Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[2.71828.....]

I think the second point is wrong.  It specifically says "when you gain a card", which should only apply to whomever has it in play, not to opponents.

Should that say "whomever", or "whoever"?

So it should say "whomever" here because you are using it in the objective case as the object of the preposition "to"

[mail-mi]

I think the second point is wrong.  It specifically says "when you gain a card", which should only apply to whomever has it in play, not to opponents.

Should that say "whomever", or "whoever"?

So it should say "whomever" here because you are using it in the objective case as the object of the preposition "to"

"apply to whomever it has in play."

Who has it in play? He has it in play, therefore it's whoever.

[shraeye]

so what color furniture is the most appealing?  Also, chairs, with cushions or without?

All the colors! Chairs with cusions. Otherwise you'll get a sore butt if you sit down too long.

Agreed. Cushions are required for Dominion.

I do not know why you guys responded to the question that was clearly asked only to chairs.  It was rude, and I refuse to listen to your answers.

[markusin]

I think the second point is wrong.  It specifically says "when you gain a card", which should only apply to whomever has it in play, not to opponents.

Should that say "whomever", or "whoever"?

So it should say "whomever" here because you are using it in the objective case as the object of the preposition "to"

"apply to whomever it has in play."

Who has it in play? He has it in play, therefore it's whoever.

Are you sure?

What is being applied? It (the effect in question) is being applied.

It's being applied to whom? "Whoever has it in play" has the effect applied to them.

Any grammar experts willing to step in and clarify this?

[markusin]

Wait, is "whomever" even a word? I don't think I've ever seen it written.

[silverspawn]

if you want to specify a thing that is from another thing, but that thing is not a person, can you still use "whose"? f.e, is "a lake whose water..." correct? sounds wrong.

[Donald X.]

Any grammar experts willing to step in and clarify this?

I'm there for you.

It's a living language. "Whom" and "whomever" are dying words, normally not used by English speakers except in very particular contexts. Don't cling to 'em, that's my advice; let 'em go. Consider how easy you find it not to use "ye."

[eHalcyon]

Any grammar experts willing to step in and clarify this?

I'm there for you.

It's a living language. "Whom" and "whomever" are dying words, normally not used by English speakers except in very particular contexts. Don't cling to 'em, that's my advice; let 'em go. Consider how easy you find it not to use "ye."

Blasphemy!  I took thee for thy better.

[AndrewisFTTW]

Any grammar experts willing to step in and clarify this?

I'm there for you.

It's a living language. "Whom" and "whomever" are dying words, normally not used by English speakers except in very particular contexts. Don't cling to 'em, that's my advice; let 'em go. Consider how easy you find it not to use "ye."

Blasphemy!  I took thee for thy better.

Thy tongue betrayeth thee. Mayhaps ye old bar of soap can purge such nonsense from thy mouth!

[silverspawn]

if you want to specify a thing that is from another thing, but that thing is not a person, can you still use "whose"? f.e, is "a lake whose water..." correct? sounds wrong.

bump. this was an actual question

[Witherweaver]

"Whom" and "whomever" are both used commonly in the standard way. 

[Witherweaver]

I think the second point is wrong.  It specifically says "when you gain a card", which should only apply to whomever has it in play, not to opponents.

Should that say "whomever", or "whoever"?

So it should say "whomever" here because you are using it in the objective case as the object of the preposition "to"

"apply to whomever it has in play."

Who has it in play? He has it in play, therefore it's whoever.

"Apply to  ".  Consider putting yourself in there.  Is it "apply to me" or "apply to I"? 

[markusin]

Any grammar experts willing to step in and clarify this?

I'm there for you.

It's a living language. "Whom" and "whomever" are dying words, normally not used by English speakers except in very particular contexts. Don't cling to 'em, that's my advice; let 'em go. Consider how easy you find it not to use "ye."

My brother, as a linguistics graduate, says the same thing. I could have asked him about this, but he wasn't around.

[SirPeebles]

Any grammar experts willing to step in and clarify this?

I'm there for you.

It's a living language. "Whom" and "whomever" are dying words, normally not used by English speakers except in very particular contexts. Don't cling to 'em, that's my advice; let 'em go. Consider how easy you find it not to use "ye."

"Ye" is just an orthographical variant of "the".  English used to use the letter "thorn" to denote the "th" sound.  "y" looks a bit like an incomplete thorn and was used until eventually "th" won out leaving us with the.

[Titandrake]

if you want to specify a thing that is from another thing, but that thing is not a person, can you still use "whose"? f.e, is "a lake whose water..." correct? sounds wrong.

bump. this was an actual question

I don't think "whose" sounds wrong. You could also try "with", or go full awkward and say "a lake that contains water (that/which/whatever ....)"

[GeoLib]

if you want to specify a thing that is from another thing, but that thing is not a person, can you still use "whose"? f.e, is "a lake whose water..." correct? sounds wrong.

bump. this was an actual question

I don't think "whose" sounds wrong. You could also try "with", or go full awkward and say "a lake that contains water (that/which/whatever ....)"

I would use whose. Anthropomorphization ftw

Also, I assume that "f.e." stands for for "for example," but it's not an acronym I've seen anyone else use. "e.g." is the standard in English AFAIK (short for Latin Exempli Gratia)

[silverspawn]

if you want to specify a thing that is from another thing, but that thing is not a person, can you still use "whose"? f.e, is "a lake whose water..." correct? sounds wrong.

bump. this was an actual question

I don't think "whose" sounds wrong. You could also try "with", or go full awkward and say "a lake that contains water (that/which/whatever ....)"

I would use whose. Anthropomorphization ftw

Also, I assume that "f.e." stands for for "for example," but it's not an acronym I've seen anyone else use. "e.g." is the standard in English AFAIK (short for Latin Exempli Gratia)

orly? i use it all the time. but i've never seen anyone else using it, now that i think about it. thanks, that's probably a good thing to stop doing.

[eHalcyon]

if you want to specify a thing that is from another thing, but that thing is not a person, can you still use "whose"? f.e, is "a lake whose water..." correct? sounds wrong.

bump. this was an actual question

I don't think "whose" sounds wrong. You could also try "with", or go full awkward and say "a lake that contains water (that/which/whatever ....)"

I would use whose. Anthropomorphization ftw

Also, I assume that "f.e." stands for for "for example," but it's not an acronym I've seen anyone else use. "e.g." is the standard in English AFAIK (short for Latin Exempli Gratia)

orly? i use it all the time. but i've never seen anyone else using it, now that i think about it. thanks, that's probably a good thing to stop doing.

Yeah, use "e.g." for examples.  Also note that people often confuse it with "i.e", which is not for examples but rather to clarify something specific.  For more info, check out this Oatmeal comic.

[Donald X.]

"Ye" is just an orthographical variant of "the".  English used to use the letter "thorn" to denote the "th" sound.  "y" looks a bit like an incomplete thorn and was used until eventually "th" won out leaving us with the.

"Ye" isn't "just" that; I was referring to "ye" as in "whom do ye trust?" We say "you" there now, although back then "you" was just the plural form of "thou."

[2.71828.....]

if you want to specify a thing that is from another thing, but that thing is not a person, can you still use "whose"? f.e, is "a lake whose water..." correct? sounds wrong.

bump. this was an actual question

I don't think "whose" sounds wrong. You could also try "with", or go full awkward and say "a lake that contains water (that/which/whatever ....)"

I would use whose. Anthropomorphization ftw

Also, I assume that "f.e." stands for for "for example," but it's not an acronym I've seen anyone else use. "e.g." is the standard in English AFAIK (short for Latin Exempli Gratia)

fe stands for iron

[Thisisnotasmile]

Drew1023 as long as I make a game move every 5 minutes it will give you lots of time to reflect on what a pathetic ***** you are
Drew1023 how about this you are a pathetic piece of trash that spends all day playing an online card game
Drew1023 that's pretty sad
Drew1023 yeah and I am free to remark on just how sad and pathetic it is and that you are wasting limited resources of the earth existing in your sad and pathetic little life
Drew1023 if all you are doing with your pathetic little life is staying in your mommy's basement and playing an online card game than you are not contributing and simply deserve to not live. You are very lucky I don't know where you liv or I'd do the world a favor.

You would not believe how much I lol'd at this and then how disappointed I got when I realised it wasn't actually the Facebook stalking mission report.

[Awaclus]

Drew1023 as long as I make a game move every 5 minutes it will give you lots of time to reflect on what a pathetic ***** you are
Drew1023 how about this you are a pathetic piece of trash that spends all day playing an online card game
Drew1023 that's pretty sad
Drew1023 yeah and I am free to remark on just how sad and pathetic it is and that you are wasting limited resources of the earth existing in your sad and pathetic little life
Drew1023 if all you are doing with your pathetic little life is staying in your mommy's basement and playing an online card game than you are not contributing and simply deserve to not live. You are very lucky I don't know where you liv or I'd do the world a favor.

You would not believe how much I lol'd at this and then how disappointed I got when I realised it wasn't actually the Facebook stalking mission report.

I thought he was referring to that with "being slow played", too, until the second post.

[SirPeebles]

I thought he was referring to that with "being slow played", too, until the second post.

Same here.

[eHalcyon]

You won't believe what's in the smallest one!

[Kuildeous]

Drew1023 as long as I make a game move every 5 minutes it will give you lots of time to reflect on what a pathetic ***** you are
Drew1023 how about this you are a pathetic piece of trash that spends all day playing an online card game
Drew1023 that's pretty sad
Drew1023 yeah and I am free to remark on just how sad and pathetic it is and that you are wasting limited resources of the earth existing in your sad and pathetic little life
Drew1023 if all you are doing with your pathetic little life is staying in your mommy's basement and playing an online card game than you are not contributing and simply deserve to not live. You are very lucky I don't know where you liv or I'd do the world a favor.

Aside from the fact that I also was expecting a mission report, I was amused by this exchange.

The guy is lambasting you for "wasting your time" playing a game, when he's wasting his time not playing a game. And that's normally fine; a lot of people waste their times not playing games--eating a juicy cheeseburger, curing cancer, getting laid--but he's wasting his time making fun of someone else wasting his time.

Truly pathetic behavior.