Posted on 05/01/2013 7:33:24 AM PDT by rickmichaels
Was that sarcasm? Sure looks like it.
Sorry, but to rephrase the sentence, you definitely wouldn't say "We must blame he" . . . you would say "We must blame him"
You would not say "We must blame to him" -- which is what you are saying when you use "whom" in "Whom we must blame for Boston."
But let me ping Tax-chick, who knows more than I do.
Where did you come up with "to"?
Just kidding about the apology . . . besides did you see I used the wrong accept/except? Just seeing if you'd notice.
I'm still right though, so life goes on . . . besides, I teach English.
“Never apologize: it’s a sign of weakness.” (John Wayne)
“Whom must we blame?” “We must blame him!” “Whom” and “him” are both objective-case pronouns, even though “whom” has been relocated to the beginning.
If you want to think of the pronoun as the object of a preposition, you could phrase the sentences, “To whom can we assign blame?” “We can assign blame to him.” However, this is not necessary for us to need an objective, rather than subjective, pronoun.
(This grammar clarification has been offered in memory of “Nina0113,” who loved a good compound-complex sentence almost as much as she loved a needy cat.)
+1
That plus multiculturalism, the PC police, diversity and an almost endless list of nation destroying BS.
You're still wrong, but life must go on. Interesting chat . . . but I won't budge.
Life is like that.
If we all spoke Spanish, we could have entirely different arguments.
I tend not to believe this story because logic dictates against it. I hate Obama, but if one is to believe this story one must assume that Obama wanted this to happen, which is totally illogical unless you believe he has been placed in the White House as some sort of Manchurian Candidate. It just doesn’t add up because it would hurt his own supposed cause.
I tend not to believe this story because logic dictates against it. I hate Obama, but if one is to believe this story one must assume that Obama wanted this to happen, which is totally illogical unless you believe he has been placed in the White House as some sort of Manchurian Candidate. It just doesn’t add up because it would hurt his own supposed cause.
I think the incident reflects the politicization of the Federal government's law enforcement and intelligence wings.
Obama and his appointees do not direct those agencies to operate in a way that puts the safety of the citizens as their paramount concern. They seek only to use those powers in their political machinations.
They see no political advantage to confronting the reality of islam and their oft-stated desire to destroy western civilization and bring to heel all non-believers globally. So any intelligence that points in that direction is basically ignored.
But if the Canadian intelligence services reported some nebulous tip about terroristic intent on the part of a couple of Michigan militia goobers, Napolitano and Obama would bring all the powers they have or could grab down onto the accused and any group they could even tangentially label as like-minded, like the Tea Party, FoxNews, or the Boy Scouts.
I have no doubt that they now regret making the wrong call, but only because its suddenly a big ass political problem for them. It's not merely that Napolitano and Obama blew the call, but why they blew it that matters.
I think the main lesson Obama wants to learn from Boston is how to keep the identity of the next perpetrator a secret longer, so that the media can have free rein to beat up on conservatives for a longer period of time.
I defer to the expert! Thank you, Tax-chick!
I have an idea...close the borders, stop issuing visas and student visas to Middle Eastern morons and round up the ones already here and send them home.
They can go to Cairo to study!
They were so fiendishly clever about covering up their tracks, you can see why the Obama Administration was fooled.
LOL
But in the sentence “Who must we blame?” the subject is we, the verb is must blame and the direct object of the predicate is who. And Who is a nominative pronoun. The objective pronoun is whom. You would say “We must blame him”, you wouldn’t say “We must blame he.” He and who are nominative (used as subjects), whom and him are objective.
I'm with you as to Albion's error.
But Tax-Chick is agreeing with you, besides being universally infallible anyway.
What is it she's saying that you think is wrong?
I blame the video!
It’s always charming when one’s universal infalliblity is recognized. Have some Scotch and a kitten!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.