ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends

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.

repsonded!??

And I know, I sound like an arse anyway. That's why I don't use whom. I need all the help I can get!

"I am badly"!

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

Arse!

"I am baldy"

As long as you two admit that you're basically rewriting the rules. I mean, fuck capital letters: the period breaks up sentences just fine, and I don't want to look like some old-fashioned twit by using them.

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.

Actually, he's right; his responses, however, may be correct. Indeed, he may also be correct as a human being, but in this context that's neither here nor there.

Every time I read this thread I become more descriptivist. Except on apostrophes, use of.

As long as you two admit that you're basically rewriting the rules.

No, this is in grammar books and stuff. Honest!

I suppose it depends on whether you take a prescriptive or descriptive view of grammar (rules to follow or patterns to observe). I did some research on this in a previous job using the Cambridge International Corpus (a collection of billions of bits of language, written and spoken, with some nifty statistical tools), and it just isn't used in object position that much any more, especially in informal contexts.

When does usage become so established that we change the rules, is the question, I suppose.

stet otm, except I'm fussy about some things, and obviously im my job I have to be fussy about everything.

So with my "as such" thing above, I think I'm in the conservative camp. Anyone have a view on that one?

As long as you two admit that you're basically rewriting the rules. I mean, fuck capital letters: the period breaks up sentences just fine, and I don't want to look like some old-fashioned twit by using them.

I don't think this is an especially recent development (I've never really known anyone who uses 'whom' in conversation) and I'm certainly not claiming personal responsibility for "rewriting the rules". Anyway language is evolving all the time: the grammar is changing, the vocabulary is changing, the pronunciation is changing. All the 'rules' can do is provide a snapshot of what patterns seem to exist at a given moment in time: as the language moves on the rules how to change. Maybe in the past the use of 'whom' was much wider and the use of 'who' was much narrower. That's not really relevant now: there's no point applying a rule that no longer describes the language that people actually use.

I get pissed off at being forced to change almost every "like" to "such as" at work, but that's a separate issue.

x-post

Grrr. 'how' = 'have' (xpost to self)

But 'like' is wrong, heh. At least you can mix it up with 'such X as'
xpst

I think it makes you sound like an arse, which is not a register I want to use, code-switching or no.

You're right that few people use "whom" in spoken English, and that using it might seem rather poncey, but I don't think it carries this reputation in written English at all. And especially since the company I work for ("for whom I work") produces reference materials, I'm not likely to stop using it any time soon.

I like saying whom! It's a nice soft sound, and anything that softens guttural weegian is a good thing.

I use it at work too. But I wouldn't in my own writing. I'd make the poor sub/copyeditor change it.

Stet - "I fancy women such as Carey Mulligan out of Dr Who" just sounds stupid and stilted to me, even if I do fancy Carey Mulligan herself, not just other women who are similar to her. Like has a different scope in this context that shouldn't be bound by its meaning elsewhere. I (along with almost every writer who ever files copy) THINK.

Ridiculously strict house styles: classic or dud?

I have to change every "while" that isn't a temporal one to a "whereas" or an "although".

Jamie, I'm with you on the as-such thing, although it's something that had only annoyed me non-specifically before, and now I'm sure I'll notice it all the time...

But if you just fancy Carey Mulligan, you don't need either such as or like, surely? If you fancy women like her, then like is the right word anyway.