alex’s trashcan

nice, fr — milan, it

[alex’s trashcan @decalingualex]

@jijidinha you wrote “I” between but and neither

[alex’s trashcan @decalingualex]

@jijidinha yes but your tweet’s grammatically wrong no?

[alex’s trashcan @decalingualex]

@jijidinha this tweet makes no sense

[alex’s trashcan @decalingualex]

@jijidinha have a weird accent i mean

[alex’s trashcan @decalingualex]

@jijidinha you do

[alex’s trashcan @decalingualex]

@Gold_Pesa woop woop #goldpesa

[alex’s trashcan @decalingualex]

@jijidinha yeah

[alex’s trashcan @decalingualex]

@jijidinha changing to a to+v construction would actually make your “whom” correct, otherwise it’s “who”
are you trying to miss any points im giving you on purpose, just for the sole of convincing yourself youre always right?

[alex’s trashcan @decalingualex]

@jijidinha jieun if youre just not ready to read the proofs that ive sent you and admit youre wrong, thats fine, but youre the one staying in ignorance and im the one trying to nicely tell you you’re wrong

[alex’s trashcan @decalingualex]

@jijidinha omg youre mixing everything up wtf are you stupid??
theres a difference between “i thought the woman to be …” (i think + someone (obj) + to + v) and “i thought {[that] the woman is …” with {} being an entirely separate clause with the woman being the subject

[alex’s trashcan @decalingualex]

@jijidinha so now are you ready to admit defeat?

[alex’s trashcan @decalingualex]

@jijidinha if you read the forum correctly, you’d see that the sentence goes
the woman whom i thought TO BE
just like i said a few tweets ago ;)))

[alex’s trashcan @decalingualex]

@jijidinha to know + object + to [v] (whom)
to know [clause] (who)

[alex’s trashcan @decalingualex]

@jijidinha lastly, if you really wanted to use whom correctly, you could say:
"I miss being unafraid of love or expressing it to someone I can trust, whom I would know to love unconditionally"
in this case, you know someone you can trust, someone that/whom you'd know to be capable of loving