who/whom

I tend to worry about sounding pompous using whom, so I'll often phrase sentences so that it isn't necessary, add to that the writing imperative drilled into my brain to avoid passive sentences.

If anyone thinks I sound pompous because I use "whom," fuck em.

^^ I will try to emulate this attitude.

english's relatively simple grammar is certainly one of the reasons why it's a good world language

This is a ridiculous comment. Despite its heavily analytic nature (relatively few inflections, verb forms, a lack of case endings baring possessive, etc), English is a tremendously difficult language for most people to learn. Comparisons depend a lot on one's native language, but most non-native speakers find it their toughest language. For the record, my native language is a Slavic one (and thereby a cousin of English), but I've found all the other Indo-European languages easier to learn, not to mention Hungarian, which isn't even an IE language and is "notoriously" difficult. (The little Turkish I have seemed easier, too.) I'm confident my English isn't too terrible for most people here, so take my word for this. English has the advantage of immersion possibilities no matter where one is in the developed world - I can practice my English in a little village in Portugal or Poland more easily than I could my Hungarian or Russian.

Nevertheless, English has neither an ablative nor an inessive case. English has the subject, the object, and the indirect object, and that's about it. We don't treat the 'ablative' and the 'dative' differently: they are as it were the same case, which uses different prepositions to different meanings. (as the Greek dative does the work of the Latin dative and ablative)

We don't have these in my language either. That was sort of my point (poorly made, I agree.) We still learned about them and could describe their functions and whatnot.

Whilst and amongst are largely archaic at this point, although I guess Britishers disagree somewhat.

Numerous UK ILXors seem to enjoy "whilst".

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,490 from ilxor.com for whilst. (0.22 seconds)

ILX is not necessarily a good indicator of broader cultural attributes, though.

I don't have anything but anecdotal evidence to report, but I have heard/read UKers use "whilst" quite much. Especially when I visited Edinburgh.

Maybe they were putting on a whilst for me.

Who is the subject, the person doing the leaving. Computer is the object. I wasn't making a who/whom reference, but a loss-of-meaning as a result of loosening of grammatical rules reference. Does "have to leave computer now" mean "I have to leave computer now" or "you have to leave computer now."

wuz talking bad on purpose

I think it would indicate something if all the ilxor uses of "whilst" came from British users and none from American ones.

We don't have these in my language either. That was sort of my point (poorly made, I agree.) We still learned about them and could describe their functions and whatnot.

But what is the point of being able to describe the function of something that to all intents and purposes does not exist? For an English speaker - for a German speaker, a French speaker, a Korean speaker - learning about the locative is about as useful as learning about the feeding habits of sillicon-based lifeforms.

(actually you could kind of argue that korean has a locative particle)

(i say 'kind of', i mean: korean has a locative particle. but maybe calling it 'locative' - as if it were a case - and suggesting a parallel with indo-euro languages is uh not fruitful)

Iatee, I feel like you're really arguing against ponied-up adversaries here, which is maybe leading you to remind us of things no one particularly disagrees with. For one thing, none of the types of prescriptivists you imagine would appear to exist on this thread, and to be honest I'm not sure many of them exist in general, as it would be sort of credibility-hobbling for anyone to delude him- or herself that anything about English has always been a certain way. I'm also not sure anyone imagines that their internet disappointment about developments in usage is going to change anything -- but like I said, if you happen to have a well-reasoned opinion that a grammatical rule is useful and helpful, it is pretty natural to voice that opinion when other people say the rule is pointless.

deedeedeextrovert = the ponied up adversary, and the only person I was really trying to argue with

a good ole european trolling and I prolly shoulda let it be

Europeans trawl.

"Amongst", "whom" as an object = k-klassiX0r

But what is the point of being able to describe the function of something that to all intents and purposes does not exist? For an English speaker - for a German speaker, a French speaker, a Korean speaker - learning about the locative is about as useful as learning about the feeding habits of sillicon-based lifeforms.

Well, I can comment intelligently on linguistics, for one. And for two, unlike in America, it was common for kids to learn three or four languages . . . so a deeper understanding of linguistics went a long towards easier learning. Anyway, those concepts do exist. It's a bit like saying, what's the point of learning about Papua New Guinea? For most intents and purposes, it doesn't exist any more than the inessive case does, for the vast majority of Americans.

(Not sure most North Americans learn about Papua New Guinea either.)

LOLcat grammar for all.

sometimes I just wish I could be as smart as a European

Meh. I imagine most Australians would raise a sarcastic eyebrow at anyone who used "whom" in a sentence unless they were talking about Metallica.

xposts

i'm just not sure that knowing about the inessive actually enables one to comment intelligently on linguistics, though? The existence of something called 'cases', of a wider range in other Indo-Euro languages than in English, is a thing that it is good to know about: yes. Assumption of the necessary function of the inessive case (which is is in, what, finnish? and estonian?) is essentially confusing when you are dealing with a language where there is no such thing as an inessive. It is useful to know about the genitive when you are dealing with a language that has a genitive; it is not useful when you are dealing with a language that uses only the possessive or the preposition 'of', because you get confused imagining a genitive to be there.

It's a bit like saying, what's the point of learning about Papua New Guinea?

To me, what you're saying sounds like "if you don't know about the governmental structure of Papua New Guinea then you will find it difficult to understand the government of your own country, or of other countries."

people who've been on TV whom you've pwned

Mostly agree with Nabisco.

I don't really like it when people say 'language changes all the time, that's how it is, deal with it', cos they wouldn't just accept, or be happy about, 'what happens' in all kinds of other scenarios. We are not, any of us, agnostics about the million other things that are changing all the time, so why should we be compelled to be mutely accepting about language?

I also don't really think that saying 'this doesn't aid clarity, so lose it' is a knockdown argument. We could easily get by with much, much simpler language: eg with just I, he, she rather than me, him, her etc, as indicated upthread. But we don't WANT to.

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.

iatee it's almost as if you would prefer us all to speak like the ants in "The Once and Future King", who build their mighty civilization on just two words - "DONE" and "NOT DONE". It's all they need.

I think Jamie T Smith's post over here is OTM: the who/whom pair don't work like a practical pair of subject/object pronouns any more. The functional rule - ie nothing breaks, you will be understood, your register will match that of others - in most contexts is 'who, except when following a preposition' (C sharp major's post illustrates this, I think)

I think that's the first time I've ever been quoted on ILX!

Anyway, I'm not going to get into it all again, but head over to that thread, where Nasty, Brutish and Short and I pwn the whom-lovers.

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.

Don't start then

OK.

I was about to say I agree with your point that we shouldn't be neutral about language change. But at the same time, you can't pretend that it doesn't happen.

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