Awkward sentence; 'Whom' or 'That'?

[IIIClovisIII]

I am writing a business letter and need help on using either "who", "whom", or "that" plus or minus any prepositions, function words, etc.

Here is the sentence:

"I have worked five manual jobs in the past four years and have seen a common theme; the lazy, disorganized, or otherwise careless worker ______ an employer would be better without."

Thanks to anyone who can help.

[FattyCatty]

I am writing a business letter and need help on using either "who", "whom", or "that" plus or minus any prepositions, function words, etc.

Here is the sentence:

"I have worked five manual jobs in the past four years and have seen a common theme; the lazy, disorganized, or otherwise careless worker ______ an employer would be better without."

Thanks to anyone who can help.I think it should be whom, as it is the object of a preposition (without). You could rephrase the sentence to read "...without whom an employer would do better." This would also keep you from ending your sentence with a preposition. I would probably phrase it differently: "...careless worker that usually undermines an employer's endeavors."


Also, your semicolon after "theme" should be a colon. I'm glad to see you adhere to the classic series comma rule.

[ehcks]

If you're referring to a person, it should always be who or whom.

[IIIClovisIII]

I think it should be whom, as it is the object of a preposition (without). You could rephrase the sentence to read "...without whom an employer would do better." This would also keep you from ending your sentence with a preposition. I would probably phrase it differently: "...careless worker that usually undermines an employer's endeavors."


Also, your semicolon after "theme" should be a colon. I'm glad to see you adhere to the classic series comma rule.

See, I thought about it for a few minutes then realized that "whom" really fit best considering the circumstances.

And about the commas.......yeap, I never stray from that habit. ;)

[Ray Brady]

Go for "...without whom an employer would be better off." A pedant might say that the preposition "without" shouldn't be separated so far from its object.

[Kopji]

"I have worked five manual jobs in the past four years and have seen a common theme; the lazy, disorganized, or otherwise careless worker ______ an employer would be better without."


Since this is a business letter and not a school project, I would reconsider the entire sentence:

"I have worked five jobs in the past four years. I am a hard working, organized, and careful worker who has high standards of workmanship and performance."

I can't think of any time the other sentence would be what you want to put in a letter.

[rjh01]

I do not see that the following is a theme
"...the lazy, disorganized, or otherwise careless worker ______ an employer would be better without."

Also what is the context of the sentence? See post 6.

[Roma]

Since this is a business letter and not a school project, I would reconsider the entire sentence:

"I have worked five jobs in the past four years. I am a hard working, organized, and careful worker who has high standards of workmanship and performance."

I can't think of any time the other sentence would be what you want to put in a letter.

I completely agree with Kpoji .

[Finn McR]

Aside from other, previous, excellent points, old-school written English (at least American English) considers ending a sentence with a preposition (e.g., without) to be bad form. That is a convention that has almost entirely disappeared from spoken language and is in serious decline in written language, though. Adhering to that rule risks putting one in the position of the type of person who uses "one" in place of "you."

Long Live the Oxford Comma!

[roger]

That sentence is awkward regardless of what word you put in there. Even if it makes sense to say that in context, I'd rewrite the entire thing.

[rjh01]

Aside from other, previous, excellent points, old-school written English (at least American English) considers ending a sentence with a preposition (e.g., without) to be bad form. That is a convention that has almost entirely disappeared from spoken language and is in serious decline in written language, though. Adhering to that rule risks putting one in the position of the type of person who uses "one" in place of "you."

Long Live the Oxford Comma!

The reason it was considered by some that you should not end a sentence with a preposition is because it is impossible to do so in Latin. The English grammar books I have read all say this "rule" can be ignored.

[H'ethetheth]

Since this is a business letter and not a school project, I would reconsider the entire sentence:

"I have worked five jobs in the past four years. I am a hard working, organized, and careful worker who has high standards of workmanship and performance."

I can't think of any time the other sentence would be what you want to put in a letter.You're right, but I'm not sure this is a job application. If it's a letter about, say, management tips for motivating employees, this sentence might be appropriate, though still harsh.
But yeah, Clovis, if you mean to say that you're more hard working than these lazy people, just say you're hard working without referring to anonymous other people, because you're not going to come off as a team player if you write stuff like that.

[Jeff Corey]

I am writing a business letter and need help on using either "who", "whom", or "that" plus or minus any prepositions, function words, etc.

Here is the sentence:

"I have worked five manual jobs in the past four years and have seen a common theme; the lazy, disorganized, or otherwise careless worker ______ an employer would be better without."

Thanks to anyone who can help.

Well, the original blank should be filled with "that".
But it may be a bad idea. I would say nothing like that.
What point are you trying to make here? You are a superior manual laborer that is not a sluff-off featherbedder? Well then, frackin say that.
And see if they know what a featherbedder is.

[Finn McR]

The reason it was considered by some that you should not end a sentence with a preposition is because it is impossible to do so in Latin. The English grammar books I have read all say this "rule" can be ignored.

Excellent point! Clearly the ironic use of the term "old-school" was not lost on you. However, you are certainly correct about which you write.

[GlennB]

If you're referring to a person, it should always be who or whom.

Except that "that" is in such common use that it's perfectly acceptable. Type "the man that" into Google and see what it finds ;)

"Whom" is edging towards extinction and usually comes across as very formal or even pompous.

[Dave Rogers]

Except that "that" is in such common use that it's perfectly acceptable. Type "the man that" into Google and see what it finds ;)

Where I come from, it would be "that there man what". Don't use "the man who", because you won't want them to think you're a Travis fan.

Oh, and incidentally: "I have worked five manual jobs..." - shouldn't there be a preposition in there somewhere?

Dave

[Soapy Sam]

In Briteng yes, in USSpeak, no.

[Tanja]

English is my second language, so I may be completely wrong, Clovis, but to me that sentence reads as if you are the lazy disorganised worker - after all, the common theme in your last five jobs is you.

If you are applying for jobs, it is considered bad form to be disparaging about ex co-workers. I would suggest rephrasing into something like "I was one of the top performers in my team" etc.

[3point14]

The reason it was considered by some that you should not end a sentence with a preposition is because it is impossible to do so in Latin. The English grammar books I have read all say this "rule" can be ignored.


Bravo.

Same thing with splitting infinitives too.

[3point14]

Except that "that" is in such common use that it's perfectly acceptable. Type "the man that" into Google and see what it finds ;)

"Whom" is edging towards extinction and usually comes across as very formal or even pompous.

Whom is not edging towards extinction round here. It seems to be making a bit of a comeback. I certainly see/hear it more often than I did.

And I am singlehandedly bringing back the correct use of the word 'one' where modern vulgarity has replaced it with the terribly accusatory 'you'.

[GlennB]

Whom is not edging towards extinction round here. It seems to be making a bit of a comeback. I certainly see/hear it more often than I did.

Sloane Square? ;)

And I am singlehandedly bringing back the correct use of the word 'one' where modern vulgarity has replaced it with the terribly accusatory 'you'.

Nope, MrsB is in the vanguard. She managed at least four "one"s in a single complex sentence just the other day. I gave her a round of applause, as one would :)

eta: years back, waiting in the queue at the cafeteria of John Lewis(?) on the King's Road, a Sloane Ranger in front of me was enquiring as to the payee on the cheque he was about to write. But with the question "Whom to?", causing me to cringe so hard I nearly sprained a rib.

[commandlinegamer]

I am writing a business letter and need help on using either "who", "whom", or "that" plus or minus any prepositions, function words, etc.

Here is the sentence:

"I have worked five manual jobs in the past four years and have seen a common theme; the lazy, disorganized, or otherwise careless worker ______ an employer would be better without."

Thanks to anyone who can help.

"I have had five situations as a manual worker in the past four years. I am hardworking, organized and careful."

Next question.

[JJM 777]

To me it looks like the OP writer does not speak of himself, but rather of problem workers at workplaces (he might be offering consultation how to get rid of them, or how to improve their performance), in this sentence:

> "I have worked five manual jobs in the past four years
> and have seen a common theme; the lazy, disorganized,
> or otherwise careless worker ______ an employer would be better without."

I would write it in this way:

"I have worked five manual jobs in the past four years,
and have seen a common theme: the lazy, disorganized,
or otherwise careless worker, without whom an employer would be better off."

Modern Americans (at least in the South-East) love to end sentences with useless prepositions even when no prepositions are required at all. For example: Where did you learn this at?

[roger]

The whole sentence is a mess, as evidenced by all the questions about it. What is the important point here? That *you* have been employed in manual jobs for 4 years, that you have had a lot of different jobs in 5 years, or that there are a lot of bad employees in the manual sector? In any case, the whole thing is awkward. Assuming these are all points you need to breathlessly get into one sentence, I'd leave of the concluding phrase, as it is rather self evident.

I have worked five manual jobs in the past four years, and have seen a common theme: the lazy, disorganized, or otherwise careless worker.


I'm guessing the sentence doesn't stand alone, and the elided portion will become very clear in the following sentences. "Thus I am a great asset for this position.." or "Studies show that 23% of all waste in companies is caused by these workers..." or whatever the point is.

[JoeTheJuggler]

If you're referring to a person, it should always be who or whom.

Not true, and I can provide examples from literature.

The one that springs first to mind is Mark Twain's short story, "The Man That Corrupted Hadleyburg."

And Shakespeare, "The man that hath no music in himself. . . " (from Merchant of Venice).

[JoeTheJuggler]

I would write it in this way:

"I have worked five manual jobs in the past four years,
and have seen a common theme: the lazy, disorganized,
or otherwise careless worker, without whom an employer would be better off."


The first comma you added, JJM, is wrong. In a complex sentence (same subject for two predicates), you don't use a comma before the "and". (You do use it for compound sentences.) The basic idea is that you don't want a comma separating a subject from its predicate.

[JoeTheJuggler]

"I have had five situations as a manual worker in the past four years. I am hardworking, organized and careful."

Next question.


I agree. The grammatical issues aside, it's stylistically awkward to try to say too many things in a single sentence.

If this is a cover letter for a resume or job application, complaints about bad workers have no place. If the letter is about the bad workers for some reason, try organizing the ideas into separate sentences, or possibly even separate paragraphs.

[blobru]

"I myself, one and the same with he or she or her or him who it is that is writing this letter not to mention this sentence and indeed this very word moreover precisely, yes I, I! I!!! have worked jobs (worked 'at' them, that is) manual in nature of a total equal to five during the four years which alas are now irretrievably past and lo have I seen a theme most bitter, a theme of a bitterness like cold black ashes in the frowning mouth of a sad clown, sad because he feels too much, deep down inside, where he hides his secret pain and cries silently, tears not only running down his cheeks and ruining the make-up he's spent like hours applying but squirting copiously from his nasolacrimal ducts onto his bright red clown nose whereupon to pool like ephemeral quivering dewdrops on a gross rose petal that honks when you squeeze it, common to all: the 'worker', so-called -- lazy, disorganized, or otherwise careless; unabashedly inefficient & unproductive; o woe unto you, malingering Israel! as it was in the days of pharoah so let it be in the days to come -- better off without whom an employer would be... (IMHO, at least)." :)

[commandlinegamer]

Ah, yes. Stream-of-consciousness might work.

The other point I would advise is to make the section where you list personal hobbies stand out. Don't forget to mention that you dress up as Hello Kitty at the weekend or enjoy chainsaw carving; it makes all the difference.

[JJM 777]

The first comma you added, JJM, is wrong.
(...)
you don't want a comma separating a subject from its predicate.
How about: "Yesterday I watched a movie, wrote a letter, ate popcorn, and phoned my mom."

I have no clue about the rules why this should be forbidden, I always try to separate phrases from each other with punctuation whenever possible, it is easier to comprehend.

[Roma]

"I myself, one and the same with he or she or her or him who it is that is writing this.... -- better off without whom an employer would be... (IMHO, at least)." :)



Funny ! :D

I vote for this version.

[JJM 777]

"I myself, one and the same with he or she or her or him who it is that is writing this letter not to mention this sentence and indeed this very word moreover precisely, yes I, I! I!!! have worked jobs (worked 'at' them, that is) manual in nature of a total equal to five during the four years which alas are now irretrievably past and lo have I seen a theme most bitter, a theme of a bitterness like cold black ashes in the frowning mouth of a sad clown, sad because he feels too much, deep down inside, where he hides his secret pain and cries silently, tears not only running down his cheeks and ruining the make-up he's spent like hours applying but squirting copiously from his nasolacrimal ducts onto his bright red clown nose whereupon to pool like ephemeral quivering dewdrops on a gross rose petal that honks when you squeeze it, common to all: the 'worker', so-called -- lazy, disorganized, or otherwise careless; unabashedly inefficient & unproductive; o woe unto you, malingering Israel! as it was in the days of pharoah so let it be in the days to come -- better off without whom an employer would be... (IMHO, at least)." :)
:D

[ZirconBlue]

How about: "Yesterday I watched a movie, wrote a letter, ate popcorn, and phoned my mom."

I have no clue about the rules why this should be forbidden, I always try to separate phrases from each other with punctuation whenever possible, it is easier to comprehend.

In this example, you're using commas to separate items in a list. When the list is only two items, the comma is not needed.