Academic-Plastic-468 t1_j3q14rt wrote
R.I.P. to whomever has to code the Bluetooth portion of that chip. Lol
twigboy t1_j3q9lta wrote
Tim Apple: Only apple products, nothing else.
Dev: but sir, the standar-
Tim Apple: Nothing. Else.
smokeNtoke1 t1_j3s1of8 wrote
RIP Steve Apple
nicuramar t1_j3t50n5 wrote
How does that make sense?
twigboy t1_j3uyokd wrote
Autocorrect changed dev to Dec đ
DurgaThangai69 t1_j3r8bnt wrote
Why tho!
these_three_things t1_j3rbsnm wrote
*whoever
But I am very curious as to why the Bluetooth portion would be harder than the others?
hms11 t1_j3rfqnl wrote
I've always heard that the Bluetooth stack is annoying period. Add in whatever bullshittery Apple decides to bring the the game and here you are.
9nein t1_j3vkfgm wrote
Bullshittery is right⌠đ
TheFoodChamp t1_j3rkmlo wrote
Itâs âwhomsâtâ
st-shenanigans t1_j3sc3bw wrote
Whoms't've
AkirIkasu t1_j3sa9lm wrote
While both bluetooth and Wifi are technically standards the truth of the matter is that each generation is made up of innovations coming from across the industry, things aren't really well documented at all, and there's nothing approaching a standard reference design that companies can use to base their products on.
kentuckycc t1_j3ril5e wrote
I think it is actually whomever in this case. âWhomâ is the objective case and in this sentence it serves as the object of the preposition âto.â
these_three_things t1_j3rrl9l wrote
I understand why it would seem that way, but in this case you are incorrect. In this sentence, the entire phrase serves as the object of the preposition.
"Whoever" is actually the subject of the verb "has to code," so the sentence would actually read like this:
> R.I.P. to [whoever has to code the Bluetooth portion of that chip].
Using the substitution method, you can confirm this. Instead of trying to substitute a he/him pronoun for the "to," try substituting pronouns for the "has to code" phrase. It must take a subjective case because that entire phrase requires a subject. And that entire phrase, lengthy though it may be, serves as the object of the initial preposition.
Source: I know grammar good.
1minatur t1_j3rute4 wrote
This is the way I'd understand it as well, and you explained it very clearly imo.
kentuckycc t1_j3ruil4 wrote
I still donât agree. In the sentence we are referencing, âto codeâ is not the verb. âto restâ is the verb.
Itâs like the sentence âGive the recipe to whomever has to cook the meal.â In this sentence âto giveâ is the verb and âto whomever has to cook the mealâ is the prepositional phrase, not the subject. So you would not use the subjective case.
these_three_things t1_j3s01jb wrote
"Rest in peace" does not function as a verb in this sentence. It's simply a sentiment, like "hello" or "my thanks." Regardless, that does not affect the state of the object phrase.
You are correct that the example sentence is a clear parallel for the one we are discussing, but you are still making the same mistake in it. That sentence would read as follows:
> Give the recipe to [whoever has to cook the meal].
If you look at the bracketed phrase, it is clear that the subject of the phrase must be in the subjective case. You can't say "him has to cook the meal." If you put the pronoun in the objective case to satisfy the preposition, you are robbing the following phrase of its subject. If you give the "has to cook" phrase its subject, then the entire phrase works, and in its whole functions as the object.
The reason that looks strange is because in this construction, we are actually omitting a word. The proper way to say this sentence would be like so:
> Give the recipe to [the person] who has to cook the meal.
When it is worded as such, you can see that "the person" functions as the object of the initial phrase, and "who" functions as the subject of the second phrase. That second phrase is actually a dependent clause, so it requires a subject.
However, when you omit the object ("the person") of the first phrase, then the entire second clause becomes the object. It still, however, remains a complete clause with its own subjectâand a pronoun in objective case cannot function as a subject.
This link does a good job of explaining our dilemma, using examples like the initial sentence, and the one you provided.
Emphasises_Words t1_j3roko1 wrote
Yup, using the substituting he/him method:
> R.I.P. to him
vs
> R.I.P. to he
bfuker t1_j3s5yvv wrote
If you are not sure whether to use who or whom, just use who. The only reason to use whom is to show the world how smart you are, so donât be wrong.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments