ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends

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.

yeah - 'racked' or 'wracked' are interchangeable in ian's first example, but you can only use racked for the second

It's the "wracked by pain" usage that I'm asking about. Have seen it as "rack" in several books lately, in that exact usage, plus here we have at least one online resource saying that "wrack" is widely considered wrong. Don't just answer my question: discus!

well according to the dictionary that comes with macs (oxford concise iirc) wracked & racked are acceptable for the 'racked by pain' example. according to my american heritage, only 'racked' is acceptable in the first usage. 'wrack' specifically means the wreckage of a ship, or to be wrecked (intr.) or to wreck something (trans.)

of course there's nothing stopping you from comparing your state of pain to being metaphorically similar to the wreckage of a ship! but I would go with 'racked by pain' to be safe

wracked with pain, rather than by, i think? afaiac 'racked with pain' is wrong.

merriam-webster seems to agree with american heritage in that they define 'wrack' as to be utterly ruined or wrecked, where as 'racked' means to cause intense suffering, anguish, pain, through torture, etc.

xp oxford concise says someone can be 'racked with guilt'

i have the full oed at my fingertips here at work! so far... it is not backing me up.

oh hi, usage note from the oxford concise:

The relationship between the forms rack and wrack is complicated. The most common noun sense of rack, ‘a framework for holding and storing things,’ is always spelled rack, never wrack. The figurative senses of the verb, deriving from the type of torture in which someone is stretched on a rack, can, however, be spelled either rack or wrack: thus, : racked with guilt or : wracked with guilt;: rack your brains or : wrack your brains. In addition, the phrase : rack and ruin can also be spelled : wrack and ruin .

on a further note, 'rack' seems to derive from an middle dutch word via middle english for 'framework', whereas 'wrack' seems to have derived from the middle dutch word 'wrak' which is related to shipwrecks, wrecking, wreaking, etc.

so maybe choose based on whichever metaphor is appropriate - is the pain more similar to being racked on a torture rack? or is it more similar to being smashed by gale winds against sharp rocks at sea? :)

rack, v.1
2. trans.
b. Usually of a disease: to cause extreme pain to (a person or a part of the body). Also occas. intr. of a person or part of the body: to be tormented by pain or disease.

c. To inflict mental pain or torture on (a person); to torment (the mind, soul, etc.). Now usu. in passive.

(and 'by' and 'with' seem interchangeable)

wrack, v.2
3. To cause the ruin, downfall, or subversion of (a person, etc.); to ruin, overthrow. Also refl.
b. To render useless by breaking, shattering, etc.; to injure or spoil severely; to destroy.

so... yeah, my instinct is totally wrong.

Mine too! Damn.

we had this on another thread lately iirc, caused by my correct usage.

i'm sticking by that version of events btw

"the family comprises of four members"!

"consists of" or "comprises," surely.

You'd certainly have thought so, but who's to say in this pied times?

this these, Christ.

consists of/is comprised of

Laurel, I like that use of "comprised," but according to Webster's, it's the newest/iffiest of all the standard uses -- some people still think you should just use "composed" in that instance

the "(whole) comprises (parts)" usage is first in Websters, and the "(parts) comprise (whole)" is second -- the latter is more comfortable to be, but I think they're equally standard

sorry, more comfortable to ME. and by "newest/iffiest" I mean it's been in use since the 18th century, but some people think it's kinda off

Fuck these 18th century Johnny-come-latelies

"Comprises of" is probably the one term that makes my skin crawl the most. Ergo, it must be wrong, right?

Yeah it's wrong. "Comprises" or "is comprised of" but never "comprises of".

Yeah, even though it's in common usage, I would never use "is comprised of" in an official/work-related context.

IIRC, some old-timer wrote in to my college's alumni magazine a couple years ago to berate the staff for using "comprise" incorrectly.

i'm confused how "comprises" can equal "is comprised of" without switching the order of whole and parts. can it really?