Did I use it wrongly? I still find parsing clause elements a nightmare, so every trial balloon is a gamble.
hmmm... I think you have that backwards, no? Normally "pedants" insist who must be used "nominatively" (i.e., by analogy to Latin, when it is the *subject*), while whom is the objective (used for objects). Your two examples are right by these rules, however. In the first case, who is "nominative" because it can be thought of as occupying the "subject complement" spot (i.e. in "The recipient is who"). In the second case, whom in "objective" because it can be thought of as occupying the object slot of the prepositional phrase headed by "to", i.e. ("The letter is addressed to whom?").Sorry, I'm a massive pedant, you'll have to excuse me.
It's 'who' when it refers to the object of a noun, like it does in your sentence ("Who is the recipient of this letter?") and 'whom' when it's the subject ("Whom is the letter addressed to?").
Like I said, sorry!
Yup, hence the edit in my original posts. Like I said, *I* knew what I meant! As a self-confessed/proclaimed pedant it behoves me to at least get it fucking right.Mr. Tea: I think I see what's going on here... you have the words "subject" and "object" backwards.
1) Sam threw the ball.
In (1), Sam is the subject, and the ball is the object.
(edit: sorry if that example sounds kinda insulting or condescending by its simplicity! Not intended at all! Years of linguistics makes you use the simplest examples possible...)
lol tea, no, that this and that instead who this and that (referring to a person).Just that do you think you are?
The worst people with stats and linguistic analysis are the news media. Don't get me started...It's ok. It's almost impossible to be a pedant without making mistakes yourself in your corrections! AND, your comments on statistics are not only spot on but well worth repeating! Linguistic analysis and statistics are brethren in the sense that people love to blab on about them but always seem to misunderstand, well, everything.