Jump to content
wildcard

Who is to blame if there is not MLB baseball in 2020?

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, bobmc said:

Not a grammar specialist but shouldn't you have used "whom"?  😉. I'm here for being reprimanded by "TEECHUR".

You’re not gonna believe this, but I actually considered using “whom,” but I wasn’t quite sure whether it was correct, and when one wishes to appear pompous, one must be accurate as well, plus, I didn’t wish to appear pompous, Hah Hah Hah

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Philip said:

You’re not gonna believe this, but I actually considered using “whom,” but I wasn’t quite sure whether it was correct, and when one wishes to appear pompous, one must be accurate as well, plus, I didn’t wish to appear pompous, Hah Hah Hah

Actually, I believe you were correct using "who."  I believe that "whom" is used as the object of a preposition.  "To whom."  "For whom."  "Of whom."

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

17 hours ago, Philip said:

Who did they hire?

I looked at the top executives of MLB and couldn't figure it out.  https://www.mlb.com/official-information/executives/

But a quick glance shows an impressive diversity among MLB's top eight executives. All white males. But just to judge from their last names, they appear to be descended from several different European ethnic groups. Their hair color runs the gamut from dark brown to brown to gray to white (no facial hair), with varying degrees of baldness -- and one has no hair at all! Some of the eight went to law school, and some apparently didn't. Now that's diversity for you.

Seriously, if this Website listing is an up-to-date presentation of the top guys running MLB, this is an absolute disgrace, and just one more indication of how the game is in serious trouble.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Number5 said:

Actually, I believe you were correct using "who."  I believe that "whom" is used as the object of a preposition.  "To whom."  "For whom."  "Of whom."

I think it should be "whom".  If you use "who" it should be the subject of the sentence.  In his sentence the word "they" is the subject. Of course I could be wrong.  Grammar was always my worst subject. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, atomic said:

I think it should be "whom".  If you use "who" it should be the subject of the sentence.  In his sentence the word "they" is the subject. Of course I could be wrong.  Grammar was always my worst subject. 

Correct!  That's the way I learnt it.  But Dr. Phil @Philip should be the authority here and in order to avoid his usual pomposity (kidding kidding!), he abdicated!

Actually according to the "Grammar Police", both answers are correct but technically "whom" is better but no-one says it that way.

Technically, that "whom" is correct because it's the object of the verb.  Yet almost no one would say it that way. Does that mean everyone's wrong? No. It means that, when the pronoun's at the beginning of a sentence, even the most formal writing can use "who" as an object.

.http://www.grammarunderground.com/whom-vs-who-at-the-beginning-of-a-sentence.html

So the OP should have said, "Whom is to blame?"  wtf?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Number5 said:

Actually, I believe you were correct using "who."  I believe that "whom" is used as the object of a preposition.  "To whom."  "For whom."  "Of whom."

It's "whom." English pronouns have three (or fewer) forms: subjective, objective, and possessive. If it's not  part of a subject, a non-possessive pronoun should be in the objective -- me, her, him, them, whom -- regardless of whether it's the direct object, indirect object or used with a preposition. 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bobmc said:

Correct!  That's the way I learnt it.  But Dr. Phil @Philip should be the authority here and in order to avoid his usual pomposity (kidding kidding!), he abdicated!

Actually according to the "Grammar Police", both answers are correct but technically "whom" is better but no-one says it that way.

Technically, that "whom" is correct because it's the object of the verb.  Yet almost no one would say it that way. Does that mean everyone's wrong? No. It means that, when the pronoun's at the beginning of a sentence, even the most formal writing can use "who" as an object.

.http://www.grammarunderground.com/whom-vs-who-at-the-beginning-of-a-sentence.html

So the OP should have said, "Whom is to blame?"  wtf?

Actually, this one I know. We would say, “to whom do we assign the blame?” Or we would say, “who gets the blame?”

 

This is so much more fun than actually deciding where the blame lies, Ha ha ha.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, spiritof66 said:

It's "whom." English pronouns have three (or fewer) forms: subjective, objective, and possessive. If it's not  part of a subject, a non-possessive pronoun should be in the objective -- me, her, him, them, whom -- regardless of whether it's the direct object, indirect object or used with a preposition. 

 

Good explanation.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good way to remember who vs. Whom is whether the substitute or answer is he or him.

Who is to blame...he is to blame.

Whom is to blame...him is to blame.

The second one doesn't make sense so the correct usage is who.

 

As to the OP, I'm beginning to think this season is going to go down more like an WBC expo than a season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t think we’re going to have a season. However, I am ripe for a few episodes of, “celebrity grammar”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just remember that English has no Académie Française.  There is no official arbiter of what is right and what is wrong.  My old English teachers are probably cursing me for saying this but there are no official objective standards in English and things evolve over time, although I try to follow the de facto rules as much as makes sense.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/8/2020 at 3:40 PM, spiritof66 said:

 

I looked at the top executives of MLB and couldn't figure it out.  https://www.mlb.com/official-information/executives/

But a quick glance shows an impressive diversity among MLB's top eight executives. All white males. But just to judge from their last names, they appear to be descended from several different European ethnic groups. Their hair color runs the gamut from dark brown to brown to gray to white (no facial hair), with varying degrees of baldness -- and one has no hair at all! Some of the eight went to law school, and some apparently didn't. Now that's diversity for you.

Seriously, if this Website listing is an up-to-date presentation of the top guys running MLB, this is an absolute disgrace, and just one more indication of how the game is in serious trouble.

I don’t know what the pecking order is, but would Frank Robinson and Bob Watson have qualified for top 8 when they were MLB executives?

Kim Ng is probably the highest ranking female.    Her title is Sr. VP of Baseball Ops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Orioles Information


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores
News

Tony's Takes

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2018 End of Season Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2019 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats






×
×
  • Create New...