gah. Read a parenthesis after who.
accord to m-w.com there is no such distinction.
same thing with webster’s new universal unabridged dictionary.
but for the sake of all who think there right I’ll admit that it is a very rare use of it.
Bullshit. Put up or shut up.
Idiot boy, not only do you punctuate incorrectly, you also can’t read.
hmm… what’s wrong with my last post?
Once again I cited m-w and Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary.
So let’s have a link or a quotation.
Main Entry: who 
Pronunciation: 'hü, ü
Function: pronoun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English hwA; akin to Old High German hwer, interrogative pronoun, who, Latin quis, Greek tis, Latin qui, relative pronoun, who
Date: before 12th century
1 : what or which person or persons – used as an interrogative <who was elected?> <find out who they are> – used by speakers on all educational levels and by many reputable writers, though disapproved by some grammarians, as the object of a verb or a following preposition <who did I see but a Spanish lady – Padraic Colum> <do not know who the message is from – G. K. Chesterton>
2 : the person or persons that : WHOEVER
3 – used as a function word to introduce a relative clause; used especially in reference to persons <my father, who was a lawyer> but also in reference to groups <a generation who had known nothing but war – R. B. West> or to animals <dogs who… fawn all over tramps – Nigel Balchin> or to inanimate objects especially with the implication that the reference is really to a person <earlier sources who maintain a Davidic ancestry – F. M. Cross> – used by speakers on all educational levels and by many reputable writers, though disapproved by some grammarians, as the object of a verb or a following preposition <a character who we are meant to pity – Times Literary Supplement>
The Webster new universal unabridged dictionary will be here in the next 10 minutes.
Your cite proves that you are wrong, jerk (well, that’s your name). See that part where it says “Words commonly confused”? It means what we’re about to see is two DIFFERENT words that are COMMONLY CONFUSED. Now, I hope at this point you understand that what follows are not synonyms, but two different words that mean different things that might be mixed up by someone sometimes. These are not INTERCHANGEABLE because they are commonly confused. They are COMMONLY MISUSED because they are commonly confused.
Your cite goes onto explain:
WHO’S is a contraction meaning WHO IS.
WHOSE is a possessive.
Hence, every single time you see WHO’S you can substitute WHO IS. Your thread title is PEOPLE WHO IS WEBLOGS SUCK.
No, That’s phrase specific usage of the contraction in slang. No a guide to using the word.
Who’s is a contraction of who is or who has. That’s all it is. There is no “phrase specific usage of the contraction in slang” where it means anything else. You made a fucking typo. For chrissakes, we all do it. Just be a man about it instead of citing the dictionary (which proves you are wrong) and then pretend it really says something else.
I think I see a trend in That Insufferable Jerk…'s posts here.
In addition to the trend of being wrong, that is.
Jerk, and I feel like I can call you that, could you do a favor for li’l ol’ me and show us the part of that m-w entry that proves your point? Because I ain’t seeing it. It must be me, though, because you couldn’t possibly be as thick as you seem.
First of all you mean "…all who think they’re right, not “there [sic] right.”
“They’re” is a contraction of “they are.”
“There” is a preposition.
And just to be thorough, “their” is a third person, plural possessive.
Secondly (just so you know) Eli has a Masters Degree in English. He knows what he’s talking about while you clearly don’t.
Ah, it was Matt’s cite that had the usage I quoted. Your cite doesn’t have anything at all on “who’s”, or “whose,” only a definition of “who.”
Insufferable Troll would be a better name for this guy.
It is a phrase specific usage of it in slang, and it was a typo, but when I looked it up in the dictionary I realized that there is no reference to the correct usage of the possessive “’ ’s “ with who. Amazingly none of you can prove me wrong because it isn’t wrong. It surprised me to, but you can’t.
And for the there/ they’re reference if you read the posts you would realize that it is a joke.
<a character who we are meant to pity – Times Literary Supplement>
usage see WHOM, THAT
- as who archaic : as one that : as if someone
- as who should say archaic : so to speak
- who is who or who’s who or who was who : the identity of or the noteworthy facts about each of a number of persons
Bottom of Form 0
As you can see it’s referring to a specific usage of the contraction in a phrase of slang.
The first few sentences were quite amusing, but the humor rapidly tailed off. Points lost for repeatedly failing to spell “you’re” correctly. Overall score: 2.7 on the ice skating scale.