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

(+) Yeah! (+)

It's not an object of any sort

SteamedHams posted...

It's not an object of any sort

Those is an in director objective because it is receiving "for" ("for" implying the topic question.)
---

You're looking at this too broad. The "for those" part doesn't have anything to do with "who like Subway" in terms of the grammar rules of each. You can maybe say "those of you who like Subway" is an object, as a complete phrase but it's broken down into sub-parts that have different structures. The "who like Subway" part of phrase should use "who" because for that part of the clause, you're expecting a subject-verb-object construction. "Whom" never makes sense as a subject.

I switch it up between chicken bacon ranch, steak & cheese, chicken terriyaki, spicy italian or cold cut combo.

My favorite was the buffalo chicken sub, but they stopped doing that.
---

people who regularly eat at subway (more than once every 5 years) shouldnt be allowed to vote
---

"Whom like Subway" is a clause. A dependent clause, but still a clause, so it still follows the standard subject and object rules. Subway is the object. Whom is the subject, so it should be who.

Really though, just use who when you aren't sure which is right. Hardly anyone cares if you misuse who, but if you misuse whom... well, you just saw what happened XD
---

SteamedHams posted...

"Whom" never makes sense as a subject.

I agree, that's why it is used as a relative pronoun for an indirect object.

For example: "For those of you that like Subway"
"That" references the previous clause, connects them, but could not be called a subject for the clause "That like subway."
---

Golden Road posted...

"Whom like Subway" is a clause. A dependent clause, but still a clause, so it still follows the standard subject and object rules. Subway is the object. Whom is the subject, so it should be who.

Really though, just use who when you aren't sure which is right. Hardly anyone cares if you misuse who, but if you misuse whom... well, you just saw what happened XD

Whom is not the subject "whom like Subway." If you used, "that", for example, it would be "For those of you that like Subway." Of course, "that" wouldn't be the subject but a connector to the first clause; in the same way, "whom" is functioning the same way as a relative pronoun.
---

Me and my besty love hot gamer studs with good grammer!!!!
---

I give up, holy fuck. If you're just going to keep dropping obscure grammar terms you don't fully understand and not bother to post any actual examples to prove your point, there's no point in continuing to argue over it.

DirtBasedSoap posted...

people who regularly eat at subway (more than once every 5 years) shouldnt be allowed to vote

That makes even less sense than the other half of this topic...
---

Italian bread
Tuna
Provolone
Toasted
A little lettuce (for the crunch)
Spinach
Tomatoes
Onions
Black olives

I used to add mayo but realized that's redundant because of the tuna mix. Not too bad of a sandwich health wise and it tastes amazing.

Is arguing about grammar really that important? Instead of doing that, you should be discussing delicious sandwich combinations with one another.
---

AbsoluteDenial posted...

Is arguing about grammar really that important? Instead of doing that, you should be discussing delicious sandwich combinations with one another.

It's less about the grammar and more about somebody's unwavering insistence that their mistake is correct, even after multiple people pointed out that they're wrong. That kind of thing just aggravates me. It could be any subject, not just grammar.

btw tc is 100% wrong in his usage of the word whom

but you are all fucking nerds for arguing about it
---

Also, I wouldn't use the word "delicious" to describe anything relating to Subway sandwiches

SteamedHams posted...

Also, I wouldn't use the word "delicious" to describe anything relating to Subway sandwiches

And others would because different taste and all...
---

Just a spicy italian on flat bread

Everything else is pretty bad, any deli grocery store subs are better (not pre made ones)

SteamedHams posted...

I give up, holy fuck. If you're just going to keep dropping obscure grammar terms you don't fully understand and not bother to post any actual examples to prove your point, there's no point in continuing to argue over it.

I posted a lot of examples on page 2-3.

I think I am actually wrong, though. Not in the idea of the structure (what people think I am making up) but it should be "that" instead of "whom" make it a correct relative clause. Also, because an English professor just told the previous.
---

BigOlePappy posted...

SteamedHams posted...

I give up, holy fuck. If you're just going to keep dropping obscure grammar terms you don't fully understand and not bother to post any actual examples to prove your point, there's no point in continuing to argue over it.

I posted a lot of examples on page 2-3.

I think I am actually wrong, though. Not in the idea of the structure (what people think I am making up) but it should be "that" instead of "whom" make it a correct relative clause. Also, because an English professor just told the previous.

Lmao at you asking your English teacher.

When I was a teenager, I'd get a sandwich that wasn't on the menu.

American
Cheddar
Bacon
Pepperoni
Turkey
Ham
Beef
No veggies



It ended up being close to $20 every time.
---

The one I make it super expensive. But it's pretty good, so...

And I don't get it that much, anyway...
---

Spicy Italian, footlong on Italian herbs & cheese bread untoasted, regular white cheese, onions, lettuce, tomatoes, black olives, salt & pepper, house sandwich sauce...
---

I stopped going to Subway for 2 reasons.

They ended the $5 Foot long deal.

I was tired of always fighting with the employees over adding more vegetables into my sandwich.

When I did go I got the Oven Roasted Chicken or the Tuna.
---

Oven Roasted Chicken with wheat bread. I'm also rather fond of their flatizzas, and the Meatball Marinara.
---

JazzMasterZero posted...

BigOlePappy posted...

SteamedHams posted...

I give up, holy fuck. If you're just going to keep dropping obscure grammar terms you don't fully understand and not bother to post any actual examples to prove your point, there's no point in continuing to argue over it.

I posted a lot of examples on page 2-3.

I think I am actually wrong, though. Not in the idea of the structure (what people think I am making up) but it should be "that" instead of "whom" make it a correct relative clause. Also, because an English professor just told the previous.

Lmao at you asking your English teacher.

I asked someone in another department. I use this relative structure a lot in English and Latin so I needed to know. The structure was right, though (it's a relative clause.)
---

Whenever I go to Subway I usually just get the Italian BMT.
---

The person you asked needs to get fired if they have anything to do with teaching English

The topic title is wrong. It should be who, not whom. I am 100% certain of this.

Whom is an object. It cannot be used in the nominative case because that makes no sense to do with an object. People who misuse whom just to try to sound fancy just end up looking dumb. If you don't know how to use it, just don't bother. Most people use who as an object now because they clearly don't know the difference. Apparently our topic creator doesn't know the difference, either.

Good rule to follow: try replacing it with he and him. If he works in the sentence, use who. If him works, use whom. In this case, "he likes Subway" works for that clause. "Him likes subway" is just stupid.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/video/who-vs-whom

Here, this should help.

seafood salad with mayo and everything but hot peppers. soooo good.
---

it's a secret
---

Chicken bacon ranch deluxe on Italian bread (though I sometimes go with Italian herbs and cheese every once in a while).

Toasted
Provolone cheese
Oregano
---

SushiSquid posted...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/video/who-vs-whom

Here, this should help.

I was using it as a relative clause.

In Latin the relative pronoun would be Cui for dative case.
---

We're not speaking Latin

for the who/whom thing, *like* is the verb, and the thing that is doing the liking is the "whom", which means whom is the subject, which means it's who.

if you wanted to use whom, you'd have to say "for those of you whom Subway likes...". then Subway is the subject doing the liking, and whom is the object.
---

I like how he finally admitted to being wrong by accusing chewy of also being wrong lol

"I may be wrong but so are you! My teacher said so!"

Also for my German courses the syntax I use has a lot of separate relative clauses:

The function of relative pronouns in English is usually served by that, who or which. In German the main ones are fully declined, and the relative clause is usually set off with commas: Das Auto, das ich sah, war blau. Der Mann, der fuhr, hatte einen Hut auf.

It is different in English where pronouns do not fully decline (because our system doesn't inflect nearly as often.)

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.
---

OhhhJa posted...

"I may be wrong but so are you! My teacher said so!"

Why are you saying that? What would your teacher say? I'm confused.
---

SteamedHams posted...

The person you asked needs to get fired if they have anything to do with teaching English

Post your relevant credentials and I'll post hers.

@SteamedHams
I'll even let you count shift manager at Dominos (you would need English).
---

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

Not really a Subway fan (pricing + inferior to other major chains which, unfortunately, haven't been as successful), but they have a few sandwiches I kinda like. Totally blanking on my favorite atm, but it was some chicken sandwich with some exotic seasoning or something. Otherwise I liked the Spicy Italian (with green peppers + lettuce), Meatball Wedge (no cheese), and... a few others but not as much.

In general, I prefer Blimpy's (which, again, is pricey for what you get) first and then Quiznos second, but don't really have either near me these days so, if I want a sub place, I kinda have to go with Subway.

Metalsonic66 posted...

I apologize for opening this can of worms. I was just trying to be a smarty pants...

Chewy just likes to fight, tbh.
---

SteamedHams posted...

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

---

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.

Correct:
"for those of you who like Subway..."
"for those of you whom Subway likes..."
"for those of you that like Subway..."
"for those of you that Subway likes..."

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

like only Tarzan would say that
---

BigOlePappy posted...

I was using it as a relative clause.

No shit? And what was the subject of that clause? Your topic title is wrong. Just deal with it and learn going forward that whom cannot be used in the nominative case.

@SushiSquid

The main thing I was wanting to clarify to you is the syntax. The structure you referenced would not apply to a relative clause.

Clause ----> relative clause.
The second clause needs a pronoun in place of what it is referencing in the first clause.
For Latin, (I assume you understand cases because you referenced nominatives) nominative relative pronouns in the relative clause would be something like qui/quae/quod (depending on gender of the original noun.) This goes on all the way down the cases to even include things like dative case (for indirect objects) and you would use a relative pronoun for an indirect object (e.g. For whom etc.) What I was told, though, is that for this case the relative pronoun has to be "that" for what I am communicating and it can still remain a relative clause. She did confirm (the professor) that "who" in the second clause would function as a nominative (like I think you were saying) but "that" would not, which still would keep it a relative clause. Why some languages are better than English, in these aspects, is that you have to inflect very specifically.
---

SushiSquid posted...

BigOlePappy posted...

I was using it as a relative clause.

No shit? And what was the subject of that clause? Your topic title is wrong. Just deal with it and learn going forward that whom cannot be used in the nominative case.

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

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

OhhhJa posted...

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

I said I was wrong (about the pronoun.)
That is what I don't understand?

The part I am trying to still clarify is the relative pronoun structure. I used various inflected sources as examples, too.
---