Ubiquitous misuse of "whom" and "whomever"

[Vortigern99]

The misuse of the words whom and whomever is becoming more commonplace, and more frustrating to an officer of the Grammar Gestapo such as myself. Here is my pitiful attempt to forestall the inevitable crumbling of the fabric of society which will ensue if the abuse is allowed to continue. :D

Here is the rule.

Who is a relative pronoun; it introduces a subordinate clause that modifies a noun or pronoun occurring earlier in the sentence, and connects a dependent clause to the main clause.

(Who is the only relative pronoun that changes its form to indicate case, as in who, whose, whom, whoever, whomever.)

Who and whoever are used in the nominative case, used for the subject of the sentence or clause (meaning that it has a verb attached to it):

Who ate the last piece of pumpkin pie?
The Wayne Foundation interviewed all the candidates who applied.
The Justice League will help whoever needs help.

Whom and whomever are used in the objective case, where they receive the action as an object of the verb or preposition.

1) As the object of a verb:

Dr. Frankenstein is the surgeon whom we recommend.
I know whomever we ask will be criticized [or criticised in the UK] by Gandalf.

2) As the object of a proposition:

All the wizards with whom Saruman worked were experienced.
Wonder Woman nominated Green Lantern, for whom we all have high regard.


3) As the object of an infinitive (which is a verb in its "to _____" form):

We do not know whom to invite to destroy the Hall of Justice.
I shall bestow these moldy tomes upon whomever you choose to elect.

Okay? It's really that simple! So, I don't want to hear or read any more "Whom is going to the prom?" or "I like whomever is the prettiest," or any of that infuriating rubbish! :mad:

Okay. Back to real life now. Have fun excoriating me for my membership in the GG. :p

[Mr. Purple]

Whom is this directed at?

:boxedin:

[JoeTheJuggler]

Don't get me started!

People make the same exact mistake with any personal pronoun that is inflected to show case when the pronoun is compounded with another noun using "and". I/me, she/her, he/him, we/us and they/them.

ETA: Examples: *John gave Mary and I the ball. (indirect object in nominative form)
*The office contacted Mr. Phelps and she. (direct object in nominative form--and yes, I do hear people making this mistake!)


I hear this all the time, most commonly on sports radio talk shows.

BTW, in standard speech, it's perfectly acceptable to use who and whoever for both cases. The inflected objective case form is on its way out of usage anyway. I think the reason people misuse "whom" especially is that the slightly archaic sound gives it a more formal or literary feel. (That is, they're being pretentious.)

[quadraginta]

Whom is this directed at?

:boxedin:


Don't you mean "At whom is this directed ... at."

...


:boxedin: :boxedin:

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I was once accused by a business associate of being the only person he had met who had used "whomsoever" in spoken conversation.

I am pretty sure I used it right. :duck:

[Vortigern99]

I was once accused by a business associate of being the only person he had met who had used "whomsoever" in spoken conversation.

I am pretty sure I used it right. :duck:

My last example in the OP -- "I shall bestow these moldy tomes upon whomever you choose to elect." -- might equally have used whomsoever, but as it's an antiquated word I chose not to muddy the waters. ;)

I'm keen to know: Do you recall in what exact sentence you used whomsoever?

[Roxane]

Dr. Frankenstein is the surgeon whom we recommend.
I know whomever we ask will be criticized [or criticised in the UK] by Gandalf.

Ooh, I don't like the way that sounds. I think I'll keep using who and whoever, respectively, in cases like these. Better cuff me, officer! :p

[Rat]

I have never understood why people find it so difficult. Who/he - whom/him. It's a sexist way of remembering it perhaps, but if you need to remember it (as opposed to its coming naturally) it's fairly foolproof, if only it were not for fools.

And as for I/me and the like, all of these cases are made clear by deleting the other party. It's almost always when there are two parties in the sentence that people get it confused.

[Rat]

And, in fact, with regard to people's not knowing when to use who or whom, it rather reminds me of British people who find the US use of 'gotten' absolutely mystifying, and can't imagine when one would use 'got' and when to use 'gotten'. Yet these same people go through life with no difficulty knowing whether to use 'forgot' or 'forgotten'. Or some of them, at least, have no such difficulty.

[theprestige]

...

tl;dr

Which is, in fact, the whole problem in the first place.

My job is to provide technical assistance to Portuguese-speaking customers. The Portuguese rules of grammar are mind-boggling in number. There are different verb conjugations for the future conditional and the future mandatory. There are sixteen different rules of accentuation, all of which are arbitrary and must be memorized based on one's preexisting knowledge of how the words are pronounced. There are rules of gender for nouns, with their arbitrary exceptions.

All of this, and more, has led me to the conclusion that if who/whom needs more than two sentences of explanation, it's a distinction English is better off without, and a colossal waste of however many minutes of their lives that English teachers and grammar-nazis have spent on it. The sooner English is rid of these unnecessary words and rules, the better.

[Rat]

tl;dr


All of this, and more, has led me to the conclusion that if who/whom needs more than two sentences of explanation, it's a distinction English is better off without, and a colossal waste of however many minutes of their lives that English teachers and grammar-nazis have spent on it. The sooner English is rid of these unnecessary words and rules, the better.
Just whom do you think you are?

:boxedin:

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Let he who is without sin, and all that jazz:
http://www.keyway.ca/htm2004/20040811.htm

Let we hope that such illiteracy... Oh, bugger it, why bother?

[maxpower1227]

Alright, I tried to understand this, but a few of the examples just don't make sense to me. Could someone clarify?

Who and whoever are used in the nominative case, used for the subject of the sentence or clause (meaning that it has a verb attached to it):


The Justice League will help whoever needs help.

Now, to me, it seems that the "whoever" in this sentence refers not to the subject of the sentence (the Justice League), but to the object of the verb "to help".

Whom and whomever are used in the objective case, where they receive the action as an object of the verb or preposition.

1) As the object of a verb:

Dr. Frankenstein is the surgeon whom we recommend.


And in this sentence, the "whom" seems to refer to the subject of the sentence (Dr. Frankenstein/surgeon).

Am I missing something here?

[Lucian]

Alright, I tried to understand this, but a few of the examples just don't make sense to me. Could someone clarify?

Who and whoever are used in the nominative case, used for the subject of the sentence or clause (meaning that it has a verb attached to it):


The Justice League will help whoever needs help.

Now, to me, it seems that the "whoever" in this sentence refers not to the subject of the sentence (the Justice League), but to the object of the verb "to help".

This one is confusing because "whoever" is both the subject of "needs help" (replace with a personal pronoun--"he needs help") and the object of "will help" ("The Justice League will help him"). It should be "whoever," though, because that is the relative pronoun that is the subject of the relative clause. Still, it would be less awkward to say "The Justice League will help anyone who needs help."

Whom and whomever are used in the objective case, where they receive the action as an object of the verb or preposition.

1) As the object of a verb:

Dr. Frankenstein is the surgeon whom we recommend.


And in this sentence, the "whom" seems to refer to the subject of the sentence (Dr. Frankenstein/surgeon).

Am I missing something here?
In this sentence, "whom" is the object of "we recommend." Again, replace the relative with a personal pronoun: "We recommend him."

[Vortigern99]

Who and whoever are used in the nominative case, used for the subject of the sentence or clause (meaning that it has a verb attached to it):

The Justice League will help whoever needs help.

Now, to me, it seems that the "whoever" in this sentence refers not to the subject of the sentence (the Justice League), but to the object of the verb "to help".

In the example sentence, "whoever" has a verb attached to it -- "needs". I could expound on this, but basically that's all you need to do to identify whether to use who or whom: is it the subject of a sentence or clause, meaning it has a verb attached to it?

Whom and whomever are used in the objective case, where they receive the action as an object of the verb or preposition.

1) As the object of a verb:

Dr. Frankenstein is the surgeon whom we recommend.

And in this sentence, the "whom" seems to refer to the subject of the sentence (Dr. Frankenstein/surgeon).

Am I missing something here?

Yes, you're missing that "we recommend" him. Dr. Frankenstein is the subject of the clause "Dr. Frankenstein is the surgeon", but whom is the object of the clause "we recommend". It receives the action, so it takes the objective case.

Does that clarify? I don't want to muddy the waters with more detailed explanations, but I can do so at your request. :D

ETA: Yes, yes, to Lucian you listen!

[Vortigern99]

Ooh, I don't like the way that sounds. I think I'll keep using who and whoever, respectively, in cases like these. Better cuff me, officer! :p

It's generally acceptable to use "who" in place of "whom", especially in everyday speech and writing. (Though I'll be glad to cuff you anyway. ;))

What is not acceptable is using "whom" pretentiously and incorrectly. That always identifies the speaker as uneducated and, well, pretentious.

tl;dr

Which is, in fact, the whole problem in the first place.

...

All of this, and more, has led me to the conclusion that if who/whom needs more than two sentences of explanation, it's a distinction English is better off without, and a colossal waste of however many minutes of their lives that English teachers and grammar-nazis have spent on it. The sooner English is rid of these unnecessary words and rules, the better.

How 'bout I boil it down to one sentence: Use "who" if it has a verb attached to it; use "whom" if it receives the action. Succinct enough for you? :D

And, in fact, with regard to people's not knowing when to use who or whom, it rather reminds me of British people who find the US use of 'gotten' absolutely mystifying, and can't imagine when one would use 'got' and when to use 'gotten'. Yet these same people go through life with no difficulty knowing whether to use 'forgot' or 'forgotten'. Or some of them, at least, have no such difficulty.

Get, got, have got(ten). Brits take note: It's just that simple.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

If it's him who or her who, it's whomever. If it's he who or she who, it's whoever.

You may smoke.

[Vortigern99]

If it's him who or her who, it's whomever. If it's he who or she who, it's whoever.

You may smoke.


"Him who"? I can think of no correct use of this word group. Would you care to offer one? :confused:

[rjh01]

How does this all matter? If someone used the wrong words would the sentence mean something else?

Can we simplify the English Language by merging these words together?

[Lucian]

"Him who"? I can think of no correct use of this word group. Would you care to offer one? :confused:

I believe he means when "whomever" takes the place of a direct object (or indirect object or object of a preposition) followed by a relative pronoun, as in your example "The Justice League will help whoever needs help," which could be written as "The Justice League will help him who needs help." If he's correct, and he may well be, then it should be "whomever" not "whoever." I'm not sure at the moment. I seem to have developed a case of the stupids.

[Lucian]

How does this all matter? If someone used the wrong words would the sentence mean something else?

Can we simplify the English Language by merging these words together?

Well, the English language has been simplifying itself (or, at any rate, losing its inflections) for around a thousand years now (since before the Norman Conquest). The confusion over "who/whom" and the gradual disappearance of "whom" is a current example of this evolution. It doesn't mean we have to like it though.

[Vortigern99]

It matters because adhering to the rules of the language identify a speaker or writer as someone whose opinion is worth considering.

It matters because to be effective speakers, we must achieve clarity of expression.

It matters because we need to be able to present ideas without confusion, by choosing words suited to our purpose.

A speaker may say, "It's me. I ain't the one that come first, but I'm gonna speak for all us boys." The intent is clear, but the choice of words is crude. While informal speech commonly uses colloquial expressions, few people wish to appear illiterate in their speaking or writing. -- Margaret Shertzer, The Elements of Grammar

Our language is inextricably bound up with our humanity. -- Thomas Pyles, The Origins and Development of the English Language.

[Vortigern99]

I believe he means when "whomever" takes the place of a direct object (or indirect object or object of a preposition) followed by a relative pronoun, as in your example "The Justice League will help whoever needs help," which could be written as "The Justice League will help him who needs help." If he's correct, and he may well be, then it should be "whomever" not "whoever." I'm not sure at the moment. I seem to have developed a case of the stupids.

No, correct grammar would be: "The Justice League will help he who needs help." The italicized four-word clause is the object of the verb "will help".

Whoever is also correct in this sentence because it is the subject of the verb "needs".

See Shertzer, The Elements of Grammar, pp. 18-19.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

"Him who"? I can think of no correct use of this word group. Would you care to offer one? :confused:

No. On reflection, I see that I was careless.You got it right and I got it wrong.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Mind you, there's this:
John 8:7
“Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.”

I make that Let whomever rather than Let whoever.

[Lucian]

No, correct grammar would be: "The Justice League will help he who needs help." The italicized four-word clause is the object of the verb "will help".

Whoever is also correct in this sentence because it is the subject of the verb "needs".

See Shertzer, The Elements of Grammar, pp. 18-19.

Okay, I've recovered from the stupids, and you're right that it would be "whoever," but I don't accept "...help he who needs help." The object of the verb "will help" has to be objective ("him"); the subject of "needs help" is subjective ("who"); therefore, "whoever" would be correct.

In Lord Muck O'Gentry's earlier post (#12), he quoted a website that misquoted a biblical passage: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." That is incorrect. The personal pronoun is the object of "let," so it must be (and is) "Let him who is without sin...." "Let whoever is without sin cast the first stone" would also be correct.

[Vortigern99]

No, "let he who is without sin" is correct. The entire clause "he who is without sin" is the object of the verb "let" -- not just the pronoun "he", but the entire clause.

[Vortigern99]

Mind you, there's this:
John 8:7
“Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.”

I make that Let whomever rather than Let whoever.

Antiquated usage preferred "let him", but in modern English the correct construction is "let he who".

"Let whoever is among you" would be correct because whoever is the subject of the clause "whoever is." It has a verb. "Whomever is" is grammatically incorrect.

[brodski]

It matters because adhering to the rules of the language identify a speaker or writer as someone whose opinion is worth considering. Utter nonsense, it identifies someone who speaks a particular dialect. In a few rare cases this may be related to their field of (claimed) expertise, in other cases it may be correlated with their field of (claimed) expertise, but in many cases it is completely unrelated. You may as well claim that wearing a tie is a mark of someone whose opinion is worth considering.


It matters because to be effective speakers, we must achieve clarity of expression.

It matters because we need to be able to present ideas without confusion, by choosing words suited to our purpose.

A speaker may say, "It's me. I ain't the one that come first, but I'm gonna speak for all us boys." The intent is clear, but the choice of words is crude. While informal speech commonly uses colloquial expressions, few people wish to appear illiterate in their speaking or writing. -- Margaret Shertzer, The Elements of Grammar


Is this deliberate irony?

You repeat the myth (twice) that Standard English somehow achieves greater clarity than other dialects then offer (presumably in support) a quote which points out that non-standard constructions do not diminish clarity.

[brodski]

Antiquated usage preferred "let him", but in modern English the correct construction is "let he who".

Wow, English has changed a lot since 2001, or perhaps the rules aren't quiet as cut and dried as you would prefer.

[Vortigern99]

You're welcome to disagree with my opinions and the quotes I've offered to support them.

I notice that in doing so, you've chosen to use correct grammar and punctuation. Good for you! :D

[brodski]

You're welcome to disagree with my opinions and the quotes I've offered to support them. Your quote directly contradicts your position. You may be able to adhere to the currently fashionable style of a certain dialect but your reading comprehension seems woefully lacking.



I notice that in doing so, you've chosen to use correct grammar and punctuation. Good for you! :D

No, I have chosen to use one of the several dialects which I speak. I always try to tailor my writing to my audience, If I had used the grammar and diction of one of the other dialects which I use on a daily basis you would have focused on that rather than on addressing my argument.

As it is you focused on my grammar rather than addressed my argument. Is this perhaps because you have no argument of your own?

[Vortigern99]

You seem angry for some reason, and on that account I'm not interested in engaging in an exchange of ideas with you.

My opinions on the need for correct grammar remain, whether you personally disagree with them or not. If you want to discuss whether correct English grammar is a dialect, either start your own thread or find someone who wants to have that discussion with you. I don't.

[zooterkin]

You seem angry for some reason, and on that account I'm not interested in engaging in an exchange of ideas with you. I think you're reading something that's not there.



My opinions on the need for correct grammar remain, whether you personally disagree with them or not. If you want to discuss whether correct English grammar is a dialect, either start your own thread or find someone who wants to have that discussion with you. I don't.

Who determines which particular set of English grammar is "correct"? Do you say "it's not that big a deal", or, "it's not that big of a deal"?

[rjh01]

There is a bit of conflict between several members over what is correct English. If those "in the know" cannot agree on the answers how can the rest of us mortals know the correct English grammar?

As zooterkin says who has the final word on the subject?

[quadraginta]

Antiquated usage preferred "let him", but in modern English the correct construction is "let he who".

<snip>


How do you decide when "antiquated" equals obsolete, and which "modern gets to be right?

Once you concede that that language is a fluid and evolving construct then after that it seems to me an element of obstinacy and snobbery can creep in. It has already been conceded here that the 'who/whom' distinction is fading in modern usage, so that using "who" in place of "whom" is becoming less and less of a transgression. When will "whom" graduate to "antiquated" and thus become incorrect altogether? Who gets to choose?

[GlennB]

All of this, and more, has led me to the conclusion that if who/whom needs more than two sentences of explanation, it's a distinction English is better off without, and a colossal waste of however many minutes of their lives that English teachers and grammar-nazis have spent on it. The sooner English is rid of these unnecessary words and rules, the better.

Well said! Bravo!

My own brand of grammar-nazidom (naziness? nazitude?) would have whom consigned to the dustbin of linguistic history. Don't need it, not nohow. Also it's friggin' ugly. Fortunately it's dying anyway.

[rjh01]

What we need are the modern day equivalent of Vikings. They were not in sufficient numbers to impose their own language into England. However they did simplify the language. One example is that many plural words can now be made by adding a s to the singular word. One pen, many pens. This is unlike Latin and other languages where there is one word for the singular and another word for the plural. One child, many children. One mouse, many mice.

[KoihimeNakamura]

A word is considered antiquated (IIRC) when it is not used by the members of a few generalizations.

E.g. We no longer use ejaculation to mean shouted.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Antiquated usage preferred "let him", but in modern English the correct construction is "let he who".

"Let whoever is among you" would be correct because whoever is the subject of the clause "whoever is." It has a verb. "Whomever is" is grammatically incorrect.

Yes. I reckon you've got the rule right — if it's him who, it's whoever, and if it's him whom, it's whomever.
But I'm not so sure about modern usage. We don't, after all, say " Let we hope..."

The trouble is that whom has been making trouble for a long time:
http://bible.cc/matthew/16-15.htm
Being a shorthand-writer two thousand years ago must have been hell on wheels...

[Gord_in_Toronto]

My last example in the OP -- "I shall bestow these moldy tomes upon whomever you choose to elect." -- might equally have used whomsoever, but as it's an antiquated word I chose not to muddy the waters. ;)

I'm keen to know: Do you recall in what exact sentence you used whomsoever?

It was a long time ago but ISTR that he wanted to give away something I one owned (or had a claim to) and I said, "he could give it to whomsoever he wanted".

(I note that "whomsoever" appears in the Mozilla dictionary or at least the English language one.)

[Vortigern99]

What we need are the modern day equivalent of Vikings. They were not in sufficient numbers to impose their own language into England. However they did simplify the language. One example is that many plural words can now be made by adding a s to the singular word. One pen, many pens. This is unlike Latin and other languages where there is one word for the singular and another word for the plural. One child, many children. One mouse, many mice.

I don't who told you this, but they were mistaken. Child/children and mouse/mice are left over from Old English noun declensions, not Latin. The former word was once declined cild/cildru (singular/plural); it is a z-stem declension. The Modern English -s plural ending comes from Old English a-stem words, such as hund/hundas, "dog/dogs".

The Modern English possessive singular and general plural forms in -s come directly from the Old English genitive singular (-es) and the masculine nominative-accusative plural (-as) forms--two different forms until very late Old English times, when they fell together because the unstressed vowels had merged, probably as a schwa. In Middle English times both endings were spelled -es. Only in Modern English have they again been differentiated in spelling by the use of the apostrophe. Nowadays, new words invariably conform to what survives of the a-stem declension-- for example, hobbit's, hobbits, hobbits'--so that we may truly say it is the only living declension.
-- Pyle and Algeo, The Origins and Development of the English Language

Also, third declension Latin inserts -es for plural forms. Here's a fun one: fex/feces. ;)

[Vortigern99]

I am proceeding with a rebuttal to Brodski against my better judgement (and yes, I prefer to spell judgement with an e in the middle, even though modern usage prefers judgment! :eek:). I am interested in a fair and equitable exchange of ideas, and as my posting history will attest, I am not dogmatic and I readily admit errors when and where these can be conclusively demonstrated.

I'll start by quoting the post of mine to which Brodski so strenuously objected:

It matters because adhering to the rules of the language identify a speaker or writer as someone whose opinion is worth considering.

It matters because to be effective speakers, we must achieve clarity of expression.

It matters because we need to be able to present ideas without confusion, by choosing words suited to our purpose.

A speaker may say, "It's me. I ain't the one that come first, but I'm gonna speak for all us boys." The intent is clear, but the choice of words is crude. While informal speech commonly uses colloquial expressions, few people wish to appear illiterate in their speaking or writing. -- Margaret Shertzer, The Elements of Grammar

Our language is inextricably bound up with our humanity. -- Thomas Pyles, The Origins and Development of the English Language.

Utter nonsense, it identifies someone who speaks a particular dialect. In a few rare cases this may be related to their field of (claimed) expertise, in other cases it may be correlated with their field of (claimed) expertise, but in many cases it is completely unrelated. You may as well claim that wearing a tie is a mark of someone whose opinion is worth considering.

Except for the "utter nonsense" remark, I agree with everything you've written there. When I hang out with my musician friends, I rarely if ever use grammatically correct English, but favor a certain dialect which derives in part from the New Orleans Jazz scene of the early 20th century and in part from the psychedelic rock tradition of the late 1960s and 70s. There are likely other influences of which I am not aware.

Allow me to clarify my position, as in my attempt at succinctness I've left out important information.

When I write, "Adhering to the rules of the language identify a speaker or writer as someone whose opinion is worth considering", I mean, as though in parentheses, "in academic, scholarly, scientific and certain other professional circles."

You were right to call me on this, and I appreciate the opportunity to expound on my meaning.


Is this deliberate irony?

You repeat the myth (twice) that Standard English somehow achieves greater clarity than other dialects then offer (presumably in support) a quote which points out that non-standard constructions do not diminish clarity.

I believe, in my personal, subjective opinion, that Standard English achieves greater clarity, and garners a greater degree of respect from one's colleagues, than other dialects of English, when speaking or writing in academic, scholarly, scientific and certain other professional circles. You are welcome to disagree and/or to continue to call that a "myth".

As to the supposed "irony" or contradiction of my "offer (presumably in support) a quote which points out that non-standard constructions do not diminish clarity", you may note that clarity of intent and clarity of expression are two different, if related, ideas. You appear to have confused the two, and have taken me to task for a purely imagined breach of semantic logic.

Yes, the quoted speech beginning "It's me" is clear in its [I]intent, but the speaker does not express himself -- in the sense of conveying meaning -- as clearly, as succinctly, nor to a wider audience who may not grasp his especial idiom, as if he were to say, "I didn't arrive first, but I'll speak for all of us." or another, similar, grammatically correct phrasing.

Again, you're welcome to disagree in your own charming way, but that is my position and I'm sticking to it until you can show me that I'm somehow in error.

Wow, English has changed a lot since 2001, or perhaps the rules aren't quiet as cut and dried as you would prefer.

You do not and cannot know what I "would prefer". In addressing the use of correct grammar in academic, scholarly, scientific and other professional circles, I see that I've inadvertently conveyed an inflexible attitude toward the use of the English language in general. I apologize for that misstatement, and I assure you that in social circles and other non-academic environments, I employ a certain dialect favored by Texas artists, musicians and other creative types.

I also love and can fluently speak a rural Texan dialect and a black Texan dialect with equal aplomb and in the appropriate accent. I have no disdain for those idioms, and once again I apologize if I somehow conveyed snobbery or exclusivity in my earlier posts in this thread.

Now what's this about 2001?

[Agatha]

:)

See sig.

[X]

Regarding the OP: What does "nominative case" mean?

Please use small words. :covereyes

[roger]

Me don't care.

[calebprime]

Next up: Jealousy vs. Envy: Let's go back to the good old days!

(From some web page I agree with.)

Definition: Envy is the emotion when one wants something that someone or something else has.

Jealousy is the emotion when you fear something or someone might be taken away from you.

I'm envious of his car / her clothes. (Or conversely, his clothes and her car.)

It makes me jealous when she/he calls my partner up in the middle of the night. (Or perhaps only scared for my safety.)

[Vortigern99]

Regarding the OP: What does "nominative case" mean?

Please use small words. :covereyes

A pronoun takes the nominative case (I, you, she, he, it, we, you, they) when:

1) It's the subject of a verb:

I shall finish the report on Tuesday.
He received a fair bounty for his collection of goblin skulls.
They always pay their taxes on time.


2) It follows some form of the verb to be:

I think it was they who named Aragorn king.
If you were he, would you move to Gondor?

(NB: It's acceptable in common usage to use the objective case here instead: It's me!)

3) It is in apposition with the subject of a verb:

Several delegates, he among them, will state their case in the morning.
Most of the team, at least we from the upper classes, are in favor of stringing Saruman up by his testicles.

4) It is the complement of an infinitive:

Pippin seems to be he who made the protest.
The speakers are to be they who are running for election.

I hope that clarifies! :cool:

[X]

No, it doesn't.

I don't even know where to begin.

Umm...

Okay, back story time: I went to a high school that was vocationally-oriented, not academically. I selected it because it had a very good machining program, with some aerospace work being done. I felt this would benefit me in university, as my goal was to become an aerospace engineer (I was right; it did). Due to timetable conflicts, however, I had to take basic English. Half my graduating class were functionally illiterate. English class mostly consisted of the same stuff I'd done at a semi-private school in 4th grade. Except simplified.

Most of my knowledge of language structure comes from reading novels. Monkey-see, monkey-try-to-do.

So, given that, can you dumb-down the explanation to my level?

Please?

[Vortigern99]

I is in the nominative case.

Me is in the objective case.

I is the subject of a verb: I am a swell guy. ("am" is the verb here)

Me is the object of a verb: Give me that piece of pie.

Got it?

[Vortigern99]

No, it doesn't. [It is in the nominative case because it is the subject of the verb "does".]

I don't even know where to begin. [I is in the nominative case because it is the subject of the verb "do".]

Umm...

Okay, back story time: I went to a high school that was vocationally-oriented, not academically. [I is in the nominative case because it is the subject of the verb "went".]
I selected it because it had a very good machining program, with some aerospace work being done. [I is in the nominative case because it is the subject of the verb "selected".]
I felt this would benefit me in university, as my goal was to become an aerospace engineer (I was right; it did). [I is in the nominative case because it is the subject of the verb "felt".]
Due to timetable conflicts, however, I had to take basic English.[I is in the nominative case because it is the subject of the verb "had".]
Half my graduating class were functionally illiterate. [Half is in the nominative case because it is the subject of the verb "were".]
English class mostly consisted of the same stuff I'd done at a semi-private school in 4th grade.[Class is in the nominative case because it is the subject of the verb "consisted".]
Except simplified.

Most of my knowledge of language structure comes from reading novels. [Most is in the nominative case because it is the subject of the verb "comes".]
Monkey-see, monkey-try-to-do.

So, given that, can you dumb-down the explanation to my level? [You is in the nominative case because it is the subject of the verb "can".]


Please?

Got it?

[Vortigern99]

I think you're reading something that's not there.

Brodski seemed angry, accusatory and confrontational in his posts to me, and it was past midnight last night when I opted to give our exchange a pass. This morning, bright-eyed and full of sausage, I elected to address his comments, as you can see at the top of this page.

Who determines which particular set of English grammar is "correct"? Do you say "it's not that big a deal", or, "it's not that big of a deal"?

Usage determines it, along with a set of rules we've inherited from the previous generation, who inherited these from the generation prior to theirs, and so on back to the Norman Invasion, back to the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain, and before that to the rise of the various Germanic tribes of the Rhineland, etc.

Also:
A word is considered antiquated (IIRC) when it is not used by the members of a few generalizations.

E.g. We no longer use ejaculat[ed] to mean shouted.

There is a bit of conflict between several members over what is correct English. If those "in the know" cannot agree on the answers how can the rest of us mortals know the correct English grammar?

As zooterkin says who has the final word on the subject?

Brodski's point -- that Standard English (IE grammatically correct English according to such books as Shertzer's Elements of Grammar) is a dialect of the language -- is a good one, with which I wholeheartedly concur.

It happens that this particular dialect, Standard English, is employed by academics, scholars, scientists, lawyers, and other professionals for whom clarity of expression, and comprehension by the maximal number of listeners and/or readers, are essential to their performance in their jobs.

How do you decide when "antiquated" equals obsolete, and which "modern gets to be right?

Once you concede that that language is a fluid and evolving construct then after that it seems to me an element of obstinacy and snobbery can creep in. It has already been conceded here that the 'who/whom' distinction is fading in modern usage, so that using "who" in place of "whom" is becoming less and less of a transgression. When will "whom" graduate to "antiquated" and thus become incorrect altogether? Who gets to choose?

See Rika's response, above.

[GlennB]

It happens that this particular dialect, Standard English, is employed by academics, scholars, scientists, lawyers, and other professionals for whom clarity of expression, and comprehension by the maximal number of listeners and/or readers, are essential to their performance in their jobs.


Fair enough, except that there's not a soul who believes that including the m on the end of whom adds a single grain of added clarity to your sentence above. But being prescriptive about these things is exactly where you came in with the o/p.

[Foolmewunz]

never mind - I hadn't seen that the thread is already on a second page

[X]

Got it?




I think so.

Thanks!

[Beerina]

he <==> who
him <==> whom

Just substitute he/him and see if it sounds right.

In the pathological case of "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," rather than "Let he he is without sin...", substitute "Joe" for the first he. "Let Joe he is without sin cast the first stone," or "Let Joe him is without sin...," though I'd separate out the clause with commas parenthesis, I suppose.

[quadraginta]

he <==> who
him <==> whom

Just substitute he/him and see if it sounds right.

In the pathological case of "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," rather than "Let he he is without sin...", substitute "Joe" for the first he. "Let Joe he is without sin cast the first stone," or "Let Joe him is without sin...," though I'd separate out the clause with commas parenthesis, I suppose.


I only had four years of high school Latin. We never got to study the pathological case.

[Rat]

I think so.

Thanks!
If you really want to understand nominative/accusative/dative/genitive, I recommend learning German, wherein you will have to know the case before you can choose the article. Of course that may be a rather extreme method, and it still won't teach you about the vocative or ablative, but at least at the end of it, you'll be able to talk to German people, who by and large speak English anyway. Hmm.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Fair enough, except that there's not a soul who believes that including the m on the end of whom adds a single grain of added clarity to your sentence above. But being prescriptive about these things is exactly where you came in with the o/p.

For me, use of "who" in the referenced sentence grates on my ears. "Whom" is grammatically correct and adds an element of redundancy to the communication. And redundancy in English communication is a "good thing". ;)

[GlennB]

For me, use of "who" in the referenced sentence grates on my ears. "Whom" is grammatically correct and adds an element of redundancy to the communication. And redundancy in English communication is a "good thing". ;)

It would grate on mine too, but that's because I was raised proper :D

Meanwhile I've discussed this with MrsB. She's an English teacher of over 30 years standing and a grammar fanatic (she's getting well stuck into the depths of modern Greek grammar these days, and you don't want to get none of that on you, trust me). Anyway, she assures me that in modern English grammar the only time that whom and whomever are strictly necessary is following a preposition (as in the example above). And you can often switch the sentence around to stick the preposition at the end - "...the man who I sold the car to." if you want to avoid the pompous-sounding whom. But I suppose that takes planning sometimes. Even then I disagree about whomever. "Here's a dog, give it to whoever you like" sounds fine to me.

Which brings us onto dangling prepositions ..... ;)

[Vortigern99]

GlennB, the genesis for this thread began with the misuse of "whom", not of "who". I've already expressed my opinion, and agreed with others who expressed it, that "who" is acceptable in the objective case in informal speech and writing.

Where the use of "whom" in its proper place becomes necessary is in academic, scholarly, scientific, legal and certain other professional circles, in which Standard English is expected, and other dialectics are frowned upon (<----dangling preposition! :eek:).

I choose to write in Standard English most of the time, on this and other discussion boards. I hold no one else to this standard. My objection to the use of "whom" in sentences such as "I spoke to a friend whom goes to church" is a reaction against pretentiousness and error, not against the avoidance of Standard English.

[quadraginta]

So what you are saying is that if someone is going to be pretentious it's important that they do it right, or it spoils the effect?

I can see that.

[Lucian]

What we need are the modern day equivalent of Vikings. They were not in sufficient numbers to impose their own language into England. However they did simplify the language. One example is that many plural words can now be made by adding a s to the singular word. One pen, many pens. This is unlike Latin and other languages where there is one word for the singular and another word for the plural. One child, many children. One mouse, many mice.

I don't who told you this, but they were mistaken. Child/children and mouse/mice are left over from Old English noun declensions, not Latin. The former word was once declined cild/cildru (singular/plural); it is a z-stem declension. The Modern English -s plural ending comes from Old English a-stem words, such as hund/hundas, "dog/dogs".

The Modern English possessive singular and general plural forms in -s come directly from the Old English genitive singular (-es) and the masculine nominative-accusative plural (-as) forms--two different forms until very late Old English times, when they fell together because the unstressed vowels had merged, probably as a schwa. In Middle English times both endings were spelled -es. Only in Modern English have they again been differentiated in spelling by the use of the apostrophe. Nowadays, new words invariably conform to what survives of the a-stem declension-- for example, hobbit's, hobbits, hobbits'--so that we may truly say it is the only living declension.
-- Pyle and Algeo, The Origins and Development of the English Language

Also, third declension Latin inserts -es for plural forms. Here's a fun one: fex/feces. ;)
While what you (and Pyle and Algeo) say about the history of the language is true, it is also generally accepted that Old Norse speakers (settlers rather than raiders) affected the inflections of Old English. Old English and Old Norse are, of course, closely related languages. They have many cognates, and they are grammatically and structurally similar. Many of the details--such as specific inflectional endings--are different, though. It makes sense that in places with heavy Norse settlement, the endings started to go a bit fuzzy.

Take "The Battle of Maldon" (please). Since the battle took place in Aug. 990, we know the poem was written after that date, but probably not terribly long after. Already in this poem we can see inflections starting to collapse. For instance, "The late spelling -on is frequent in this poem not only for -um of the dat pl. . . . but also for [I]-en of the subj[unctive] pl." (note to l. 7a in Bright's Old English Grammar and Reader, 3rd ed. Ed. F.G. Cassidy and Richard N. Ringler). (Caveat: the manuscript copy of "Maldon" was destroyed by fire in the 18th century, so all editions of it are based on a transcript).

There is also a small collection of poems written after the Conquest that follow Old English alliterative practices and contain few if any French borrowings or new Latin borrowings (e.g. "Durham," "The Grave," "The Soul's Address to the Body" from the Worcester Fragments). These show further inflectional erosion.

[schrodingasdawg]

So what you are saying is that if someone is going to be pretentious it's important that they do it right, or it spoils the effect?

That's what I got from this discussion.

[roger]

I think so.

Thanks!
No, no, no. It's "Whom think so".

[NoZed Avenger]

I really, really want to start a band called The Whom now.

[theprestige]

How 'bout I boil it down to one sentence: Use "who" if it has a verb attached to it; use "whom" if it receives the action. Succinct enough for you? :D

Succinct enough for whom? :P

[commandlinegamer]

I really, really want to start a band called The Whom now.

Well, whom are you? (Whom are you? Whom, whom, whom, whom?)
...
Oh, whom the ---- are you?

Yeah, I think that would work.

Regarding the Brodski and Vortigern99 discussion, I'd like to put the case that dialect and slovenly speech are not necessarily synonymous.

[Vortigern99]

So what you are saying is that if someone is going to be pretentious it's important that they do it right, or it spoils the effect?

I can see that.

If academic, scholarly, scientific, legal and other writing in Standard English is "pretentious" (though who sets that standard is an open question), yes. If the "effect" you mention is to employ properly the accepted dialect of one's profession to the satisfaction of one's colleagues and the requirements of one's job, yes.

But surely you don't mean to suggest that Standard English, a distinct dialect of English along with dozens or hundreds of others, is itself somehow inherently pretentious?

Surely my position -- that failing to use Standard English correctly in an effort to appear better educated, is by definition pretentious because the speaker/writer is pretending to knowledge s/he does not possess -- is the more rational of the two positions.

Unless I'm inadvertently creating a straw man. Just what is your position, if you please, and shall we go from there?

[Vortigern99]

I really, really want to start a band called The Whom now.

How 'bout the Guess Whom? :D

[Vortigern99]

While what you (and Pyle and Algeo) say about the history of the language is true, it is also generally accepted that Old Norse speakers (settlers rather than raiders) affected the inflections of Old English. Old English and Old Norse are, of course, closely related languages. They have many cognates, and they are grammatically and structurally similar. Many of the details--such as specific inflectional endings--are different, though. It makes sense that in places with heavy Norse settlement, the endings started to go a bit fuzzy.

Pyles (I misspelled it Pyle in my more recent citing) and Algeo discuss some Old Norse influence on Old English, but in their discussion about the "schwa-ing" of the -es and -as endings, they decline to mention a possible Scandinavian link or root cause.

They do however point out (on p. 113) that those endings and their attendant pronunciations were "two different forms until very late Old English time". Anyone familiar with England's Viking settlement beginning in the 9th c. would see a connection, but I'll allow that for non-experts it's a tenuous link.

Thanks for the expansion.

Take "The Battle of Maldon" (please). Since the battle took place in Aug. 990, we know the poem was written after that date, but probably not terribly long after. Already in this poem we can see inflections starting to collapse. For instance, "The late spelling -on is frequent in this poem not only for -um of the dat pl. . . . but also for -en of the subj[unctive] pl." (note to l. 7a in [I]Bright's Old English Grammar and Reader, 3rd ed. Ed. F.G. Cassidy and Richard N. Ringler). (Caveat: the manuscript copy of "Maldon" was destroyed by fire in the 18th century, so all editions of it are based on a transcript).

Based on what you've provided here (I've not researched the above for myself), my first question is: Are there examples of masculine nominative-accusative plural -as being spelled "-es"? That is the question on the table; the instances of -um (a noun ending) and -en (a verb ending) changing to "-on" -- even if in a bit of writing whose precise date were known -- do not address whether "-as" merged with "-es", which in OE was genitive singular.

On that score, my next response is that battle-poems can be and were written centuries after the fact. The Alliterative Morte D'Arthur, c. 1390, expounded on the Battle of Camlann recorded under 539 (but probably first entered, retroactively, in the 9th c.) in the Annales Cambriae. This is just one example; I'm sure we can both supply others into the wee hours. ;)

There is also a small collection of poems written after the Conquest that follow Old English alliterative practices and contain few if any French borrowings or new Latin borrowings (e.g. "Durham," "The Grave," "The Soul's Address to the Body" from the Worcester Fragments). These show further inflectional erosion.

Same question here, again. No offense and again thank you for the contributions, but the prior exchange into which you entered had as its specific subject the -s ending merge in "very late OE times".

To that end, then, does the inflectional erosion you cite in these post-Conquest, non-Latin-influenced alliterative poems include the change in spelling from "-as" to "-es"?

[Lucian]

Pyles (I misspelled it Pyle in my more recent citing) and Algeo discuss some Old Norse influence on Old English, but in their discussion about the "schwa-ing" of the -es and -as endings, they decline to mention a possible Scandinavian link or root cause.

They do however point out (on p. 113) that those endings and their attendant pronunciations were "two different forms until very late Old English time". Anyone familiar with England's Viking settlement beginning in the 9th c. would see a connection, but I'll allow that for non-experts it's a tenuous link.

Thanks for the expansion.



Based on what you've provided here (I've not researched the above for myself), my first question is: Are there examples of masculine nominative-accusative plural -as being spelled "-es"? That is the question on the table; the instances of -um (a noun ending) and -en (a verb ending) changing to "-on" -- even if in a bit of writing whose precise date were known -- do not address whether "-as" merged with "-es", which in OE was genitive singular.

On that score, my next response is that battle-poems can be and were written centuries after the fact. The Alliterative Morte D'Arthur, c. 1390, expounded on the Battle of Camlann recorded under 539 (but probably first entered, retroactively, in the 9th c.) in the Annales Cambriae. This is just one example; I'm sure we can both supply others into the wee hours. ;)



Same question here, again. No offense and again thank you for the contributions, but the prior exchange into which you entered had as its specific subject the -s ending merge in "very late OE times".

To that end, then, does the inflectional erosion you cite in these post-Conquest, non-Latin-influenced alliterative poems include the change in spelling from "-as" to "-es"?

I should have said that I wasn't talking about plural endings specifically. rjh01's post was a bit confusing and not entirely accurate, but I just wanted to point out that there is a kernel of truth to the idea that Norse affected the inflections of English in general (although I wouldn't describe it as "simplifying"). However, having opened "The Soul's Address" to a random page, I found the nom. pl. "wurmes" (OE would be "wyrmas"--masc. i-stem). "The Grave" also has nom. pl. "wurmes" and "waȝes" (OE would be "weallas"--masc. a-stem). Skimming through "Maldon," I'm seeing "-as" used consistently as nom./acc. pl., and "-es" used as gen. sing. I don't have a copy of "Durham" handy.

Again, I should note that I'm not saying that Norse is directly responsible for the changes that can be seen in "The Grave" and "The Soul's Address," merely that it probably contributed to the erosion of OE inflections, which then accelerated greatly after the Norman Conquest.

As for the date of "Maldon," I haven't really looked into it recently, but I believe the scholarly consensus is that it was composed pre-Conquest. And, although some of its inflections may be going a bit wonky, it's noticeably different from the late 12th/early 13th century poems.

Also, poopy, I should have checked the spelling of Pyles's name. My copy of Pyles and Algeo seems to have gone missing in a move.

[Björn Toulouse]

The misuse of the words whom and whomever is becoming more commonplace, and more frustrating to an officer of the Grammar Gestapo such as myself. Here is my pitiful attempt to forestall the inevitable crumbling of the fabric of society which will ensue if the abuse is allowed to continue.....

Okay? It's really that simple! So, I don't want to hear or read any more "Whom is going to the prom?" or "I like whomever is the prettiest," or any of that infuriating rubbish! :mad:


Irregardless, this topic is so anal that I am now verbally constipated.

[Vortigern99]

... said the self-identified "Cavitus Rectum". :D

ETA: Lucian, many thanks. Keep the info. coming as you (re-)discover it.

[Beerina]

So what you are saying is that if someone is going to be pretentious it's important that they do it right, or it spoils the effect?

Hence your four years of Latin.

[quadraginta]

Hence your four years of Latin.


:confused:

[Ladewig]

ETA: Examples:
*John gave Mary and I the ball. (indirect object in nominative form)
*The office contacted Mr. Phelps and she. (direct object in nominative form--and yes, I do hear people making this mistake!)


Surprisingly, while I note those as being incorrect, they don't grate on my ear as much as cases in which the speaker tries to avoid the objective/nominative issue by using a reflexive pronoun.

* John gave Mary and myself the ball
* Throckmorton and myself will be accepting applications for company grammarian.

[roger]

Thou also shouldn't use a preposition to end a sentence with.

Whom is archaic, a remnant of the English language when it still had a declension system.

These days, whom is only slightly less archaic than 'thou', and the completely incorrect rule about ending a sentence with a preposition. English is not Latin - we don't follow those preposition rules anymore. It is also not a case based language - hence we are dropping the remnants of that whole system.

"Whom do you love"? That sounds so wrong, yet by the rules it is right (I think). It sounds a bit pretentious and archaic because it is archaic. Language has already moved past this.

A force of proscription is a good thing, and I don't knock the OP for trying. But I suggest the situation is inevitable - "whom" is on its last legs, even in professional/technical writing. Dost thou agree?

[Lucian]

Thou also shouldn't use a preposition to end a sentence with.

Whom is archaic, a remnant of the English language when it still had a declension system.

These days, whom is only slightly less archaic than 'thou', and the completely incorrect rule about ending a sentence with a preposition. English is not Latin - we don't follow those preposition rules anymore. It is also not a case based language - hence we are dropping the remnants of that whole system.

"Whom do you love"? That sounds so wrong, yet by the rules it is right (I think). It sounds a bit pretentious and archaic because it is archaic. Language has already moved past this.

A force of proscription is a good thing, and I don't knock the OP for trying. But I suggest the situation is inevitable - "whom" is on its last legs, even in professional/technical writing. Dost thou agree?

While I don't entirely disagree with you--as I've said, this is a process that has been ongoing for close to 1000 years--I think it's reasonable to point out that "him," "her" and "them" are also remnants "of the English language when it still had a declension system."

[Galteeth]

Is this not the face of prescriptive language? English is perpetually evolving, and if clarity of meaning is retained, what's the problem?

[Rolfe]

"Whom do you love"? That sounds so wrong, yet by the rules it is right (I think). It sounds a bit pretentious and archaic because it is archaic. Language has already moved past this.


Doesn't sound at all wrong to me. Sounds entirely right.

Don't mistake your own common errors for the universal situation.

Rolfe.

[casebro]

I ain't ever going to learn the Gestapo rules If I can't fine where they are written at. I guess me and you need to ax directions. Whom do I ax?

I seem to have wandered into the wrong forum...

[rjh01]

I ain't ever going to learn the Gestapo rules If I can't fine where they are written at. I guess me and you need to ax directions. Whom do I ax?

I seem to have wandered into the wrong forum...

Try a dictionary for a start.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/whom
Usage: It was formerly considered correct to use whom whenever the objective form of who was required. This is no longer thought to be necessary and the objective form who is now commonly used, even in formal writing: there were several people there who he had met before. Who cannot be used directly after a preposition - the preposition is usually displaced, as in the man (who) he sold his car to. In formal writing whom is preferred in sentences like these: the man to whom he sold his car. There are some types of sentence in which who cannot be used: the refugees, many of whom were old and ill, were allowed across the border

[fleabeetle]

Doesn't sound at all wrong to me. Sounds entirely right.

Don't mistake your own common errors for the universal situation.

[poster was commenting on roger's words, " 'Whom do you love?' That sounds so wrong, yet by the rules it is right (I think). It sounds a bit pretentious and archaic because it IS archaic. Language has already moved past this."]


I have to align self with roger here. "I love me -- whom do you love?" OK, it's in the eye of the beholder, or aural equivalent; but to me, such uses of "whom" -- conceded, technically correct -- sound and feel, pedantic and a little crazy. I'll choose here, to use language incorrectly per the strict rules, and be damned to it.

Confess to having little patience with any kinds of grammar / punctuation / pronunciation-cum-spelling "Nazi-ism". (Rules needed, sure; but find fanaticism over the issue -- well, IMO unnecessary.) I doubt at times, whether I properly belong on JREF...

[UNLoVedRebel]

Language evolves. Some words can create some controvery. For example, there is a word that might spark a civil war in the state of California. What's the word?

hella

[KoihimeNakamura]

You have to use them for academic and professional writing . That would be the point.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

[KoihimeNakamura]

Wurr, why?

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

[UNLoVedRebel]

deleted, saw my error

[GlennB]

"Whom do you love"? That sounds so wrong, yet by the rules it is right (I think). It sounds a bit pretentious and archaic because it is archaic. Language has already moved past this.



Doesn't sound at all wrong to me. Sounds entirely right.

Don't mistake your own common errors for the universal situation.

Rolfe.

Except that "Who do you love" is not an error. Bertie Wooster's Jeeves would no doubt disapprove, but then he also disapproved of neckties with little designs on them.

[fleabeetle]

Bertie should have told Jeeves to get stuffed; he paid him to be his valet, not his grammar-mentor. (I know, I know...)

[GlennB]

Bertie should have told Jeeves to get stuffed; he paid him to be his valet, not his grammar-mentor. (I know, I know...)

I feel Jeeves might just have adopted a 'certain look', wrinkled his nose a bit and maybe coughed discreetly.

[fleabeetle]

No doubt. They loved each other dearly, notwithstanding...

[roger]

While I don't entirely disagree with you--as I've said, this is a process that has been ongoing for close to 1000 years--I think it's reasonable to point out that "him," "her" and "them" are also remnants "of the English language when it still had a declension system."
Yup. Them be the next to go, what with all the s/he constructs we fight with.

My reasonable point is that if to explain usage you have to go to vocabulary that a lot of people don't understand, if you get a lot of follow up questions on is 'x' or 'y' right in this case, and professional journals with professional copy editors get it 'wrong', you have yourself a dead rule.

Most of English, even formal English, comes pretty naturally. When typing, I'll often use it's for its, or vice versa. Not because it is a hard rule to understand, it's just that you normally use 's for possession, and typing is not a conscious act for me. In fact, I got that sentence wrong when typing it out, and had to backspace and correct! But this rule? I have to stop, try to figure out the he/him thing, remember whether who/whom is for he or him - it's just not something that is going to happen, with me, in normal conversation. I'd have to come to a dead stop and think for 5-10 seconds to suss it out. And it doesn't happen with a lot of people, probably most. It's a dead rule. It's no more. It's pining for the fjords.

We also seem to be losing the use of 'to' in infinitives. That always stands out to my ear, whereas who/m doesn't. I'm pretty sure it is not the end of civilization, nor evidence of the stupid wantonly wallowing in their ignorance. ;)

[roger]

Doesn't sound at all wrong to me. Sounds entirely right.

Don't mistake your own common errors for the universal situation.

Rolfe.
"Don't mistake your preference for a dead rule as the current state of the language. "

That's no way to argue. "whom" is largely archaic - at least on this side of the pond (I have an entirely unsubstantiated suspicion it may still have legs left on your side)*. I grew up in the 70s, and cannot recall a grammar lesson on "whom", or any correction based on its usage. I guess that is sombody's cue to rail against the US school system. My school also didn't teach me to use 'u' in color, and a whole host of other dead things (dead for the US, to be sure). We spent our time on living rules.


Whom is a dead man walking - and, as pointed out, he/she/him are probably next, though it's premature to write their obituary.


*ah, the 1989 OED agrees with me, so it must be true for both sides of the pond. (source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_%28pronoun%29))

[roger]

I feel Jeeves might just have adopted a 'certain look', wrinkled his nose a bit and maybe coughed discreetly.
Or something along the lines of
"Oh, and Jeeves, have you seen my tie? I must wear it or aunt Agatha will be furious."
"I'm afraid not, sir. It would appear to have gone missing. If that will be all, sir?"

[GreyArea]

... typing is not a conscious act for me. ...
... stop, try to figure out the he/him thing, remember ...
...and think ...

Ultimately it was hoped to make articulate speech issue from the larynx without involving the higher brain centres at all. This aim was frankly admitted in the Newspeak word duckspeak ....

And while we're on the subject, here's one for the tongue-clucking grammarian (http://frontalot.com/index.php/?page=lyrics&lyricid=54)s.

[NoZed Avenger]

Except that "Who do you love" is not an error. Bertie Wooster's Jeeves would no doubt disapprove, but then he also disapproved of neckties with little designs on them.


I am very much afraid you do your argument little good by placing yourself in opposition to Jeeves, Sir.

[GlennB]

I am very much afraid you do your argument little good by placing yourself in opposition to Jeeves, Sir.

A most incommodious situation, it must be confessed.

[roger]

A most incommodious situation, it must be confessed.Indeed, sir.

[Finster]

I am very much afraid you do your argument little good by placing yourself in opposition to Jeeves, Sir.

A word from "Jeeves" - http://tinyurl.com/393bodg

[GlennB]

A word from "Jeeves" - http://tinyurl.com/393bodg

I must express my heartfelt thanks for this contribution to the discourse. It has been, as the younger folk are often heard to remark, "bookmarked" for future reference.

[NoZed Avenger]

A word from "Jeeves" - http://tinyurl.com/393bodg

It is with some regret I must say my current employer frowns upon the location referenced. When at leisure, I will pursue the matter further.

[roger]

A word from "Jeeves" - http://tinyurl.com/393bodgOh, that is wonderful. "How dense and dumb to language development do you have to be?"


We are witnessing a joyous thing - the changing of language, in real time, something we are normally forced to just theorize about ("the first recorded usage of X was in 1725, and it is speculated that....")

[godless dave]

For some reason, English teachers generally don't teach about case when teaching English grammar. I had to learn German to learn the English cases.

[quadraginta]

For some reason, English teachers generally don't teach about case when teaching English grammar. I had to learn German to learn the English cases.


My English teachers made an effort of sorts (one I respect) to teach parts of speech in detail, but my experience was still much like yours, only it was high school Latin drills which gave me the insight into English language structure. It also helped with several other Romance languages.

I have retained little that is useful about Latin itself from those classes after so many years, but the aid to my English remains.

[Foolmewunz]

Over at TGR(The Grammar ResistanceTM) HQ, we approve the direction this thread has taken.

Next up.... Dangling Participles. To the barricades!


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1108546e95a2a33dbe.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8299)

[Ladewig]

Oh, that is wonderful. "How dense and dumb to language development do you have to be?"


I can easily ignore mixup between less and fewer. I am irked by who/whom violations but I never say anything. But I am not prepared to accept people turning penultimate into a word meaning the most ultimate - party because there is no such thing as the most ultimate, but more importantly, the correct definition of penultimate serves a very useful purpose. I will fight the effort to change a unique word into a word that already has a number of synonyms.

[rdaneel]

Thought you all might enjoy the latest Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal (http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2121).
:D

[Foolmewunz]

I can easily ignore mixup between less and fewer. I am irked by who/whom violations but I never say anything. But I am not prepared to accept people turning penultimate into a word meaning the most ultimate - party because there is no such thing as the most ultimate, but more importantly, the correct definition of penultimate serves a very useful purpose. I will fight the effort to change a unique word into a word that already has a number of synonyms.

Unless you can find a uniquer word.

Someone used uniquer in a meeting yesterday. I had to step out and take a fake mobile call to stifle the urge to laugh in his face.

[elipse]

Galteeth:
The problem is that people who love [X] generally like [X] to be more complex, not less. Have you ever heard anyone say "I love this video game; that's why I play it on the easiest setting!"?

Those of us who love the English language love that it is complex. Its complexity is one of the reasons it is capable of such wonderful nuance.

I am fully in agreement that English is evolving continually, and that it is generally evolving to be simpler. That doesn't mean I have to give in and use the simplest form currently in use. I can cling to "whom", and, for that matter, "whilst", if I want to do so, and I do want to do so.

I don't judge people who choose not to use "whom". However, I do judge people (a little) who choose to use "whom" and then use it incorrectly, precisely because there is no need to use "whom" in everyday life.

[elipse]

On the other hand, I am fully on the side of the rebels when it come to using "them" instead of "he or she" "he/she", "(s)he", or "thon". There is no good solution; therefore, I'm running with the most convenient.

(If "thon" or some other sex-neutral singular third person ever did start to gain ground, though, I'd switch sides in a heartbeat, because... well, come on! "Thon" is so geeky and wonderful! "Anyone who wishes to apply must bring thons resume to the front desk." (Or would the possessive of "thon" be "thoir"?) He he he!)