ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends

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.

NO SHIT people don't use "whom" in informal conversation, but if you're teaching people grammar then you might at least let them know the formal rules, because, you know, they can probably pick up on informalities on their own.

No, I fancy both Carey Mulligan and women who resemble her.

Maybe he fancies Carey Mulligan AND woman who resemble her. (xpost)

though I guess if you're doing ESL teaching it might be simpler to just cut to what doesn't sound awkward in conversation

Ah. That was redundant. (xpost)

though I guess if you're doing ESL teaching it might be simpler to just cut to what doesn't sound awkward in conversation

Obviously. If someone is trying to learn a language you equip them to deal with the language they will actually encounter in the real world, rather than what someone feels they ought to encounter.

then you fancy such women as carey mulligan. but any minute now the dude who wrote that style is going to come crashing through the doors shouting about Tescos, so I'm going to leave this one

yeah I had to reread the thread before I realized you were teaching English as second language

xpost

When you're teaching English (as an SL) you find a lot of students use whom ALL the time, cos they've learnt from books or non-native teachers or whatever, so yes, the challenge is to make them sound a little more natural, but be aware of it as a marker of formality.

But there is the point about when exactly we give it up.

"You" also has an object form (thee) and a subject form (thou), which obvioulsy fell out of use. When does the disjunct between used language and the rules get big enough to change the rules?

I reckon pretty soon with "whom", in that, as Jamie and I have been saying, it's already taught as an optional form in ESL textbooks.

obvioulsy !

Personally I choose to never use the word 'whom' because I don't want to sound like an ageing, posh Oxbridge Don.

But there is the point about when exactly we give it up.

"You" also has an object form (thee) and a subject form (thou), which obvioulsy fell out of use. When does the disjunct between used language and the rules get big enough to change the rules?

I reckon pretty soon with "whom", in that, as Jamie and I have been saying, it's already taught as an optional form in ESL textbooks.

Anyone reading that who doesn't know that my name is also Jamie will think you are talking to yourself.

There are various aspects of the language which are in the process of changing. The question is to what extent the change has been adopted: what proportion of the population use the new form rather than the old form (or if people use both forms, how often do they prefer the new to the old)? 'Posh'/'educated' English tends to be more formal and conservative, as does written English, so sometimes forms can linger for decades there (such as our old friend 'whom') that have virtually disappeared from everyday speech.

The grammar books used for teaching English are obviously going to side more with descriptivists because communication is the goal. House style guides are obviously going to be far more prescriptivist (but even they would have to update their rules eventually). The grammar books for teaching English usually give both alternatives (the old and the new). Where the change has been largely adopted then there is usually a note saying that old form is considered very formal and uncommon. Where the change is less complete then there is usually a note saying that the new form is considered informal and not used in 'careful speech'.

I quite like the idea of international readers thinking we're idiots. It facilitates the mounting of a surprise attack.

"You" also has an object form (thee) and a subject form (thou), which obvioulsy fell out of use.

"thee" and "thou" were informal singular second-person, analogous to tu/ti in Spanish, du in German, etc. "Ye" was the object form of "you."

And yeah I don't consider people who say "whom" to be overbearingly posh like the Britishers apparently do.

oh wait this is the thread where you can't use "like" in place of "as"