/lit/ - Literature

>thus

>>10119160
>monolinguals can't in2 dative
it's hilarious really, I bet half of them couldn't tell the difference between a genitive and a gerund if their lives depended on it too.

>And but so

this
tfw so these are the power levels of neckbeard reddit nu male poltard pseud hack NEET beta virgin ubermensch bald spooked manlet chad literal centrist retard faggots....
literal unironic JUST has me like no gf so you should kill you are self
HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAAHHABABABBAHAHHAHAHHHAHBAAHAHH
*breathes in*
HAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHHAHHAHHHAHHAHHAHHHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAAHHHAAH

>>10119170
r u a bot?

>>10119164
um akshuli whom can be accusative too

heg ick un de rub hub bub bub in dee vorn foggle bop.
HAP DE LA QUOP
HAP DE LA QUOP
HAP DE LA QUOP

> whomst'd've

>>10119185
no, because it derives from the german dative ending. it's like saying "children can be singular".

>>10119192

You're fucking retarded.
Whom is simply an object pronoun.
Let me guess you started learning German last week and are here to dazzle us with your grammar terminology.
English doesn't have two distinct object cases it has one. Calling whom "dative" is absurd.

>>10119199
it's the dative case of whom. like blonde is the female of blond, english has inherited many idiosyncratic rules which if you weren't a monolingual pleb you would recognise.

>>10119204
of *who
since the monolingual might get lost

>>10119204
>>10119192
It might etymologically derive from a dative form, but as >>10119199 said there are no cases in English, and "whom" is used in situations equivalent to both accusative and dative in German. In the sentence "That is the man whom I punched" the "whom" would be in the accusative case if translated into German, Latin or any similar case language.

>>10119222
there are cases in English, that is why you have she/her. whom in English is used in the dative case, as you would "give a gift to her" and ask "to whom did you give the gift". English also has male and female genders, and just because there isn't always a morphological change does not mean it does not have cases. If that were the case, then Latin loses cases often. It hasn't even though most places won't teach you all of them any more because they know they're teaching monolinguals who are never going to translate natural language and won't notice they're missing the ablative in their skinner box version of the language.

>>10119222
I just provided you with an example where "whom" is clearly accusative. Are you just going to keep ignoring that?

>>10119160
I don't know what this thread is about but have some music
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCBSSwgtg4

>>10119259
meant for >>10119239

>>10119239
If whom is a "dative pronoun" then how come in all of your English examples of indirect objects you must introduce whom with a preposition?
herp a derpy derp derp a derp!
>>10119259
I think he's either trolling or unironically retarded.

>>10119270
>>10119265
>>10119263
>>10119259
>259▶>>10119265 >>10119270
>>>10119222
>>10119239
>>10119222
>>10119207
>>10119204
>>10119199
>>10119192
>>10119189
>>10119186
>>10119185
>>10119180
>>10119170
>>10119168
>>10119164
>>10119163
>>10119160
virgins

>>10119222
>That is the man whom I punched
that's wrong though. It makes sense if you say
>That is the man to whom I gave a punch
which is why it would be dative when translated, like anon said. I think you're confused because most cases of whom are dative or ablative.

Are you confusing the fact that the subject is dative while the object is nominative, and assuming something that is a subject must be accusative or something?

>>10119259
There's an ablative which follows the dative morphology
>By whom were you punched
It's not accusative in the case you raised because it implies "giving" of a punch. Like "I gave her a kiss" follows the same rules as "I gave her a gift". Same with "I gave her a punch". It's dative. You can sperg all you like but you're just misidentifying cases.

>>10119270
>If whom is a "dative pronoun" then how come in all of your English examples of indirect objects you must introduce whom with a preposition?
because the dative case never implies a preposition? lel how would that even work?

>>10119277
There's literally nothing wrong with the first sentence. "To punch" can function as a transitive verb. You reformulated the sentence as if "to punch" can't take an object. There's no grammatical necessity to do this.

>>10119277
>>10119284
Let's make it even simpler for you. "Whom did you meet?" The equivalent in German would be "Wen hast du getroffen?". It's clearly the accusative form.

Why are you trying to rewrite the sentences? Yes, you could instead say "That is the man to whom I gave a punch", but that's a different sentence. You've created the dative form by interposing a preposition.

>>10119289
I could make it easier
>Ich schlug ihm
I punched him (dative).
I changed it because you'd run into problems with geschlugen not bringing up any of the cases you wanted.

>>10119307
What? That's grammatically incorrect. "Ich sclug IHN" (accusative) would be the correct form, since this is a completely direct action. The whole point of the distinction between accusative and dative in German is direct vs. indirect.

>>10119316
you can use ihn but nobody does.

fuck's sake, this was supposed to be a semi-trolling thread about pretentious archaic terms, not German grammar

>>10119316
If you don't trust me, >>10119319, try Kafka
>"Still", sagte Karl, schlug ihm mit einem Klaps die Hände nieder, lief zu dem Liftjungen, den er in der Nacht vertreten hatte, bat ihn für ein kleines Weilchen um die gleiche Gefälligkeit, eilte zu Robinson zurück, zog den noch immer Schluchzenden mit aller Kraft in die Höhe und flüsterte ihm zu: "Robinson

Are you learning German?

So in the end the autistic anon throwing around "monolingual" as an insult reveals himself to have at best a shaky grasp on language in general.
Who would have thought?

>>10119307
>>10119325
Are you perhaps aware that English is not German?
>>10119323
Whom isn't a pretentious archaic term.
You might as well start a thread about how "me, him, her" are pretentious archaic terms, because it's the exact same thing.

>>10119327
I'm one of the anons saying German uses it as dative. I suspect you're the anon trying to insist it doesn't, despite the fact you would have read it in even basic babby's first German books if you read much.

The other anon isn't right either, because English officially calls it the oblique case, but he might be a first language speaker like you and not get taught that.

>>10119330
>Are you perhaps aware that English is not German?
Yes, but your German was wrong.
See >>10119332

>>10119332
>discussion about whom
>spergs out about German

Wow you showed me. BTW I speak 3 languages and have read more than you. Now what?

>>10119336
Now I know you're lying. You brought up something beyond your ken and are now mad at the German language. Good going.

>>10119335

I haven't used German in this thread once because it's literally irrelevant to the discussion.
Are you aware that whom is an English word?
You brought up German because your grasp of English grammar is not strong enough to defend your erroneous proposition.

>>10119342
>I haven't used German in this thread once because it's literally irrelevant to the discussion.
I'm replying to a chain about >>10119222
>"That is the man whom I punched" the "whom" would be in the accusative case if translated into German
So if you're not trying to discuss that, you're in the wrong quote chain. You'll find it's translated ihm (dative) much more often.

>>10119344
>>"That is the man whom I punched" the "whom" would be in the accusative case if translated into German

Whoop de doo?
What's your point? Do you understand what "translation" is?
Again, English isn't German.

>>10119353
My point is that it is not translated as the accusative but as the datif and the the anon who thought otherwise was wrong. You don't have to defend that anon for being wrong, so if I were you and this upset about being wrong, I would remember that every anon is a new anon. It might help you not sound histrionic about minor losses.

>>10119160
Not fedora, if it isn't dialogue. It's very precise.

>>10119362
>datif
dative. lel

>>10119362
Your point has nothing to do with the ongoing discussion, which was about English cases.
And the poster count has been locked in at 8 for a while now, you aren't new to the thread.
Even if I hadn't been keeping an eye on the poster count, you'd still be easily identifiable by your clunky, autistic English usage.

>>10119376
Well, I did also make the point about you both being wrong about the oblique case in English as well as the point about the German translation being wrong.

Though maybe I am also the anon who didn't know about the oblique case, and you too who also didn't know of the oblique, who knows?

>>10119386

Well the funny thing is that even after all this there's nothing that has occurred to make me think I was wrong about anything really. So I guess your nasty little psychic warfare ended up being just as impotent as you.

>>10119344
>You'll find it's translated ihm (dative) much more often.
>much more often

What? In that particular sentence, "whom" would NEVER be translated into the dative case by someone who actually knows what they're doing. Also, it would be "den/dem" in this case, not "ihn/ihm".

Why do you act so high and mighty towards "monolingual plebs" when you're not exactly an expert yourself?

>>10119394
>speaking German is psychic warfare
>knowing grammar is psychic warfare
>>10119395
I pointed that out because it would be geschlugen, and what I was translating was "I punched him".
See >>10119307
"den" being translated as whom doesn't work, because it would make "which"/"that" not appear in English.

>>10119325
>"Still", sagte Karl, schlug ihm mit einem Klaps die Hände nieder,

I can't blame you too much for misunderstanding the grammar of this sentence, since it is a bit complex. Karl slaps THE HANDS OF his interlocutor down, and that's why "ihm" (referring to the person to whom the hands belong) is used in this situation.

But whom is the correct pronoun to use sometimes. What's your point, OP?