

if you're talking about people, then your choice is who/whom or that.

Incorrect:
"for those of you whom like Subway..."

like only Tarzan would say that

For those of you, of whom like Subway. <-----this is what I was structuring using the Latin syntax related to "cui/cuius" in the dative case (to reference "those.")
---

SushiSquid posted...

All clauses have a subject, whether implied or otherwise. Relative dependent clauses are not different in that. You used an object as a subject. That is incorrect to do.

Also, English isn't Latin, nor is it even based on Latin. You may as well bring up Russian or Mandarin into the discussion for all that's worth. It doesn't apply here at all.

It is relevant for the discussion of cases (since it is the most common academic example.)
---

BigOlePappy posted...

Then why can "that" be used in place as a relative pronoun and not be nominative case with whom referencing an indirect object?

from what I'm reading, I think with a relative clause, it doesn't matter what who/whom is referencing, it matters how it's used in the clause.

"The witnesses whom I interviewed gave conflicting evidence."

"witnesses" is the subject of the sentence, but "I" is the subject of the relative clause, and "whom" is the object.

"The witnesses who interviewed me gave conflicting evidence."

now "who" is the subject of the clause, and "me" is the object.

http://www.btb.termiumplus.gc.ca/tpv2guides/guides/wrtps/index-eng.html?lang=eng&lettr=indx_catlog_w&page=9mXNAo90UPlc.html
---

OhhhJa posted...

Dude you're wrong. It really wasn't a big deal until you decided to be so adamant about not being wrong

Or, if you guys would have talked about only the subs, it wouldn't have been a big deal... I mean, it's not like he can change it, anyway...
---

BigOlePappy posted...

For those of you, of whom like Subway.

This isn't even a sentence.

"For those of you " is a perfectly fine dependent clause. But then "of whom like Subway" is a fragment. It has no subject (implicit or explicit) and thus no full predicate.

SushiSquid posted...

BigOlePappy posted...

For those of you, of whom like Subway.

This isn't even a sentence.

"For those of you " is a perfectly fine dependent clause. But then "of whom like Subway" is a fragment. It has no subject (implicit or explicit) and thus no full predicate.

The rest of the sentence would be in post #1.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/3-poll-of-the-day/76487365/899100828
---

LinkPizza posted...

Or, if you guys would have talked about only the subs, it wouldn't have been a big deal... I mean, it's not like he can change it, anyway...

Obviously he doesn't care that much about the subs if he's willing to argue so adamantly about the grammar in his own topic. This is far more interesting anyway

LinkPizza posted...

The rest of the sentence would be in post #1.

No, that's a completely separate sentence (and more importantly, clause). The fragment can be made into a proper clause by switching out whom for the nominative who.

SteamedHams posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Or, if you guys would have talked about only the subs, it wouldn't have been a big deal... I mean, it's not like he can change it, anyway...

Obviously he doesn't care that much about the subs if he's willing to argue so adamantly about the grammar in his own topic. This is far more interesting anyway

Ah, but he's also not the one who started the grammar arguement. If nobody had said anything, the topic would most likely be about Subs. Now, he'll probably just use whom all the time(whether he's right or wrong) just to screw with you guys. Nobody really cares or should really care about grammar on the internet. Most people typing don't even like to use the full words and shorten most things, anyway. At least the things they can shorten. And it feels like everyday, there's a new acronym for something...
---

It isn't a huge deal. In my graduate discussions people get into these technical semantic debates (often involving several languages) so I'm used to it. What was surprising is how vitriolic some of the people here were, even condemning a tenured professor (that dynamic was different.)

For me, I usually construct from very abstract syntaxes from Latin inflections. That mind set helped me learn German too, since it is also an inflected language with structured rules for the relative clauses (dass.) Even, Greek, but I struggled with the aorist tenses and it wasn't as necessary for me. Then going back to English after all of that helped me understand better what was happening with syntax but there are still some hiccups.

For example, in Latin anything referencing the first clause has to be in the exact same case as what it is referencing. The sentences will go on for lines and lines and with the correct inflection it is literally impossible to cipher the syntax.
---

He started the grammar argument by using incorrect grammar. Any number of people could have been the first to point it out, but we can all trace it back to his mistake. It wouldn't have really even been an argument if he had just admitted he's wrong.

SushiSquid posted...

LinkPizza posted...

The rest of the sentence would be in post #1.

No, that's a completely separate sentence (and more importantly, clause). The fragment can be made into a proper clause by switching out whom for the nominative who.

He used an ellipses(with an extra dot, it seems) after the topic title. Most of the time, people do that when they would like to finish a sentence or question in the topic title either for suspense, or because it's all to long to fit in the topic line. Or because they want to. Either way, the rest of that sentence would be in post #1, as it seems like he would use what he wrote to replace the topic title.
---

LinkPizza posted...

SushiSquid posted...

LinkPizza posted...

The rest of the sentence would be in post #1.

No, that's a completely separate sentence (and more importantly, clause). The fragment can be made into a proper clause by switching out whom for the nominative who.

He used an ellipses(with an extra dot, it seems) after the topic title. Most of the time, people do that when they would like to finish a sentence or question in the topic title either for suspense, or because it's all to long to fit in the topic line. Or because they want to. Either way, the rest of that sentence would be in post #1, as it seems like he would use what he wrote to replace the topic title.

I mostly meant it to be a general lead in to the topic.
---

SteamedHams posted...

He started the grammar argument by using incorrect grammar. Any number of people could have been the first to point it out, but we can all trace it back to his mistake. It wouldn't have really even been an argument if he had just admitted he's wrong.

That no one needed to point out because it's pointless...

And why do you need him to admit he's wrong? Nobody ever wants to do that. He most likely won't.
---

BigOlePappy posted...

LinkPizza posted...

SushiSquid posted...

LinkPizza posted...

The rest of the sentence would be in post #1.

No, that's a completely separate sentence (and more importantly, clause). The fragment can be made into a proper clause by switching out whom for the nominative who.

He used an ellipses(with an extra dot, it seems) after the topic title. Most of the time, people do that when they would like to finish a sentence or question in the topic title either for suspense, or because it's all to long to fit in the topic line. Or because they want to. Either way, the rest of that sentence would be in post #1, as it seems like he would use what he wrote to replace the topic title.

I mostly meant it to be a general lead in to the topic.

A lot of people do it. Like all the time on message boards like on gamefaqs. I see it everyday. I don't understand why that's even an issue...
---

I'm not "condemning" the professor, just saying that people in assumed positions of trustworthy authority can be wrong. I don't know anything about the professor you talked to, or what you told them (did you mention something about clauses or did you give them the sentence verbatim?), or if you're even telling the truth about asking them. I get the sense from this topic you are ESL and if the professor was ESL I could see how they might make a mistake, especially since you keep trying to contextualize this with rules from other languages.

Meatball sub.

I'd rather not get it from subway, but they're the only place in Canada to get a good meatball (hyperbole)
---

LinkPizza posted...

That no one needed to point out because it's pointless...

And why do you need him to admit he's wrong? Nobody ever wants to do that. He most likely won't.

Hm.

Yeah, you're right. All right, I'm out.

Nam quos praescivit,

If I referenced that in another clause I would need "cui." That is the mindset I had, however, "that" functions as "cui" and not standing in as a relative indirect object.
---

It's not "pointless". You'll generally come off better and have more opportunities in life with good grammar. That being said, there are plenty of obscure rules that I don't really follow, especially with colloquial acceptance of the wrong way, but "whom like Subway" is going to stick out to most people, so I think it's good to learn not to say stuff like that.

SteamedHams posted...

It's not "pointless". You'll generally come off better and have more opportunities in life with good grammar. That being said, there are plenty of obscure rules that I don't really follow, especially with colloquial acceptance of the wrong way, but "whom like Subway" is going to stick out to most people, so I think it's good to learn not to say stuff like that.

That's if he even says stuff like that in the real world. I know a good number of people who definitely don't sound the same when talking to the in person or typing. He probably would ask a general question like this to people. And he'd probably ask who he was with what they get at Subway. And again, most people on message boards don't care about proper grammar. Lots of people don't even use periods or use uppercase letters at the beginning of sentences.
---

LinkPizza posted...

And again, most people on message boards don't care about proper grammar. Lots of people don't even use periods or use uppercase letters at the beginning of sentences.

But those kind of things are more of a stylistic choice. This guy is using a word incorrectly, and is adamant about it being correct, even though like six different people in this topic have said it's wrong

SteamedHams posted...

LinkPizza posted...

And again, most people on message boards don't care about proper grammar. Lots of people don't even use periods or use uppercase letters at the beginning of sentences.

But those kind of things are more of a stylistic choice. This guy is using a word incorrectly, and is adamant about it being correct, even though like six different people in this topic have said it's wrong

Sure. But I think it still technically falls under wrong grammar or something. And are you sure he thinks he's right? Wouldn't be the first time someone has trolled someone on this site. Or this exact message board...
---

Footlong Honey Oat
Tuna salad
Shredded cheese
toasted
Spinach
Tomato
Cucumber
Black Olives
Pickles
Green peppers

All the above except replacing the tuna salad and shredded cheese w/ chicken breast, provolone, and sweet onion sauce is also good. Also steak w/ chipotle sauce. But tuna is my favorite to get.

LinkPizza posted...

Ah, but he's also not the one who started the grammar arguement. If nobody had said anything, the topic would most likely be about Subs.

Eh, whom knows. More likely, the topic would've been long buried and forgotten by now XD
---

Zangulus posted...

I used to get Italian herb and cheese bread, but If they overcook it or its been out awhile, the cheese can get hard and crusty. So I gave up on it.

I always wonder why 'muricans rag on fast food places, then I things like this remind me that 'murica has no food standards so of course everything's garbage.
---

Zangulus posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Zangulus posted...

I used to get Italian herb and cheese bread, but If they overcook it or its been out awhile, the cheese can get hard and crusty. So I gave up on it.

I always wonder why 'muricans rag on fast food places, then I things like this remind me that 'murica has no food standards so of course everything's garbage.

Wut? How in any insane way did you extrapolate a single issue with everything being garbage?

Hating on America is the only way Kyuubi can get hard.
---

Footlong herb-cheese chicken fajita, toasted with normal cheese.
Lettuce, tomato, red onion, pickles, jalapeno.
Chipotle southwest (ask for extra 50% of the time), oregano and pepper.
To go with nothing else.
---

Whatever I want. I don't have the same thing every time.
---