ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends

i.e. "There is" is describing a singular situation - the fact that fewer than 14 days remain until the election, not the 14 days (or two weeks) themselves

Right. Actually, I think "We have less than two weeks... ... our constituencies" sidesteps the issue neatly! Ta.

Yeah perfect.

My God, Merriam-Webster accepts "transition" as a verb.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transition

We've lost.

Wasn't aware that "transition"-as-verb was contentious in the way that "impact"-as-verb is.

hahah yeah it's a v. popular verb in my place of employment. i'm actually in the process of transitioning some projects right now.

hmm I would have written "there are less than two weeks left" or "less than two weeks are left"?

Yeah... "There's plenty more where that came from" would seem to work with a continuous substance e.g. paint, but say for apples, I would probably have said "there are plenty more..." and therefore "there are less than two weeks left".

but weeks are countable so you have to saw "fewer", yet saying "fewer" sounds arseholey

hahah yeah it's a v. popular verb in my place of employment.

No no, I'm saying that I wasn't aware that people were *bothered* by "transition" as a verb, whereas I'm fully aware that "impact" as a verb raises a lot of hackles.

yeah but it's an action statement like saying "we have two days left to do this project"

weeks are countable

Doesn't hold for periods of time tho. Less than two minutes/years/ etc, not fewer (if such things bother you, unfortunately they do me, as my mum, a stickler for such things used to ring out with 'FEWER' every time I got it wrong as a child. An infuriating and rather rude habit, and, even if you don't want to be too much of a stickler, means that you get a twinge of distaste if anyone ever uses it 'wrongly'.

The reason you use "less" there is because you are talking about duration, not a discrete number of items.

"How much time is left?" "Less than five minutes."
"How many minutes are left?" "Fewer than five."

hmm ok I GUESS

oh jaymc that was an xpost to morbs, but while we're at it i didn't know that impact as a verb bothered people.

it impacts them greatly

Dearest copyeditors/ grammar fiends:

Could one of you please assist me in making the following album title grammatically correct?

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41RWfPY7-EL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

"To whom who keeps a record" just doesn't sound right, and I don't know how to fix it."

With Much Appreciation,

(SM)

The number of people who use "whom" and "who" wrongly is appalling. The problem is a difficult one and it is complicated by the importance of tone, or taste. Take the common expression, "Whom are you, anyways?" That is of course, strictly speaking, correct - and yet how formal, how stilted! The usage to be preferred in ordinary speech and writing is "Who are you, anyways?" "Whom" should be used in the nominative case only when a note of dignity or austerity is desired. For example, if a writer is dealing with a meeting of, say, the British Cabinet, it would be better to have the Premier greet a new arrival, such as an under-secretary, with a "Whom are you, anyways?" rather than a "Who are you, anyways?" - always granted that the Premier is sincerely unaware of the man's identity. To address a person one knows by a "Whom are you?" is a mark either of incredible lapse of memory or inexcusable arrogance. "How are you?" is a much kindlier salutation.

The Buried Whom, as it is called, forms a special problem. That is where the word occurs deep in a sentence. For a ready example, take the common expression: "He did not know whether he knew her or not because he had not heard whom the other had said she was until too late to see her." The simplest way out of this is to abandon the "whom" altogether and substitute "where" (a reading of the sentence that way will show how much better it is). Unfortunately, it is only in rare cases that "where" can be used in place of "whom." Nothing could be more flagrantly bad, for instance, than to say "Where are you?" in demanding a person's identity. The only conceivable answer is "Here I am," which would give no hint at all as to whom the person was. Thus the conversation, or piece of writing, would, from being built upon a false foundation, fall of its own weight.

A common rule for determining whether "who" or "whom" is right is to substitute "she" for "who," and "her" for "whom," and see which sounds the better. Take the sentence, "He met a woman who they said was an actress." Now if "who" is correct then "she" can be used in its place. Let us try it. "He met a woman she they said was an actress." That instantly rings false. It can't be right. Hence the proper usage is "whom."

In certain cases grammatical correctness must often be subordinated to a consideration of taste. For instance, suppose that the same person had met a man whom they said was a street cleaner. The word "whom" is too austere to use in connection with a lowly worker, like a street-cleaner, and its use in this form is known as False Administration or Pathetic Fallacy.

You might say: "There is, then, no hard and fast rule?" ("was then" would be better, since "then" refers to what is past). You might better say (or have said): "There was then (or is now) no hard and fast rule?" Only this, that it is better to use "whom" when in doubt, and even better to re-word the statement, and leave out all the relative pronouns, except ad, ante, con, in , inter, ob, post, prae, pro, sub, and super.

(James Thurber: Ladies' and Gentlemen's Guide to Modern English Usage)

lol love the first two lines: "I can't believe the number of idiots who are using who/whom incorrectly! actually it's really difficult to know when to use one over the other!"

Is somebody's dead husband an "ex"? And is the surviving parter of a same-sex partnership a widow/er, pure and simple? Both terms seem a little... de trop (for very different reasons obviously).

parter = partner!

Late-husband. No idea what you call a surviving partner, though.

Yes, "late husband" is right of course. But are they also an ex? If Stephen Gately's widow marries again, he must surely technically have to be Stephen's "ex" before doing so - otherwise he's a bigamist, albeit one of the post-mortem variety...

i would not use ex in that context, it's misleading and you don't have to "end" the first marriage before marrying again in that case

maybe you could just say first or previous if you make it clear that person died?

I think if you say late-husband, it's a given that they were married when the death occurred, but late-ex-husband means divorced at death. Ex-husband = both still alive. I think. This is almost as bad as second cousins twice removed.

What about ex-late-husband? Would that be a husband who you divorced after his death, or a husband that you are still married to who died for a while but is now very much alive again?

madchen's suggestion seems to make the most sense to me

What about ex-late-husband twice removed?

Now that's just stupid.

i'd probably want my zombie partner to be removed tbh

This one has been nagging me, as a significant part of my job is documenting every contact that I make with my clients (incl. attempted contacts). Often, I'll attempt to reach someone by phone, get to their voicemail, only to find that I'm unable to leave a message as "The mailbox belonging to this subscriber is currently full."

In my documentation, would I use "voicemail box" or "voice mailbox"? Is there another, more correct, solution?

phone's mailbox?

Take the common expression, "Whom are you, anyways?" That is of course, strictly speaking, correct

My understanding was that you always used nominative case with "to be" because it is a reflexive verb, so that is actually incorrect. Am I wrong?

The rest of that excerpt is kind of batshit crazy.

humour is difficult on the internet.

GRAMMAR IS SERIOUS BUSINESS

srs grammar are srs

btw xxxp i would go for "voicemail box". perhaps it is a mailbox for your voice, but in another, better way, it really isn't.

My understanding was that you always used nominative case with "to be" because it is a reflexive verb, so that is actually incorrect. Am I wrong?

No, you're fussy-grammar right, tho' I think the logic is that it's a copulative rather than a reflexive verb (ie expressing a predicate rather than action on oneself). And usage (at least what I read and hear in the uk) doesn't support it.

But this is deeper grammar water than I'm comfortable in. Than in which I'm comfy.

mmmmm copulative

I always thought whom should be used for the object of a sentence, or following a preposition ("To whom am I speaking?").

its just subject object i think he:him :: i:me :: who:whom

A common rule for determining whether "who" or "whom" is right is to substitute "she" for "who," and "her" for "whom," and see which sounds the better. Take the sentence, "He met a woman who they said was an actress." Now if "who" is correct then "she" can be used in its place. Let us try it. "He met a woman she they said was an actress." That instantly rings false. It can't be right. Hence the proper usage is "whom

this seems weird to me bc "He met a woman her they said was an actress." seems just as wrong but "He met a woman; she, they said, was an actress." for eg sounds right?

but lol @ the following para

haha that makes no sense. should say change the sentence to "he met her" rather than "he met she." plax's usage with semi-colon is right because it's like a new sentence with a subject rather than an object.

Who/whom fight upthread:
ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends
And the who/whom thread:
who/whom
There. Now everything is perfectly clear.

0 grammar nerd points for everyone who failed to spot the james thurber who/whom thing is meant to be 'humorous'.

I came here to ask/complain about something and then learned I already asked/complained about it in October of 08. Suddenly I feel like my life should be progressing more.

i dr the james thurber thing; it was tl

Wracked vs racked?

Freeonlinedictionary.com says "The use of the spelling wrack rather than rack in sentences such as she was wracked by grief or the country was wracked by civil war is very common but is thought by many people to be incorrect" but then again some places will consider something correct if enough people say it wrongly, so I don't know how much store to set by their recommendations.

wracked by pain, racked the billiard balls. iirc.