who/whom

well lots of terrible things happen. some we approve of, some we don't.

ouch, I mean - we don't approve of the terrible things

we approve of good changes, and not bad ones

in life, in general, I mean. so the same principle could, in theory, be applied to language -- in fact I daresay it is.

http://www.freeonline.hu/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/2earlux.jpg

This book changed my life.

But yes, I agree competely. However, lots of linguistic changes we can be relatively neutral about.

I am a complete stickler for the less/fewer distinction, but I couldn't give a toss if it is lost (and it's surely on the way out). We don't make the same distinction with more, so I see no problem with doing away with it, or keeping both words but allowing less to be used with count and non-count nouns.

Whereas something lexical like uninterested/disinterested seems a useful distinction, and since it is almost gone, we are left with no word for disinterested.

I mean this, not the student one.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51SGEX23W9L.jpg

Yes we do - "nonplussed"!

Actually I've made two mistakes there - one is for "nonplussed", which I always use wrong, and the other is for "disinterested", when what I mean to be talking about was "uninterested". Argh I am infected!

i dont think that means the same thing does it?
xpost lol

-_-
The word "nonplussed"

Certainly, spoken English is often ungrammatical, and the written language gets more ungrammatical with its increasing informality.

This is so wrong I don't know where to start

What's wrong with it? Are you arguing that in speech people adhere more to grammatical rules than in formal writing? Adhere equally?

I'm not saying that there isn't a grammar (set of guidelines/rules about language use and structure) to everyday speech or informal writing. I'm just saying that it is less obedient to Strunk & White, et al.

I would think when there are plenty of people under the age of 21 who refuse - outright refuse - to spell properly or even write words out in full on line because "its only the internet who gives a fuck?" is far more of concern than wether we lose the "less/fewer" or "who/whom" distinction...but pick one's battles and all that, I suppose.

French has certain cases that you only use while writing or reading. In one sense they're "useless" since they are duplicated by other cases. But the very fact that one never speaks them confers a meaning - a literariness - that other languages without these cases lack.

a lot of the literariness of the passe simple etc. comes out of the fact that they've fallen out of use in spoken french - I guess this is a good parallel with 'whom' - sounds froofy and literary only because it's falling out of use.

I'd argue that this is one of the reasons why 'for whom the bell tolls' sounds good to nabisco's ear - and I'd also guess that, even though it's a good title either way - back when ernie wrote it, the title didn't have the effect that it does today

so, I mean, by this argument we should allow lots of things to fall out of use and expand our toolbox of literary-sounding english

(also - what I meant to highlight, and maybe didn't, in the first sentence is that they once WERE used in spoken french)

^^^ I realize that weird sentences like this undermine any grammar argument I bring to the table