• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Very quick english lesson for the Americans.

StageLeft

StageLeft

No Lifer
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Americans are getting this wrong more than Canuckistanis, though that may not be the case, since an English DJ I listen to on the radio does the same thing (presumably Canucks are somewhere in between Yanks and Brits for English accuracy):

He's the person that <- wrong
He's the person who <- right

If it's a person, it's who. If it's an animal/object, it's "that". Thanks ever so much for listening. I'm just trying to help people out, one person at a time. Cheers!
 
Originally posted by: axelfox
Shouldn't it be:

A very quick english lesson for the Americans.
Click to expand...

🙂
Click to expand...

A very quick English lesson for the Americans.

Though, being an American, I can choose to be offended by that if my American balls were as small as the rest of the world's. But, since they are not, I will just point out that your title would have been more appropriate and technically concise if you would have just stated, "A very quick English lesson"



 
However, if you objectify a person (as I do for both Kelly O'Dell and Morgan Webb) then "that" becomes acceptable again.

Similarly, if you consider someone to be no better than an animal, "that" is entirely appropriate.
 
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Americans are getting this wrong more than Canuckistanis, though that may not be the case, since an English DJ I listen to on the radio does the same thing (presumably Canucks are somewhere in between Yanks and Brits for English accuracy):

He's the person that <- wrong
He's the person who <- right

If it's a person, it's who. If it's an animal/object, it's "that". Thanks ever so much for listening. I'm just trying to help people out, one person at a time. Cheers!
Click to expand...
I think it's supposed to be 'whom'...

😕
 
my pet peeve is people that use 'good' when they should use 'well'

i cannot think of any specific examples right now.

and plus i remember your thread or post about the 'couldnt care less vs could care less' rant. ive been a stickler on that with my friends since then. youre right, it should be 'couldnt care less'

although my friend said that 'dear abbey' said both are accepted. but what does abbey know.

 
Originally posted by: Heisenberg
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Americans are getting this wrong more than Canuckistanis, though that may not be the case, since an English DJ I listen to on the radio does the same thing (presumably Canucks are somewhere in between Yanks and Brits for English accuracy):

He's the person that <- wrong
He's the person who <- right

If it's a person, it's who. If it's an animal/object, it's "that". Thanks ever so much for listening. I'm just trying to help people out, one person at a time. Cheers!
Click to expand...
I think it's supposed to be 'whom'...

😕
Click to expand...

My dear Heisenberg, the suggestion is of course... most interesting.
 
Skoorb, I just read your (I do not even care if that is right) web page. I find it funny how you think knowing grammer rules is any indication of education or quality of thought.

I find that it is the people who feel the most insecure about their own intelligence, who find the need to draw assumptions on others.
 
Originally posted by: Heisenberg
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Americans are getting this wrong more than Canuckistanis, though that may not be the case, since an English DJ I listen to on the radio does the same thing (presumably Canucks are somewhere in between Yanks and Brits for English accuracy):

He's the person that <- wrong
He's the person who <- right

If it's a person, it's who. If it's an animal/object, it's "that". Thanks ever so much for listening. I'm just trying to help people out, one person at a time. Cheers!
Click to expand...
I think it's supposed to be 'whom'...

😕
Click to expand...
That depends upon the remainder of the sentence. "Whom" is used when the person to whom the word "whom" refers is the direct object of the sentence (e.g. "He is the person with whom I am going to the theatre."). "Who" is used when the person to whom the word "who" refers is the subject of the sentence (e.g. "He is the person who is going to the theatre.").

ZV

EDIT: Grammar. Strangely appropriate, I know.
 
Originally posted by: PolarNorth
Skoorb, I just read your (I do not even care if that is right) web page. I find it funny how you think knowing grammer rules is any indication of education or quality of thought.

I find that it is the people who feel the most insecure about their own intelligence, who find the need to draw assumptions on others.
Click to expand...

GRAMMAR not grammEr. ugh.
 
Originally posted by: Heisenberg
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Americans are getting this wrong more than Canuckistanis, though that may not be the case, since an English DJ I listen to on the radio does the same thing (presumably Canucks are somewhere in between Yanks and Brits for English accuracy):

He's the person that <- wrong
He's the person who <- right

If it's a person, it's who. If it's an animal/object, it's "that". Thanks ever so much for listening. I'm just trying to help people out, one person at a time. Cheers!
Click to expand...
I think it's supposed to be 'whom'...

😕
Click to expand...

That depends on how the sentence ends.

He's the person who kicked the ball.
He's the person whom I gave a present.

EDIT: nm, ZV beat me to it.
 
Originally posted by: simms
Originally posted by: PolarNorth
Skoorb, I just read your (I do not even care if that is right) web page. I find it funny how you think knowing grammer rules is any indication of education or quality of thought.

I find that it is the people who feel the most insecure about their own intelligence, who find the need to draw assumptions on others.
Click to expand...

GRAMMAR not grammEr. ugh.
Click to expand...

By the way, there is a spot on your car, go wash it. I am glad you are going the spend the rest of your life worrying about stupid sh!t like that. I will not miss you, little man worrying about little things.
 
Originally posted by: PolarNorth
Originally posted by: simms
Originally posted by: PolarNorth
Skoorb, I just read your (I do not even care if that is right) web page. I find it funny how you think knowing grammer rules is any indication of education or quality of thought.

I find that it is the people who feel the most insecure about their own intelligence, who find the need to draw assumptions on others.
Click to expand...
GRAMMAR not grammEr. ugh.
Click to expand...
By the way, there is a spot on your car, go wash it. I am glad you are going the spend the rest of your life worrying about stupid sh!t like that. I will not miss you, little man worrying about little things.
Click to expand...
And yet you are worried about his remark enough to get annoyed over it as well.

Physician, heal thyself. 😛

ZV
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top