[bannie]

I hope I didn't overstep any protocol. I'm sure most know this, but I received interest in this little trick.

If it looks too confusing, just look at "THE TRICK" part of my stuff!

[potlatch]

I'm not even going to use those words around you!! LOL

[Spirited]

A "bad button" for me is hearing, "Good" as a reply to, "How are you?".

[Diddle E. Squat]

What was a goat doing in the cement pond?

[ThinkLikeWaterAndReeds]

ok, ok now i understand about he and him - what about she and her

[Diddle E. Squat]

Now if you could only teach half the posters the difference between 'lose' and 'loose'...

[Eva]

I have forgotten so much grammar over the years, but who and whom have never been a problem. The problem that I have been having lately is trying to remember when the quotation marks go inside the period and when they go outside. I seem to remember that there were occasions, like the name of an article or story that was not a complete phrase, when the quotation marks went inside. Anyway, I just avoid using quotation marks as much as possible.

[rwfromkansas]

I use the "Bob" method. You stick the name Bob in for the pronoun and if a question, twist it around to make it a statement. For instance:

"To who/whom should I give the "Offed by a Clinton" Award?"

=To BOB should I give the "Offed by a Clinton Award?

This does not really help us yet since it is a question (well, you could make a good judgment from here easily, but I like going further to help ensure accuracy). Thus, we move it around to become a statement.

=I should give the "Offed by a Clinton Award" to Bob.

To Bob is a prep phrase, which means Bob is the object of the preposition. Therefore, the objective form of who/whom is used. So, "to whom" would be correct.

[rwfromkansas]

BTW, good trick. I like mine better since I think you can be a bit more sure that way since you are using a name instead of just another pronoun, but your method is very good also and new to me.

[Dead Dog]

Thanx Bannie, my grammar sux.

[billbears]

Hey thanks!! I never have been able to get this down grammatically