CNN website fails basic grammar: e.g. improper use of "whom" instead of "who"

[Hart2008]

I can remember being bored silly in 5th grade when we did the proper use of "who" and "whom" in grammar class. I know that in colloquial English, we frequently replace "whom" with "who".

That is normal.

However when people incorrectly use "whom" instead of "who" because they are trying to put on airs, then the ignorance needs to be exposed.

So, this from CNN:

"Under caucus rules, whomever has the packet is placed in charge of the caucus."

Texas in second day of counting caucus results
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/05/texas.caucus.count/index.html?iref=nextin

The subject of this sentence is a clause-"whomever has the packet".
"whomever" is the subject of the clause, and therefore the pronoun must be nominative case, "whoever" not "whomever".

So someone at CNN failed basic grammar.

Did CNN outsource the writing or editing for its website?

:rant:

[ProdigalJunkMail]

1. this is an ongoing failure

many of whom fail to notice...

sP

[Hart2008]

12. Which many, indeed, fail to notice.

:spank:

[anniebelle]

2. Must not teach grammar in our schools anymore.

I here, on every network BTW, and yes, hear on DU the worst case of bad grammar EVER. There's to, too, two; and went and gone, him and me, me and her. If me and he had went to town, we would had seed this coming down the rode, we could had avoided it. Maybe it's all the home schooling or just not giving a shit anymore. We need to educate our children. Lou Dobbs is so afraid we're going to speak Spanish, hell we can't even speak English.

[mwb970]

8. Don't forget "It was a victory for she and her husband."

"For she"? Good God. I hear this one all the time from "professional" news readers and copy writers. It makes me sad. We're so dumb now.

[Rydz777]

3. The English language has so little grammar left that it is

worthwhile to try to protect what remains. English grammar is an endangered species.

[casus belli]

4. Whomsoever would have been so much more eloquent. n/t

[izzie]

5. My God but I am getting old. I have forgot all those rules.

If it sounds pretty good I leave it alone. Old age and being lazy has finally done me in.

[VWolf]

9. Correction: You have FORGOTTEN all those rules.

:evilgrin:

[izzie]

19. Good rub it in.

:dunce: :dunce: :dunce:

[ThomWV]

6. That is great if you happen to know what the 'nominative case' is

But your definition fails unless you can explain that limit. See the problem? If your intent is to show people who use the two words interchangeably and incorrectly then you should give a definition that can be understood by someone not well versed in such things. The use of an unusual limiting term in the definition makes it likely that the already uninformed will remain so.

[Hart2008]

11. English only has three cases of nouns and pronouns. If you don't know them, you don't know grammar

The three cases are:
1) Nominative case-Used for the subject of a sentence or clause. (For this reason it is sometimes called the "Subjective" case.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_case
2) Objective case-Used for the object of a sentence or clause.
3)Possessive case- used to show possession.

Luckily, unlike other languages, in which the spellings (declensions or declinations) of nouns changes, e.g., the Slavic and Scandinavian languages, depending upon their case, in English we only need to worry about the pronouns:

Cases in English

Cases are not very prominent in modern English, except in its personal pronouns (a remnant of the more extensive case system of Old English). For other pronouns, and all nouns, adjectives, and articles, case is indicated only by word order, by prepositions, and by the clitic -'s.

Taken as a whole, English personal pronouns are typically said to have three morphological cases: a subjective case (such as I, he, she, we), used for the subject of a finite verb and sometimes for the complement of a copula; an objective case (such as me, him, her, us), used for the direct or indirect object of a verb, for the object of a preposition, for an absolute disjunct, and sometimes for the complement of a copula; and a possessive case (such as my/mine, his, her(s), our(s)), used for a grammatical possessor. That said, these pronouns often have more than three forms; the possessive case typically has both a determiner form (such as my, our) and a distinct independent form (such as mine, ours). Additionally, except for the interrogative personal pronoun who, they all have a distinct reflexive or intensive form (such as myself, ourselves).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_case

The definitions are not "mine". They have been well documented in various grammar books through the years.

The problem is not the labels used to describe the problem, but an ignorance that when a pronoun is used for different functions, its form changes accordingly.

If people are posting on this forum and never learned their grammar, my postings are unlikely to change anything.

However, it doesn't excuse a major news source like CNN for demonstrating a lack of 5th grade grammar.

[ThomWV]

23. Just one more thing on the long list of things I do not know.

[RebelOne]

7. I'm a copy editor and I have spotted plenty of errors at CNN.

Grammar, spelling and punctuation are not always used correctly.

[Oeditpus Rex]

15. So am I, and I'm far more disturbed by those I see at DU

not to mention untold numbers of other Web sites.

[RebelOne]

18. I know. Some of the grammatical errors I see here on DU

make me cringe. But I try to be polite and not point them out.

[Oeditpus Rex]

20. Yeah, because if you do

you're a Grammar Nazi. :eyes:

Well, I'm the Grammar Überhauptsturmbannführer, and proud of it.

But I usually keep it to myself. :)

[jgraz]

10. Not surprising. They've been failing basic journalism for years.

[guitar man]

13. aww, give 'em a break

I'm sure their ousourced website typer-uppers that are making 50 cents an hour are doing the best they can :rofl:

[EFerrari]

14. It's not only CNN and it's not only on the net.

Pick up a newspaper, any newspaper. :rant:

[Hart2008]

24. Even worse is when newspapers omit end quotes at the end of a paragraph.

I really hate that.

I read two or three paragraphs ahead, then have to go back and figure out when the speaker changed.

I also hate it when the article refers to someone by a last name only because a previous part of the article which introduced that person has been edited out.

[EFerrari]

25. I'm not a good enough editor to notice even that but

although dyslexic enough not to spell well without the checker, the rampant and casual misspellings everywhere drive me nuts.

[Hart2008]

26. It has become accepted in recent years for newspapers to omit end quotes at the end of a paragraph.

It is not an error.

It is done intentionally and it drives me nuts when I try to read something.

My mind craves the symmetry of the end quotation marks.

[librechik]

16. at last! we are finally getting down to discussing the important issues here.

:rolleyes:

we needed a good grammar police thread to freak out over.

[Hart2008]

22. You missed the point. Incorrectly using "whom" instead of "who" is snobbish.

It is common to use "who" when "whom" is technically called for by English grammar rules.

Some people think they are extremely sophisticated by using "whom", even when that usage is incorrect.

I hate snobbery, especially when it comes with bad grammar.

CNN should know better than this.

I have neither the time, nor the inclination, to police everyone's grammar here on DU.

:hi:

[TahitiNut]

17. More importantly, I nominate you for a listing in DU's "Who's Whom"

:evilgrin:

[Hart2008]

21. No, Who is on first! n/t