ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends

ok, here's one that has always annoyed me, but recently i've been having my doubts as to my right-ness:
dvds, cds, mp3s (etc.) vs. dvd's, cd's, mp3's (etc.).

i always thought the former was correct, but this incredibly smart writerly friend of mine always uses the latter. i really want to say something but i'm paranoid i'm wrong, and i don't want him to think i'm an ass. i'm 99.9999% i'm right, though.

[god, i'll be majorly bummed and humiliated if i'm wrong]

Posting on this thread sometimes is like when you read about posture or breathing, and you find yourself sort of semiconsciously straightening up

daria I think you'd need a comma after "class" in order for either of those to work? It wouldn't be "who" in any case because the class isn't a person.

or what Alba said!

i'd have used your original way rubyred, but then what would I know?

Daria, the two have different meanings/uses (restrictive vs. non-restrictive), which basically line up, meaning-wise, like this:

- The class, which incidentally just so happened to raise $1000, is awesome.
- The class that raised $1000 is awesome, whereas the class that raised $50 sucks.

A comma and a "which" for an incidental clause -- one that could be set off in dashes or parentheses, or even omitted. No comma and a "that" for something that's part of the subject: "The house that's on the left (as opposed to the house that's on the right)."

Haha you may or may not need a comma in $1,000.

OMG I am totally against using an apostrophe in CDs and DVDs, because the letters are capitalized and there's zero risk of anyone confusing the S with part of the designation there -- and yet the damned Greengrocer's Times New York Times even does CD's for plural!

ok, here's one that has always annoyed me, but recently i've been having my doubts as to my right-ness:
dvds, cds, mp3s (etc.) vs. dvd's, cd's, mp3's (etc.).

i always thought the former was correct, but this incredibly smart writerly friend of mine always uses the latter. i really want to say something but i'm paranoid i'm wrong, and i don't want him to think i'm an ass. i'm 99.9999% i'm right, though.

[god, i'll be majorly bummed and humiliated if i'm wrong]

x-post

My great apostrophe-to-sort-out-lowercase mind-breaker is do's and don'ts, which works, but is just ... extremely provisional.

Ha, we might actually need some new apostrophe-like mark to denote "this isn't a possessive, it's simply being used to separate the plural S from something it could make confusing." DO~S and DON'TS

dear lord. it's def. "which" but the whole sentence in question is a hideous mess, to be honest i'd rewrite the whole thing were i not already exhausted. (I didn't write it in the first place, I just seem to care too much about these things, when obv the writer didn't care)

YAY! I WAS RIGHT!
[i hope you peeps are right...]
now i can confidentally approach my man-friend with his mistake. it totally bugs me when i see signs at video/music stores saying: "CD's! DVD's! half-price!" wtf?

14 hours later ...

Daria, the two have different meanings/uses (restrictive vs. non-restrictive), which basically line up, meaning-wise, like this:

- The class, which incidentally just so happened to raise $1000, is awesome.
- The class that raised $1000 is awesome, whereas the class that raised $50 sucks.

This is correct, but you can use which or that without the comma for the second one (although not in some house styles). You can only use that with a defining relative clause, however, so the first one has to be which.

However, I feel that who would be fine here. Conceptually, you would be thinking of the students who made up the class, rather than the class as an entity in itself. (Just as you can use a plural or singular verb with class.) Doesn't change the meaning, though.

Hey, I've got one.

I always correct "as such" when it is used to mean "as a result" or "therefore", and only let it through when [gets technical] the clause following it shares the same subject as the antecedent of "as such". So, to take some more supremely dull work examples:

Nationwide elections in mid-December are likely to be treated by many voters as a chance to pass judgement on Mr Ahmadinejad's handling of economic as well as political affairs, and as such will serve as a barometer of the popularity of the president, just 16 months into his term.

This is fine.

This requires Bahraini interest rates to closely track those in the US, albeit with a small positive differential (designed in part to safeguard against fluctuations in oil prices). As such, we expect Bahrain to cut rates slightly in 2007.

This is not.

I know I'm formally right, but am I being too conservative? Is this language change in action etc. and should I get with the programme? All our authors seem to do it.

This is correct, but you can use which or that without the comma for the second one (although not in some house styles).

Really? Maybe this is just sort of been drilled into me over the years, but I can't imagine any instance where "The class which raised $1000 is awesome" would be grammatically correct.

Ha, "this has just." (I'm as bad as the ILXors who write "sort've" for "sort of.")

Where I work now we have to use "that" for defining, "which" for non, and I know what you mean. It looks odd now.

However, I spent years teaching English as a foreign language and all the grammar books give that/which as alternatives for defining relative pronouns.

Is it ok to talk about "yoof", or has everyone now moved on to "da yoot" or however the fuck you spell it?

I found this interesting (from http://plateaupress.com.au/wfw/thatvwhi.htm)

"The interesting question about this issue is how it happened that "that" became so commonly, erroneously, replaced with "which." Here is a speculation: When you rearrange a sentence to get rid of a dangling preposition in a that-clause, the "that" disappears and its role is taken over by a "which." So for example "The dog that I ran away from was a Pekinese." becomes "The dog from which I ran away was a Pekinese." So people who have been taught to avoid dangling prepositions may have got the idea that "which" is somehow more formal or proper than "that" in general, just as people got the idea that "you and I" is always preferable to "you and me," even as the object of a verb or preposition, because they were drilled so hard to avoid saying things like "You and me have a lot to talk about." "

Hmmm... I think this how did "that" become so commonly, erroneously, replaced with "which" quest is a wild, goose chase. It assumes that at some point in the past, the restrictive/non-restrictive difference between the two words' usage was clear and uncontroversial, which I doubt. I think it's a nice distinction, but a somewhat artificial one that was never going to adhered to except in deliberately careful usage.

As has been pointed out before, we don't have a restrictive version of "who"*, so making a big song and dance about how essential it is to keep "that" and "which" apart seems a bit rich.

*although personally I think something like "the man that I met in street this morning" is fine. Other people seem to think it has to be "who" if it's a person, so I go with the flow.

Shouldn't it be "whom" in that example, though? (Unless you wrote it as "the man who met me in THE street this morning"; you wack Brits and yr vanishing definite articles.)

Oh, the missing article was just a typo. Even we wack Brits don't meet people in street! And yeah, whom, not who, but the point remains.

Hahahaha that was a typo! It should have been "wacky".

What about meeting people in the town of Street? You could meet people there. Then it's just careless capitalisation rather than the actual dropping of an article.

However, I spent years teaching English as a foreign language and all the grammar books give that/which as alternatives for defining relative pronouns.

Yep. These are the rules we teach:
For defining relative clauses for a thing, if it's the subject of the clause: which or that.
I sat on the chair which looks like a horse / that looks like a horse
For defining relative clauses for a thing, if it's the object of the clause: which or that or nothing.
The chair which I sat on / that I sat on / I sat on looks like a horse
For defining relative clauses for a person, if it's the subject of the clause: who or that.
The man who gave me / that gave me the money was wearing a big hat.
For defining relative clauses for a person, if it's the object of the clause: who or that or nothing.
The man who I met yesterday / that I met yesterday / I met yesterday was wearing a big hat.
For non-defining relative clauses 'which' for things and 'who' for people:
Police say that the car, which had recently been repaired, was bought from a local second hand showroom.
Police say that the man, who had several previous convictions, lived with his mother.

I thought this would be a good a place as any to confirm this..

I was drinking with a buddy the other night and he's got 1st class honours in linguistics (or something like that). We got into this argument "well" vs "good" when someone asks "how are you?".

I said it has to be "well".

He said it has to be "good", but if you are asked "how are you going?" then it must be "well".

I think he's wrong.

Do you think/know he's wrong??

Or am i the idiot here?

obv I mentioned about the honours thing coz he totally thought he was superior to me.

'Well' can be adverb ("Rooney played well last night") related to the adjective 'good' or an adjective ("He's not very well") meaning 'in good health'.

If you responded with a complete sentence, then you would have to say, "I'm doing well." But if it's just a one-word reply, then I think it's splitting hairs: either will do.

ACCEPTABLE RESPONSES:

"How are you doing?": "Well."
"How are you?": "Good."

"How are you?" is really asking for an answer that is in the form of "I am ____," not "I am doing ____."

No, they're different words: 'well' the adverb and 'well' the adjective. They're both possible answers, but the meaning is different.

"How are you?" "Good" means things are OK in my life. I'm happy with my job / family / things in general. This is more general response.

"How are you?" "Well" means I'm in good health. You'd probably only use this is the person asking the question knew that you'd been ill / in hospital recently.

I don't think Britons, in the past, would ever have said "I'm good", in response to this question. I think it's a modern (American-influenced?) thing. "Good", on its own, in relation to a person, meant morally good. Otherwise it would be good at something. "Well" is a perfectly good adjective, as has been said.

"How are you?" "Good" means things are OK in my life. I'm happy with my job / family / things in general. This is more general response.

"How are you?" "Well" means I'm in good health. You'd probably only use this is the person asking the question knew that you'd been ill / in hospital recently.

I don't really agree with this. There is an element of health-relatedness about it, but I think it has a wider, blander meaning in this context. It's only an exchange of pleasantry anyway. Maybe people's health used to be the main issue, in sicklier, less anxious and goal-obsessed time.

NB&S I know that, I'm just going with the meaning that everybody uses as their answer (i.e. "my life is okay," in which case you would say "I am good" or "I am doing well.")

Thinking about it, I don't think I would use either of those words anyway. I'd normally ask "How's it going?" (or "How are you?" to someone I didn't know so well). If I'm asked that question I'd normally say "not bad" or "alright". Technically, should I be saying "not badly"?

The man who I met yesterday / that I met yesterday / I met yesterday was wearing a big hat

That wouldn't be "whom"????

yes, but that would just sound dumb.

xpost

it would be "whom"

I, for one, appreciate HI DERE's whom attentiveness.

If I'm asked that question I'd normally say "not bad" or "alright". Technically, should I be saying "not badly"?

Yes. Unless you meant "it's going bad" in the sense of "it's not turning bad/"it's not going rotten"!

"My life is going rotten" is what I usually say in response to any question after my wellbeing.

I usually say "...Copacetic," and then give a gangsta nod.

Unless you meant "it's going bad" should read Unless you meant "it's not going bad", in case there was any confusion.

That wouldn't be "whom"????

Nope. 'Whom' is really only needed when there's a preposition before the relative pronoun, e.g. the man to whom I gave the smelly sock. 'Who' is perfectly acceptable if you stick the preposition at the end: the man who I gave the smelly sock to. It's a matter of choice, one's formal, the other's informal. Personally I choose to never use the word 'whom' because I don't want to sound like an ageing, posh Oxbridge Don.

Why not??

Coz I'm red-brick streetkid, innit.

I must say, I've never heard this "acceptable if you stick the preposition at the end" rule before, though I agree it does sound more creaky in that context.

What about if it's with a transitive verb? Would you also say "The man who I helped" was OK?

Intranstive, I mean.

But with an extra i.

Nope. 'Whom' is really only needed when there's a preposition before the relative pronoun

you are so so so so wrong. "Whom" is used whenever the pronoun is not the subject of the clause. "The man whom I met yesterday" is correct because "whom" is the object of "met."

direct object, rather

xposts

This well/well/good thing relates to the US/Canadian "I feel badly about it". People want to use the adverb as it's modifying the verb, but "feel", along with "to be" and a small range of other verbs is a [jargon alert] copular verb and takes an adjective. So Rooney played badly and I feel bad about it.

My personal theory is that saying "well" in reply to the question "how do you feel" or whatever is a regularisation of the same mistake over many years in some century or other.

Nasty, brutish and short (who I used to teach English with about five years ago, actually, and who I have argued with about this before) is correct.

Whom is part of what's left of our case system. It's a dative/accusative so formally it should be used for the object OR after a preposition, BUT [language change in action kids!] for the object it is now becoming increasingly archaic and is a matter of register. I think it makes you sound like an arse, which is not a register I want to use, code-switching or no.

However, you do have to use it if the "who(m)" is directly after the preposition, but as NBS says, you can just stick that at the end (which in itself used to be a grammatical no-no, owing to comparison with Latin or something).

The one place I use it is after "of" in sentences such as "100 people repsonded to the questonnaire, 20% of whom said ..." as you can't move the "of". Even then you can rephrase, though.