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.
― it means "EMOTIONAL"! (HI DERE), Tuesday, 11 May 2010 14:55 (thirteen years ago) link
humour is difficult on the internet.
― I had gained ten lewis (ledge), Tuesday, 11 May 2010 14:57 (thirteen years ago) link
GRAMMAR IS SERIOUS BUSINESS
― it means "EMOTIONAL"! (HI DERE), Tuesday, 11 May 2010 14:59 (thirteen years ago) link
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.
― I had gained ten lewis (ledge), Tuesday, 11 May 2010 15:05 (thirteen years ago) link
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.
― woof, Tuesday, 11 May 2010 15:23 (thirteen years ago) link
mmmmm copulative
― The Clegg Effect (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 11 May 2010 15:28 (thirteen years ago) link
I always thought whom should be used for the object of a sentence, or following a preposition ("To whom am I speaking?").
― i would rather burn than spend eternity with god and rapists (chap), Tuesday, 11 May 2010 17:59 (thirteen years ago) link
its just subject object i think he:him :: i:me :: who:whom
― plax (ico), Tuesday, 11 May 2010 18:08 (thirteen years ago) link
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?
― plax (ico), Tuesday, 11 May 2010 18:12 (thirteen years ago) link
but lol @ the following para
― plax (ico), Tuesday, 11 May 2010 18:16 (thirteen years ago) link
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.
― Guns, Computer, The Internet (harbl), Tuesday, 11 May 2010 18:16 (thirteen years ago) link
Who/whom fight upthread:ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar FiendsAnd the who/whom thread:who/whom There. Now everything is perfectly clear.
― woof, Tuesday, 11 May 2010 20:08 (thirteen years ago) link
0 grammar nerd points for everyone who failed to spot the james thurber who/whom thing is meant to be 'humorous'.
― I had gained ten lewis (ledge), Tuesday, 11 May 2010 23:20 (thirteen years ago) link
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.
― oɔsıqɐu (nabisco), Tuesday, 11 May 2010 23:27 (thirteen years ago) link
i dr the james thurber thing; it was tl
― Guns, Computer, The Internet (harbl), Tuesday, 11 May 2010 23:33 (thirteen years ago) link
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.
― salad dressing of doom (Laurel), Wednesday, 19 May 2010 15:14 (thirteen years ago) link
wracked by pain, racked the billiard balls. iirc.
― ian, Wednesday, 19 May 2010 15:23 (thirteen years ago) link
yeah - 'racked' or 'wracked' are interchangeable in ian's first example, but you can only use racked for the second
― retarded candle burning at both ends (dyao), Wednesday, 19 May 2010 15:28 (thirteen years ago) link
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!
― salad dressing of doom (Laurel), Wednesday, 19 May 2010 15:31 (thirteen years ago) link
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.)
― retarded candle burning at both ends (dyao), Wednesday, 19 May 2010 15:36 (thirteen years ago) link
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
― retarded candle burning at both ends (dyao), Wednesday, 19 May 2010 15:37 (thirteen years ago) link
wracked with pain, rather than by, i think? afaiac 'racked with pain' is wrong.
― control (c sharp major), Wednesday, 19 May 2010 15:39 (thirteen years ago) link
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'
― retarded candle burning at both ends (dyao), Wednesday, 19 May 2010 15:41 (thirteen years ago) link
i have the full oed at my fingertips here at work! so far... it is not backing me up.
― control (c sharp major), Wednesday, 19 May 2010 15:42 (thirteen years ago) link
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.
― retarded candle burning at both ends (dyao), Wednesday, 19 May 2010 15:44 (thirteen years ago) link
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? :)
― retarded candle burning at both ends (dyao), Wednesday, 19 May 2010 15:47 (thirteen years ago) link
rack, v.12. 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.23. 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.
― control (c sharp major), Wednesday, 19 May 2010 15:47 (thirteen years ago) link
Mine too! Damn.
― salad dressing of doom (Laurel), Wednesday, 19 May 2010 15:54 (thirteen years ago) link
we had this on another thread lately iirc, caused by my correct usage.
i'm sticking by that version of events btw
― May be half naked, but knows a good headline when he sees it (darraghmac), Wednesday, 19 May 2010 15:55 (thirteen years ago) link
"the family comprises of four members"!
"consists of" or "comprises," surely.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Friday, 4 June 2010 17:07 (thirteen years ago) link
You'd certainly have thought so, but who's to say in this pied times?
― GamalielRatsey, Friday, 4 June 2010 17:09 (thirteen years ago) link
this these, Christ.
― GamalielRatsey, Friday, 4 June 2010 17:10 (thirteen years ago) link
consists of/is comprised of
― the soul of the avocado escapes as soon as you open it (Laurel), Friday, 4 June 2010 17:51 (thirteen years ago) link
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
― oɔsıqɐu (nabisco), Friday, 4 June 2010 18:01 (thirteen years ago) link
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
― Haunted Clocks For Sale (Dorianlynskey), Friday, 4 June 2010 18:12 (thirteen years ago) link
"Comprises of" is probably the one term that makes my skin crawl the most. Ergo, it must be wrong, right?
― Not the real Village People, Friday, 4 June 2010 18:15 (thirteen years ago) link
Yeah it's wrong. "Comprises" or "is comprised of" but never "comprises of".
― Haunted Clocks For Sale (Dorianlynskey), Friday, 4 June 2010 18:26 (thirteen years ago) link
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.
― jaymc, Friday, 4 June 2010 18:34 (thirteen years ago) link
i'm confused how "comprises" can equal "is comprised of" without switching the order of whole and parts. can it really?
― harbl, Friday, 4 June 2010 20:09 (thirteen years ago) link
These are all correct:
Hispaniola comprises Haiti and the Dominican Republic.Hispaniola is composed of Haiti and the Dominican Republic.Haiti and the Dominican Republic compose Hispaniola.
This is wrong (or rather, the prevailing view is that this is wrong):
Hispaniola is comprised of Haiti and the Dominican Republic.
― jaymc, Friday, 4 June 2010 20:17 (thirteen years ago) link
(Also traditionally wrong: Haiti and the Dominican Republic comprise Hispaniola.)
― jaymc, Friday, 4 June 2010 20:19 (thirteen years ago) link
I wouldn't let "of" go anywhere near "comprise*"
Is there any way of reading "comprises" to mean "includes, but is not limited to..." or "contains"?E.g. I would say "pancake batter consists of flour, milk and eggs" but could you say "pancake batter comprises flour and milk" leaving out the eggs? A co-worker once expressed surprise that their legal document made this distinction between the two words (er, not relatign to pancakes) but to me it sounded OK. I suppose context is key.
― Not the real Village People, Friday, 4 June 2010 20:41 (thirteen years ago) link
From Webster's Third New International:
5 a: to consist of : be made up of [. . .] b: to make up : CONSTITUTE <the receipts comprised the fifth-larest gate in boxing history - John Lardner>. vi: to be made up : CONSIST - used with of <the funds of the association shall comprise of members' subscriptions - Education>
― bamcquern, Saturday, 5 June 2010 02:17 (thirteen years ago) link
i think it's awesome that the last two posts on this thread have typos in them. my dietary consumption today was comprised of three vodka tonics.
― sarahel, Saturday, 5 June 2010 09:19 (thirteen years ago) link
Help: got a mental block here. Do we say "for old time's sake" or "for old times' sake" or even "for old times's sake"? (i.e. is it for the sake of old time or for the sake of old times?)
― I Ain't Committing Suicide For No Crab (Nasty, Brutish & Short), Thursday, 10 June 2010 20:25 (thirteen years ago) link
The latter, imo. For old times' sake.
― the soul of the avocado escapes as soon as you open it (Laurel), Thursday, 10 June 2010 20:26 (thirteen years ago) link
^^^ I'm standing with Laurel here.
― Aimless, Thursday, 10 June 2010 20:40 (thirteen years ago) link
thanks
― I Ain't Committing Suicide For No Crab (Nasty, Brutish & Short), Thursday, 10 June 2010 20:44 (thirteen years ago) link
Eminem disagrees.
http://www.blindiforthekids.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/eminem-old-times-sake-feat-dr-dre-300x300.jpg
― Beware, I Hongro! (onimo), Friday, 11 June 2010 13:31 (thirteen years ago) link