Re: time off
- From: "Stanley Moore" <smoore20@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:04:12 -0500
"Nancy2" <nancy-dooley@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:6db283f9-5d49-4d17-85ee-471a514ee5ef@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jul 17, 8:55 am, "sue kelso" <sueke...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
for those of you not on FB (just a few by now), I'm heading out for my
annual sojourn to Lake Okoboji. I don't do a lot of reading up there, it's
much too social, but I am bringing the newest books by Ms. Slaughter, Ms
Haddam and Ms Zoe Sharp.
have a good week all and happy birthday to whoever (whomever?) has
one...Is
it whoever since I may be talking about more than one person? I never get
this.
sue k
--
I don't recall that the who/whom rule depends on quantity, but rather
if it is an object of a preposition or not.
N.
*****************************
In my old fashioned grammar lessons of olden times, "who" is nominative case
and "whom" is objective or accusative case. What it amounts to is WHO is use
as a subject of a sentence and WHOM is used as the object. It also means
that prepositions that take an object like "to", "for", "with" "in", "into"
etc. require the WHOM form.
"To whom it may concern", the free ticket is for whomever answers the
question correctly. etc. Take care
--
Stanley L. Moore
"The belief in a supernatural
source of evil is not necessary;
men alone are quite capable
of every wickedness."
Joseph Conrad
.
- References:
- time off
- From: sue kelso
- Re: time off
- From: Nancy2
- time off
- Prev by Date: Re: Kindle book deletion
- Next by Date: Re: An editor offers deep insight into my failures as a writer
- Previous by thread: Re: time off
- Next by thread: Re: time off
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
