Quick question about English grammar: is it " For those

both are correct

who works better but that is fine as well

>>67237147
no offence, but I'd like it from a native English speaker

>>67237143
Both work. I would use one over the other depending on context. Also
>USA
>Asking about English

there is a slight difference in meaning but they are both grammatically correct

>>67237147
>>67237173
>>67237214
Actual fucking major in english literature and orthography here

NO, both are NOT correct you drooling fucking monkeys, "who" is the correct term

>grammatically
Dumb fuck

>>67237244
I'm pretty sure anyone would get what they're saying. Even I couldn't say if there is a difference in the meaning

File: image.png (322KB, 368x280px) Image search: [Google]

322KB, 368x280px

>>67237265
I mean, it's unlikely they're writing some paper where is actually matters. That works just fine.

>>67237310
that is actually not right

>Anglo natives
>in charge of their own language

>>67237265
literally who cares? this isn't cut and dry like should of and should have where anyone who uses the former has certified autism, if someone said 'that serve' in a sentence I wouldn't bat an eyelid and nobody else would either

>>67237320
That as in my statement or "that" as in the OP?

>>67237143
its "for those whom serving was conducted", if you want to get technical

>>67237380
doesn't make much sense though

whom is a latent genitive marker

>>67237373
both

that in op is not right
it's one of those things that doesn't both people doesn't mean it isn't wrong

>>67237409
fuck not genitive

accusative obviously, slavshit languages tend to mix them up a lot

For the people, those of whom have committed the act of serving

>>67237409
whom is used when reffering to a person who did something at a time not in the present or future. i've been an english professor for 3 years, i know of what i speak, thank you.

>>67237410
>it's one of those things that doesn't both people doesn't mean it isn't wrong

File: 1470817008454.png (493KB, 1238x1080px) Image search: [Google]

493KB, 1238x1080px

>>67237433
>professor

this is how I know you've never taught anybody

>>67237143
in reference to those, whom having served

Listen here you fucking apes, I invented the english language and both are correct

>>67237452
dear sir, i assure you that tis i whom is professing english, and that i continue to do and have for up to and including my 3 years that last passed me.

>>67237143
Regarding those which have served

>>67237143
>>67237143
actually the correct way to say it is "oh god oh god i'm so retarded oh god oh god"

>>67237452
>everything in that post
>the word professor is what he latches on too
you're retarded, thats how the word is used.

>>67237484
I imply upon thee, that thine testimony is perhaps utterly and completely ludicrous

>>67237485
those who*

>>67237514
i infer from your implication that you think me a liar, but i assure you this is untrue.

Having relation to fellows, they having done acts deemed to acted upon the behalf of others

>>67237551
I sense you wish to persuade me to believe your words to be ones of truth, however I must reveal that I find no premise presented in such a way to act in benefit of such persuasion, and so I must, in acting reasonably as one should always strive to do, reject such claims to the contrary of those incurrent possess regarding the matter

File: images.jpg (5KB, 200x179px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 200x179px

>mfw americans dont speak their own language

> for those who
Is correct.

'Whom' is used only in oblique, non-nominative cases.

Use 'who/whom' for antecedents who are people. Use 'that/which' for inanimate antecedents.

>>67237514
> thine testimony
* thy testimony

'Thine' is used before vowels or as a predicate.

Fuck me. I dont understand fuck all you guys are saying

>>67237265
I had an English teacher 'who' would mark it as a mistake which was really confusing.