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

(+) Yeah! (+)

What do you normally get at Subway?
---

Nothing.

But I like subway anyway because the are a light in the darkness and some day, I will be hungry, and they will be there.
---

Foot long Italian herb and cheese bread.

Spicy Italian, double meat, add double bacon, four slices of all the cheese, plus all shredded cheeses, as well.

Toasted.

No veggies, but add salt & pepper, oregano, Parmesan cheese, and oil. You can also add those before toasted, too. Either way is fine.

That's what I have to get because my favorite sandwich isn't really a sandwich. I use to make it when I worked there...
---

I call subway meatball sandwiches chef boyardee sandwiches cause their meatballs taste like the ones in spaghetti and meatballs cans lol.

That is not a good thing.
---

Usually a foot-long Chicken Teriyaki or Black Forest Ham on wheat with pepper-jack cheese, toasted.

Always get pickles, onions, olives, and banana peppers. Sometimes get spinach or tomatoes if the spinach doesn't look wilted or the tomatoes don't look pale or soggy.

Always get sweet-onion sauce, whether it's the Chicken Teriyaki or not.

Sometimes get a couple macadamia cookies if I'm feeling extravagant.
---

the cheese bread

double ham

pepperjack cheese

pickles, lettuce, tomatoe

chipotle sauce

toasted

i'm a simple man, i love me a ham n cheese
---

Also, the topic title is a misuse of "whom".
---

Footlong turkey breast on Italian herb and cheese.
No cheese
Spinach
Cucumbers
Green Peppers
Onions
Sweet Onion sauce
Salt & Pepper
---

Metalsonic66 posted...

Also, the topic title is a misuse of "whom".

Are you sure? I thought it was functioning as a relative pronoun for an indirect object?

E.g it would function similarly to "cui" in Latin in that context.
---

Metalsonic66 posted...

Also, the topic title is a misuse of "whom".

This is like when people use "___ and I" as an object, trying to sound smart but end up just making a fool of themselves. I say if you can't figure it out, just use me/who always, since it's better to misuse those than to misuse I/whom, IMO

SteamedHams posted...

Metalsonic66 posted...

Also, the topic title is a misuse of "whom".

This is like when people use "___ and I" as an object, trying to sound smart but end up just making a fool of themselves. I say if you can't figure it out, just use me/who always, since it's better to misuse those than to misuse I/whom, IMO

I think it is "whom" though in the topic title as a relative pronoun.

This chart is where I learned relative pronouns (in a different language) but concept of relative dative case is the same:


---

SteamedHams posted...

Metalsonic66 posted...

Also, the topic title is a misuse of "whom".

This is like when people use "___ and I" as an object, trying to sound smart but end up just making a fool of themselves. I say if you can't figure it out, just use me/who always, since it's better to misuse those than to misuse I/whom, IMO

I thought for "me" and "I", you just take out the other person and see if it still makes sense or something like that...

Example: "Jim and I went to the store" because you can say "I went to the store".

Or "Bob tried to kill me and Tim", because you can also say, "Bob tried to kill me".
---

BigOlePappy posted...

Are you sure? I thought it was functioning as a relative pronoun for an indirect object?

Hmm. Maybe I'm wrong. I've always been told it should be used when saying "to whom", "by whom", "for whom", etc. But technically your title says "For those of you whom..."

English was my best subject in high school, but that was more than ten years ago now.
---

From Purdue OWL:

---

No, you're wrong. "Who" is a subject, "whom" is an object. This is equivalent to saying "Him likes Subway" instead of "He likes Subway."

Metalsonic66 posted...

BigOlePappy posted...

Are you sure? I thought it was functioning as a relative pronoun for an indirect object?

Hmm. Maybe I'm wrong. I've always been told it should be used when saying "to whom", "by whom", "for whom", etc. But technically your title says "For those of you whom..."

English was my best subject in high school, but that was more than ten years ago now.

I could be wrong, too. The way I understood its syntax was "whom" is referencing "those" as a relative pronoun. "Those" is an indirect object (For those) and, thus, would take "whom" if "those" was referenced again.
---

Whom is a made up word to trick students
---

SteamedHams posted...

No, you're wrong. "Who" is a subject, "whom" is an object. This is equivalent to saying "Him likes Subway" instead of "He likes Subway."

No. It is the equivalent to saying "I gave the gift card to him whom likes Subway." Whom is functioning as a relative pronoun in the dative case.
The pronoun is syntactically referencing the object in the previous clauseit is acting as a relative pronoun.
---

no one cares about the correct usage if whom, this is stupid you are all nerds
---

I've never heard (or at least don't recall hearing) the term "relative pronoun" but that doesn't mean anything, because I looked it up and "who" is a relative pronoun as well.

Chicken bacon ranch on herb and cheese with onion, tomato, and spinach. Generally do not like subway since like 80% of the time the bread is stale as hell.
---

helIy posted...

no one cares about the correct usage if whom, this is stupid you are all nerds

It's exactly because we're nerds that this thread is no longer about sandwiches!
---

SteamedHams posted...

I've never heard (or at least don't recall hearing) the term "relative pronoun" but that doesn't mean anything, because I looked it up and "who" is a relative pronoun as well.

Who is a relative pronoun for referencing the subject of a sentence.

"Which/That" are the most common English relative pronouns.

Relative Pronouns Examples
The following sentences contain examples of relative pronouns. The relative pronoun in each example is italicized.

The cyclist who won the race trained hard.
The pants that I bought yesterday are already stained.
The four team leaders, whomever the committee selects, will be at tomorrows meeting.
Spaghetti, which we eat at least twice a week, is one of my familys favorite meals.
Where did you buy the dress what you wore last week?
The book, when it was finally returned, was torn and stained.
---

Technically, though, (this is being very pedantic) one cannot truly parse the topic title because it isn't a complete sentence. There is no subject and it functions as a "lead in" to the poll.
---

BigOlePappy posted...

Who is a relative pronoun for referencing the subject of a sentence.

Yes, exactly... like I said, the word you are looking for is a subject, not an object, therefore "who" and not "whom"....

Metalsonic66 posted...

helIy posted...

no one cares about the correct usage if whom, this is stupid you are all nerds

It's exactly because we're nerds that this thread is no longer about sandwiches!

Some people are still talking about their sandwiches...
---

I hate to make the topic all about grammar arguments but it's very frustrating when the TC won't admit his mistake and keeps trying to make an argument that amounts to "the word whom exists so it must be right"

SteamedHams posted...

I hate to make the topic all about grammar arguments but it's very frustrating when the TC won't admit his mistake and keeps trying to make an argument that amounts to "the word whom exists so it must be right"

I am fairly certain I am correct.

Whom is referencing "those" as a relative pronoun." "Those" is an indirect object (indirect objects take whom in English, and cui in Latin). "Who" (which references only subjects) would be incorrect for referencing an indirect object.
---

SteamedHams posted...

I hate to make the topic all about grammar arguments but it's very frustrating when the TC won't admit his mistake and keeps trying to make an argument that amounts to "the word whom exists so it must be right"

Yikes, you have fundamentally misinterpreted what I posted intentionally or unintentionally.
---

SteamedHams posted...

BigOlePappy posted...

Who is a relative pronoun for referencing the subject of a sentence.

Yes, exactly... like I said, the word you are looking for is a subject, not an object, therefore "who" and not "whom"....

"For those of you whom like Subway" has no subject.

Whom like Subway is subordinate to the prepositional clause of "For those of you."
---

Sure, "who" is not a subject in the complete sentence sense, in this case, but I think you know what I meant. I'm just trying to convey that it's not used in a situation to describe an object, with an object being the proper use for "whom". There are valid sentences where it could be a subject, i.e. "Who likes Subway?".

I did oversimplify or "misinterpret" your argument, but that's because I don't understand it at all because it makes no sense.

Have you ever heard the expression "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach"? Notice how it's the word "who", not "whom"

Footlong pastrami on wheat with lettuce, pickles, onions, olives, banana peppers, tomatoes, mustard, salt, pepper, and vinegar.
---

9 grain bread
Italian bmt
Pepper Jack

Lettuce
Onion
Green pepper
Cucumber
Olives
Little bit of mayo. Then they make like 3 lines of mayo. That's why I always say just one line. They usually forget though. That I fault them but I think they're usually on a "autopilot"
---

SteamedHams posted...

Have you ever heard the expression "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach"? Notice how it's the word "who", not "whom"

That isn't the same syntactically because they aren't indirect objects (indirect objects inflect to "whom.")

"Those" in the title is the indirect object and its objects and relative pronouns/clauses could not reference it as a subject or a nominative.

E.g. "For whom can teach" (also not a complete sentence)
---

jeez
---

wolfy42 posted...

Nothing.

But I like subway anyway because the are a light in the darkness and some day, I will be hungry, and they will be there.

... shut the fuck up
---

Usually just the six-inch rotisserie chicken in wheat, with a little mayo and mustard, lettuce, tomatoes, spinach, olives, and pepper jack cheese.

Just because it has the word "for" doesn't mean you use whom. "For whom are you looking?" would be an example of correct usage, but in that case "You" is the subject, "looking" is the verb, and "whom" is the object. In your clause, "like" is the verb and "Subway" is the object, so the subject is... that's right, "who."

Are you even a native English speaker? You keep trying to bring up grammar rules for other languages, as if that proves anything

SteamedHams posted...

Just because it has the word "for" doesn't mean you use whom. "For whom are you looking?" would be an example of correct usage, but in that case "You" is the subject, "looking" is the verb, and "whom" is the object. In your clause, "like" is the verb and "Subway" is the object, so the subject is... that's right, "who."

Not correct, there is no subject. There is an indirect object clause and a referential relative clause (referring the indirect object clause.)
---

Who likes Subway?

Steak and Cheese, footlong, toasted whole wheat bun, lettuce and tomato, American cheese, mayonnaise, with pickles on the side.
---

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

6 inch Spicy Italian on 9-Grain Honey Oat
Pepper Jack Cheese
Toasted
All vegetables except Tomatoes and Bell Peppers
Sweet Onion Sauce and Chipotle Southwest Sauce
---

I'm not familiar with those terms, but looking them up doesn't do anything to prove your point. If anything, it only just gives further examples to why you are wrong. Don't just throw out niche terms if you don't have anything to back them up. Show me one credible example that indicates you're using this correctly. You can't, because you're fucking wrong, period.

SteamedHams posted...

I'm not familiar with those terms, but looking them up doesn't do anything to prove your point. If anything, it only just gives further examples to why you are wrong. Don't just throw out niche terms if you don't have anything to back them up. Show me one credible example that indicates you're using this correctly. You can't, because you're fucking wrong, period.

They aren't niche terms, they are fundamental to linguistics (i.e. clauses, pronouns, inflection.)

You can't, because you're fucking wrong, period.

Wow, you really got me in the checkmate with that one.
---

And I'll reiterate that just because it's not a complete sentence, it doesn't mean the rules of subject-verb-object agreement don't apply. "Although I don't like Subway" is not a complete sentence, but it has a subject, verb and object. They are used the same way as if I made a complete sentence: "I like Subway."

BigOlePappy posted...

They aren't niche terms, they are fundamental to linguistics (i.e. clauses, pronouns, inflection.)

Okay? You just gave examples of general terms. "Referential relative clause" and "indirect object clause" are not common grammar terms you hear all the time. If I ever did hear them, it was probably once or twice in English class and never again.

SteamedHams posted...

And I'll reiterate that just because it's not a complete sentence, it doesn't mean the rules of subject-verb-object agreement don't apply. "Although I don't like Subway" is not a complete sentence, but it has a subject, verb and object. They are used the same way as if I made a complete sentence: "I like Subway."

Not all incomplete sentences are the same. The example you showed is different than the title, which has an indirect object clause and then a clause relative to it.
---