Grammatically speaking, which would you consider more correct?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eclair_de_XII
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the correct use of relative pronouns "that," "who," and "whom" in the context of modifying the noun "person." The phrase "you nominated" serves as a modifier for "person," leading to a debate over whether to use "that" or "who." "That" is typically associated with non-sapient objects, making its use questionable when referring to a human. "Who" is preferred for sapient subjects, aligning with the nature of "person." The use of "whom" is acknowledged as the most grammatically correct choice for objects that are sapient, though it is often misused in casual speech. Omitting the relative pronoun is also acceptable. A common guideline for choosing between "who" and "whom" is to substitute "he/she" for "who" and "him/her" for "whom," with the latter providing a clearer context for its use.

Which sentence is less likely to offend a grammarian?

  • The person that you nominated is outstanding.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The person who you nominated is outstanding.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
Eclair_de_XII
Messages
1,082
Reaction score
91
Forgive me for not using the word "correct" as an absolute adjective. Anyway, consider the following sentence.

The person you nominated is outstanding.

The adjective phrase "you nominated" modifies the noun "person". Optionally, the noun "person" can be followed by a relative pronoun.

Which is pronoun is "more correct"?

The person that you nominated is outstanding.
The person who you nominated is outstanding.

On one hand, you have "that", which is typically used in conjunction with an object, which is acted upon by some verb. In this case, "person" is the object acted upon by the verb "nominated", which is acted by "you". However, it is commonly understood that "that", when used as a relative pronoun, is generally reserved for non-sapient objects. Hence, the use of "that" would be incorrect in this sense.

On the other hand, you have "who", which is used for sapient subjects. As previously discussed, "person" is the object, rather than the subject in this noun phrase. However, "person" is in reference to a human, which is sapient.

I am well-aware that using "whom" in this context is "most correct", as it is for objects that/who happen to be sapient. But I am also ridiculously terrible at using this word consistently. I am well aware of what it is for, but I am rarely ever able to identify when it is most appropriate to use it in normal speech and correspondences.

Alternatively, omitting the relative pronoun, as I have done initially, is also acceptable. But suppose that you had to choose between one of the two more common relative pronouns. Which would be more correct?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The who/whom controversy is a common issue among novice writers. We look to the internet for the answer:

https://www.touro.edu/departments/w...nly repeated advice for,end with the letter m.

When you can sub in he or she then use who.

When you can sub him or her then use whom.

For whom, the bell tolls. It tolls for thee.
Trying he/she: For he the bell tolls. // For shee the bell tolls. --> nope

Trying him/her: For him, the bell tolls. // For her, the bell tolls. --> sounds better
Hence --> For whom the bell tolls.
 
We've just had an interesting thread about generation ships, but I don't think that that is the most reasonable way to colonize another planet. Fatal problems: - Crew may become chaotic and self destructive. - Crew may become so adapted to space as to be unwilling to return to a planet. - Making the planet habitable may take longer then the trip, so the ship needs to last far longer than just the journey. - Mid-flight malfunction may render the ship unable to decelerate at the destination...
I know this topic is extremely contraversial and debated, but I'm writing a book where an AI attempts to become as human as possible. Would it, eventually, especially in the far future, be possible for an AI to gain a conscious? To be clear, my definition of a consciousness being the ability to possess self-created morals, thoughts, and views, AKA a whole personality. And if this is possible (and let's just say it is for this question), about how long may it take for something to happen...
This is a question for people who know about astrophysics. It's been said that the habitable zones around red dwarf stars are so close to those stars that any planets in the zones would be tidally locked to the stars in question. With one side roasting and another side freezing almost forever, those planets wouldn't be hospitable to life. a) Could there be forms of life--whole ecologies--that first evolve in the planet's twilight zone and then extend their habitat by burrowing...
Back
Top