Who vs whom Part 2 – grammar suffers a bulletwound in the war-torn battlefield of hurt feelings

As you know, MC Grammar doesn't get upset very often. The only people that I hate are Robert Mugabe and all manufacturers of corn syrup. But lately, there has been something else that has been getting my goat – what is up with people using archaic language in an argument, just because they think that it makes them look smart and scares their opponents?

This leads us to the story of GASP Jeans, a clothes store that became part of an online viral story last month because of emails that were exchanged between a customer, Keara O'Neill, and a customer service-type person, Matthew Chidgey

From Keara O'Neill, the shopper:

 I had the privilege of shopping at your brand new Chapel St store on Saturday 24th September with my three bridesmaids in tow. On the hunt for bridesmaids dresses and a hens dress for myself we walked into the store and were automatically pounced on by a male staff member, I understand that this is protocol for many retail outlets and ours is no different.

The staff member was initially funny and extremely helpful with sizes etc. I chose a bright pink dress to try on but was unable to do the zip up so asked for the size up, when I eventually got the correct size and came out of the change room I was unable to discuss the likes or dislikes of the dress with my bridesmaids as the sales assistant kept saying “you should just get it”, when I told him I would think about it, he pulled me aside and whispered “Is it the price your worried about”. By now I was extremely frustrated, and again told him I’d think about it, I walked back into the change room and closed the door behind me, only to have it pushed open with the sales assistant half standing in my change room, again whispering “I think you should just get it”, when I gave him attitude and said rudely, “I already told you I would think about it”, he then replied, “With your figure I really think you should buy it”.

I’m not sure exactly what he meant by that, but considering the attitude used to deliver such a statement I can only imagine that it was an immature dig in relation to my healthy size 12 frame. I got changed in a hurry and walked right out of the change rooms and out of the store, I could hear the sales assistant yelling out to me, but I just ignored him and continued to leave, assuming my bridesmaids would follow. After waiting down the road for my bridesmaids to come out of the store I was told by one of them that the sales assistant yelled out “Have fun finding something at Supre”, when one of them approached him in regards to his comments, he replied “I knew you girls were a joke the minute you walked in”. When my bridesmaids walked out of the store another two customers walked out with them, they too could not believe the immaturity of the sales assistant.

I have worked in retail for 12 years and have come across an array of customer complaints over the years, none of which come even close to what I encountered on Saturday at your store, I wish I was exaggerating but unfortunately for your company this person actually exists and is working in one of your stores. I am pretty laid back and was quite happy just leaving your store, it was my bridesmaids who felt the need to say something to him…I dread to think how many customers he has not only offended but how many customers have left your store due to the pressure placed on getting the sale, and then to be harassed when that sale hasn’t taken place.

Ring me, don’t ring, not fussed…I’m just one retailer notifying another of an extremely inappropriate sales assistant.

Keara O'Neil

And here's the response by GASP area manager Matthew Chidgey:

Dear Keara O’Neil,

Having now had the privilege of having both version of events, I am now in a position to respond to your complaint.

From the very outset, one thing that you should be mindful of is; Our product offerings are very, very carefully selected, so to ensure that we do not appeal to a broad customer base. This is something which is always at the forefront of our minds when undertaking buying duties.

The reason for this is to ensure that we only carry products which appeal to a very fashion forward consumer. This by default means that the customer whom is acclimatised to buying from “clothing for the masses” type retailers, is almost frightened by our range, sometimes we have found that this type of customer, almost finds our dresses funny, and on occasion noted comments such as 'it looks like a dead flamingo'. When we receive comments like this, we like to give ourselves and our buyers, a big pat on the back, because we know we are doing our job right, and modus operandi is being upheld.

Our range is worn by A list celebrities to the likes of Kim Kardashian, Selena Gomez and Katy Perry to name only a few. Now, as one might appreciate, the style counsel for these types of celebrities are not ones to pick “run of the mill” type clothing, and they do so on the basis to ensure that the styles are cutting edge, and only worn by a select few. Similarly these items are priced such that they remain inaccessible to the undesirable.

Insofar as our employee goes; Similar to our product offerings, our employees are selected with a similar approach. Chris whom served you is a qualified stylist whom has a sixth sense for fashion, and Chris’s only problem is that he is too good at what he does, and as I am sure you are aware, people whom are talented, generally do not tolerate having their time wasted, which is the reason you were provoked to leave the store.

Whilst I concede that you work for chain retailer, unfortunately that does not make us like for like. It is probably fair to assume, a lot of what I have said in this email, either doesn’t make sense to you, or you totally disagree with it all, which is what I would expect (unless of course I have you totally wrong – which I doubt).

Let me guess, you would never, ever hire Chris in the course of your duty, would you? This is the very reason, why your comment “from one retailer to another” is so disproportionate, it’s almost as though we are in a totally different industries. Chris is a retail superstar, who possess unparalleled ability, and I am sorry you feel upset by him, but he knew you were not going to buy anything before you even left your house.

So if you would like to do us any favours, please do not waste our retail staff’s time, because as you have already seen, they will not tolerate it. I am sure there are plenty of shops that appease your taste, so I respectfully ask that you side step our store during future window shopping expeditions.

Thank you for your enquiry.

The best part of this email is the sign off, 'thank you for your inquiry' That's the sting the tail of this already very poisonous and aggressive scorpion's tale.

Let's have a look at Mr Chidgey's use of the pronoun, 'whom'.

...the customer whom is acclimatised to buying from “clothing for the masses” type retailers, is almost frightened by our range...

Chris whom served you is a qualified stylist whom has a sixth sense for fashion...

...people whom are talented, generally do not tolerate having their time wasted...

Matthew Chidgey! Why are you so fashion forward, and yet so grammar stationary! Why can't it be both! Why can't your sixth sense for fashion also come with a first sense for grammar correctness? You wordlessly promise so much with your fine, coiffed hair, your sharp, micro-fibre suit, but beyond your gilded exterior you are full of not just archaic language, but also plainly incorrect grammar.

As we have learnt before, traditionally who was used to refer to refer to the subject of a sentence or clause. For example:

I know it was you who stepped on my fish

Whom was used when referring to the object of a clause. For example:

To whom were you speaking just then?

However, the use of whom is now mostly archaic. This means that it has fallen out of use so much that it's no longer the right way to say something, and in most cases where you would have said 'whom' fifty years ago, it is now correct to say 'who'.

The only time you really need to use 'whom' when it comes after a preposition in more formal language. For example,

To whom it may concern

In all other situations, you can use 'who'.

So, unfortunately for Matthew Chidgey, he has let himself – and us – down on two fronts. He has used whom even though it is archaic, and in the places where he has used it, he's not even using it to refer to the object of a sentence. WTF, Matthew Chidgey!

Matthew Chidgey, please try to be like fisherman Julian Chidgey, who has taken life by the horns and caught this huge fish.

When apostrophes go bad: Do's and Don'ts

Because of MC Grammar, you basically know everything now. You know how to change a light bulb, and what sort of light bulb goes into an IKEA lamp. You know how to unscrew a fluorescent light bulb and also what wattage goes into a fluorescent light bulb.


And you also know all about apostrophes. You know that an apostrophe either indicates possession, such as Jane’s hat, or indicates a shortening of the word is or has, like Jane’s happy or Jane’s already left. When there is no apostrophe, it means that the ‘s’ is only there to show that there is more than one of something. You know that saying The kings come in splendour is a very different to saying The King’s come in splendour. Because one is plural and one is singular.


But did you know that it’s not all as simple as all that? Just when you thought grammar was simple, the real world has to interfere and fuck up your shit. This brings us to the debacle of Do’s and Don’ts


What’s happening with this term? Firstly, it’s inconsistent: the do has an apostrophe before the s but the don’t doesn’t. Secondly, why does the do have an apostrophe at all? It’s NOT possessive, is it? It doesn’t ‘own’ anything in the sentence, does it? No, it doesn’t.


But believe it or not, this is how it has to be. Why? For no other reason than the fact that it looks weird without it. It looks like ‘dos’, Spanish for ‘two’. It looks like you tried to write ‘does’ and failed. It looks like a whole other word, and this reason, and this reason only, it has an apostrophe in it.


And take a look at its partner in crime, don’ts. Don’ts won’t even tow the line for consistency’s sake and become don’t’s. Why? yep, you know it – because it that looks weird too. There are too many apostrophes (two), so the final result is that Do’s and don’ts is one of the biggest outlaws of grammar, and there’s nothing that any of us can do about it, but curse and shake our fists.


So how does it get away with it? Believe it or not, because it’s more correct than all the other options, and makes more sense. Let’s remember, the whole point of grammar isn’t actually to be correct for the sake of being correct, it’s to make sense, and to communicate to the widest audience possible. In this case, ‘Do’s and Don’ts’ is correct by association, meaning that because the other options are so confusing, it’s won by default. It’s like a handsome outlaw: you know it’s a murderous felon, but who can resist those dark locks and symmetrical jaw?



A word of caution though: in most other cases, you should always stop and pause for reflection before proceeding with an apostrophe. An apostrophe is like a beautiful woman or man that you meet at a bar. Sure, you’re knocked sideways by their longish hair, dyed criminally blond and almost pitch black at the roots, and the sensual darkish colouring just below their eyes that gives a hint of Mediterranean blood via Poland or Northern Italy, but don’t just dive in – get a good look at them! Is that intriguing peroxided hair and enticing dark roots just a result of the fact that they originally set out to be a glamour model, then sunk into the seamy world of hard drugs? And are those bags under their eyes just a result of Hepatitis B?



In the same way, when it comes to apostrophes, you need to ask yourself certain self-preserving questions. A common crime in grammar is to write something like I read 100’s of books online or the two large lion’s approached quickly. These are incorrect, because neither ‘1000’ or the lions, ‘own’ anything in the sentence, nor is the s a shortening of is. A good quality-control approach is to ask yourself ‘Am I actually writing 100 IS’, or, does ‘100’ actually ‘own’ something in this sentence? If the answer is no, and ‘100’ is just plural, then you don’t need an apostrophe.

Take note, grammar lovers, not everybody agrees on the state of Do's and Don'ts. Many people who also love grammar, will insist on taking a variety of measures, such as writing Dos and Don'ts, Do's and Don't's and also Dos and Dont's. MC Grammar says: increase the grammar peace, fellow word lovers. Although these version might be accepted in some situations, if you're writing something like an important document that a lot of people are going to read, it's best to stick to the modern, most widely accepted, and easiest to understand, Do's and Don'ts.


To finish off, let's check out this video from the 50's about dating. See how the video is correctly titled Do's and Don'ts? Now THAT's how to get a date.