"Who are you working for?"
Translation:Dla kogo pracujecie?
chybe "U kogo pracujesz" (w firmie) jest poprawne rowniez, zaleznie od okolicznosci
But "u" implies the company you work for correct? Like "at"? " I work for Proctor & Gamble." Where "dla" should be about a specific person: "I work for Mr. Smith."
This at least is my assumption, so please inform me on the correct usage.
Ack, you answer like my brother. ( A one word response to a question that needs a few more words.)
Agreed in usage of u vs dla or that we need a definite answer?
I assume since you are a mod it is the former, but I am uncertain. Thanks.
I would use "u" for a specific person that is the owner of the company, so like "pracuję u mojego taty" or "pracuję w sklepie u starego Johna". That means that I would rather use it only with small companies, and if I worked at Apple (just as an ordinary employee, no one important) I wouldn't really say "Pracuję u Tima Cooka" ;)
"dla"... could work with both a person and a company. But we mostly work 'in' a company. And again, "Pracuję dla Tima Cooka" would be too much if I don't actually know the guy.
So for example, sometimes I "pracuję dla Microsoftu", although I'm not a Microsoft employee ("nie pracuję w Microsofcie"), Microsoft is one of my company's clients so we do work for them.
Proper Pronoun: "Whom do you work for?" (Who is nominative case.)
Proper Structure: "For whom are you working?" (You should not end sentences with prepositions. )
Those phrases are dated and those rules are non-existent in modern English. Acceptable as an alternative (escpecially for elderly learners), but not as the main answer.
No, they are not. However, it has been grudgingly accepted to end on a preposition since it is not technically wrong. But only for informal writing. It is still the correct method in formal writing (e.g. buisness proposals, research papers...) . That is why I wrote it in the two different ways since informal writing is accepted in duolingo.
Who vs Whom is very much a matter of what is right or wrong. Nominative vs Objective case. Just because more people say it wrong, does not make it right. It is a very common mistake.
I'm not a prescriptivist. Maybe you are, but I'm not. Nowadays hardly anyone uses "whom" consistently, also hardly anyone avoids prepositions at the end of sentences. It's the 21st century for God's sake...
What would you say if I told you that "thee" is the correct objective case form of the second person personal pronoun? Just because almost everyone says it wrong, doesn't make it right. It is a very common mistake.
I hope you see how nonsensical pure prescriptivism is.
Unlike "whom" , (with the exception of Quakers, Scots, Northern UK, poetry, prayer.... ) thee, thou, thine, thy, and so forth are not used in modern English for centuries.
Whom is still the correct word in the 21st century.
Well, clearly grammar is now such a failure in USA schools ( I blame the push of passing failing children) because as of 2015, grammar is now part of the SATs instead of comparisons. A major dumb down. (For that matter, you can have on your record that you have taken Calculus, while still learning only fractions (not having even taken algebra yet), if you attend public schooling. That is how ridiculously bad it has gotten.)
Also, many students fail to write papers without the use of text abbreviations.
There are always people who use their language incorrectly. As duolingo is a grammar/vocabulary course, it behooves to use the standard/proper grammar.
(I really hope it is not teaching those learning English to use "who" instead.)
Okay, had to look up the word "prescriptivist". Thanks for the compliment, ;). But since you are hired as a grammar moderator, shouldn't you be too? Or at the very least, test both colloquial (ordinary/familiar) and correct (formal/written)?
And yes, I would say the majority of people I surround myself with use "whom" ( But yes, we tend to end spoken conversation on prepositions; That is not what I am focusing on.) And since I believe you keep making cracks at my age, I am under the label "millennial".
Okay, correction. It seems like moderators are not hired but "volunteers". So I thank you, if that is the case, despite the attitude I constantly seem to encounter with you.
You may have looked it up, but I believe that you misunderstood its definition. The descriptive approach (the opposite of the prescriptive approach) takes into account that languages evolve over time (if that weren't the case, half the world would be speaking Proto-Indo-European right now) and accept those changes as the official grammatical standard.
Thou, thee, thy... disappeared because the overwhelming majority of native speakers stopped using those forms. Hence, at some point it stopped making sense to declare a vast proportion of the population grammatically illiterate. What would you have said back then? Probably the same thing you are saying now. But with no effect, since those forms would have disappeared anyway. It is a fact that, at least in spoken language, most people prefer 'who' to 'whom'. Why not accept it as the standard?
What you call 'mistakes', historical linguists call 'innovation'. Or do you admittedly speak a completely bastardized version of Middle English, which is, in turn, an error-ridden distorted version of Old English, which, in turn, is... yada yada yada... completely unintelligible Proto-Germanic...?
Oh, I KNOW you meant it as an insult.
Once again, in this case (who/whom), your reasoning does not apply. And you will not stand down, no matter how many English professors and masters tell you otherwise.
I have no idea where I supposedly insulted you, but if such an interpretation of my phrasing makes you feel better, I will not protest.
I don't accept your argumentum ab auctoritate. If there are some purist professors, who are ignorant of language development, that's their problem.