[ohara]

OK! So, an author of a book which I was reading used who instead of whom! Worse yet, this is a book on the subject of English Linguistics!

Howard Richler says on page forty-nine of A Bawdy Language : " the English Language tends to sleep with whoever it finds most attractive".

Hmmmm, what is wrong with that sentence?

1. Whoever follows a FUCKING preposition!
2. Whoever is also an object of an action verb.

The second rule I could largely disregard, as it was introduced in the Latinization period of English grammar. The first rule, however, should never be overlooked. Who must be declined into whom in order for the sentence to make proper sense. So, is this "book" – printed by a legitimate publishing-house - evidence of declining - no pun intended - grammatical standards?

Concerning this book's format and subject, is anyone else so infuriated as I?

[Wickers]

Not me...

Sounds like an editor's oversight, no biggy...
If it bothers you so much why not write the plublisher? At least that way they know about it.

[_Ω_]

This is why I have never taken another language. I still have to master this one before I can move to the next.

[Windswept]

Originally Posted by ohara OK! So, an author of a book which I was reading used who instead of whom! Worse yet, this is a book on the subject of English Linguistics! Howard Richler says on page forty-nine of A Bawdy Language : " the English Language tends to sleep with whoever it finds most attractive". Hmmmm, what is wrong with that sentence? 1. Whoever follows a FUCKING preposition! 2. Whoever is also an object of an action verb. The second rule I could largely disregard, as it was introduced in the Latinization period of English grammar. The first rule, however, should never be overlooked. Who must be declined into whom in order for the sentence to make proper sense. So, is this "book" – printed by a legitimate publishing-house - evidence of declining - no pun intended - grammatical standards? Concerning this book's format and subject, is anyone else so infuriated as I?

Appalling, indeed, especially for a linguistics text.

What has annoyed me in the last few years is that I'll check the spelling of a word, and the dictionary will give *two* spellings, saying that both are acceptable. For example, 'benefited' and 'benefitted' were both listed as acceptable the last time I checked. I find that extremely irritating.

[ohara]

Aren't books usually sent out to people to be proofread?

[Brad]

Oh, man. That kind of thing irks to me to no end.

My SO just read the book Eats, Shoots, and Leaves. I read a few passages from it and would highly recommend it to any other armchair linguists here. It's an entertaining read that covers the use and misuse of who and whom as well as the elusive apostrophe and comma.

[Kickaha]

Oh god, yes. My wife loves that book, and her father is currently devouring it. No pun intended.

Of course, this is also the family that read's Fowler's for *fun*, so they're a bit wacky.

[Baylor8306]

my favorite part of this whole thing is that ohara is pointing out a legitimate mistake in a book, and although it may be a big deal, does not have the couth to bring it up respectfully. the use of unnecessary expletives shows ones mentality. i am in no way discounting the fact that this may have been a mistake in a linguistics book, but am merely trying to point out that there could have been other ways to go about bringing it up rather than going off of a tirade about this improper use of words

[Kickaha]

You should hear my wife cuss out any movie or show that misuses Latin.

Oy.

"Right, and where's your fucking declension, huh? Didn't even use a proper preposition, you illiterate twatwaffles... jeez, some people."

"Um, honey, it's Smallville, and Lana's been taken over by the ghost of a 16th century witch... don't you think you can extend your suspension of disbelief to the magical incantations?"

"But this is LATIN!"

God it's fun to watch.

[Mac+]

... reminds me of the classic Wayne and Shuster gag:

"Bartender - give me a martinus."

"You mean a martini."

"If I want two, I'll ask for them."

boom-tish

[staph]

I may be a grammar fascist (OK, I am a grammar fascist), but really… English is a living language, and the who/m distinction has realistically been dead for the best part of 50 years.

Or would you like to resurrect our thees and thous? You might as well complain about how terribly ungrammatical Italian is, because it moved on from classical models.

Btw, Kickaha: I agree with your wife. Latin is a happily dead language, and people who get it wrong suck. Big time.

[Kickaha]

Well, I have to say that I've taken to "y'all" after moving to NC. It's so damned *USEFUL*. Second person, plural, without any ambiguity. Gotta love it.

[scratt]

Originally Posted by staph I may be a grammar fascist (OK, I am a grammar fascist), but really… English is a living language, and the who/m distinction has realistically been dead for the best part of 50 years. Or would you like to resurrect our thees and thous? You might as well complain about how terribly ungrammatical Italian is, because it moved on from classical models. Btw, Kickaha: I agree with your wife. Latin is a happily dead language, and people who get it wrong suck. Big time.

Yep you are right.. It is a constantly growing and evolving language.
English also has many 'dialects'.

The English that is spoken in England is definitely not the English that is spoken in the US. There are actually very different uses of sentence construction, not to mention spelling and inferance of individual words...

From the English English point of view some of the things which American taught English speakers say / write are totally ambiguous!

It's really great fun actually.
We are half way through this fantastic International Skydiving Boogie in Thailand at the moment (Have just dashed back to Bangkok to catch up on work in the 2 day break in the middle) and I am currently getting coaching off some great US skydivers.. We also have ex-pats from Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand and all over Asia.. as well as native Japanese, Thai, Indonesian, Singaporean, Americans etc. etc.

The universal language for all is of course English and in the evenings a great quantity of beer is drunk and cultural differences discussed at great length.... But the most fun is actually finding a common base of the English language to communicate with!! It is pandemonium!

[staph]

Originally Posted by scratt From the English English point of view some of the things which American taught English speakers say / write are totally ambiguous!

Indeed. Not to mention the weirder ones you'd hardly even notice — I'm told that American English almost never uses "whilst", for example, although I've never paid enough attention to ever notice.

At another level of ambiguity (a rather puerile one, at that ), I've always taken pleasure in semantic disjunctions like the colloquial meaning of "rubber"…

[scratt]

He he!! There is another one on that track also... I think I am correct on this, but please someone correct me if I am wrong.. In Australia selotape is a really well known brand of condom, where as in the UK it is actually what we use for sticking paper together... Selotape has become a brand name word used like the other brand name word 'hoover' is in the UK - meaing vacuum cleaner.

Selotape is actually a brand name for a reel of sticking tape (Don't know what the International English / US English names are). The list goes on... and is great fun the first time you visit a country...

9 times out of 10 in the UK you will be thought of as speaking a funny kind of English or from the victorian era if you ask for a vacuum cleaner or a reel of sticking tape!

On holiday in various countries these questions were fun and initially got confusing answers..
Do you have a 'hoover'? *blank looks*
Can I borrow a reel of selotape? *sniggers*

I have a lot of fun with 'Rain Checks' as well in the US once!!

Another one that just sounds strange but is actually correct English is to say something was enjoyable. From my own perspective I only ever hear Americans use the word enjoyable these days. We had a really enjoyable time / enjoyable day. It just isn't used in UK English that often.

In some respects US English is almost more proper and less slang like than UK English and can sometimes sound almost stuffy to an English ear. Which is bizarre when you think of the cultural stereotypes we have...

But all my US friends will always call my Dad, Sir. for example. That can come across as so polite and is quite sweet. In the UK you would call someones father by their first name, or perhaps Mr.Surname.. but Sir is reserved for a real Sir. or a school master!

[Kickaha]

Sticking (cellophane) tape = Scotch tape. The 3M company invented the bloody stuff when a batch of industrial tape was given an inadequate amount of glue. The recipients, seeing that it was only temporary tape, told them to "take it back to [their] Scotch bosses", Scotch of course meaning cheap. Voila, Scotch tape. It's a brand name, but it's what everyone calls it.

Kleenex = facial tissue
Jello = dessert gelatin

etc

But I don't think I've ever met anyone in the US who didn't know what a rain check was... unless you tried to spell it 'cheque' in which case you'd get pitched over the northern border.

[scratt]

Originally Posted by Kickaha But I don't think I've ever met anyone in the US who didn't know what a rain check was... unless you tried to spell it 'cheque' in which case you'd get pitched over the northern border.

He He!! That was the point... I had no idea what one was!!
I guessed it had something to do with a rainy day and going shopping because there was nothing else to do!!

[staph]

No, scratt, cellotape is, in fact, sticky tape in Australia. You're possibly thinking of Ansell? For what it's worth, we also refer to Scotch tape, but only because 3M sell it under that brand; it's come to mean sticky tape with the matte back which you can write on with a biro.

Generally, we'd refer to a vacuum cleaner simply as a "vacuum"

Mind you, we'd never refer to someone's parent as sir or ma'am… teacher yes, parents no. Mind you, this is a country where one of the first duties of a host is to offer the guest a beer. There's probably an entry in the etiquette handbook about it.

[ohara]

Well, it's not like I use perfect speech either – but such a blatant error such as a declension error got to me!

Does anyone else add to the number of pronouns used?

I alter the tone in we to produce eight different versions depending on the situation or speaker. (i included, i not included, speaking to someone of prestige, another version based on the difference between 1,2, etc.)

Additionally, I'll say thou/thee/thy/thine/thyself/thineself to someone I'm amorously attracted to or to someone I really mad at; ye when addressing multiple people of distinction.

[staph]

Originally Posted by ohara Additionally, I'll say thou/thee/thy/thine/thyself/thineself to someone I'm amorously attracted to

Which is funny, 'cos it connotes lack of respect.

"ye" — isn't that just how it's pronounced?

[thuh Freak]

i ne'er dun learnt where i's apposed two youse WHO er WHOM. but seriously, i know they's different words, but i dont consciously know where one goes nor t'other.

[Banana]

As someone already pointed out above, English is living language and there are zillion variants of Englishes out of there.

Furthermore, I hope you realize that many famous authors, poets, etc. break grammar rules on a daily basis to get their points across.

Then what is grammar all about? It is simply a system to help us write clearly. If we didn't have grammar, we wouldn't know whether "dog eat man" means that or if it's actually "man eat dog." Hence "dog was eaten by man" and "man ate dog" help to clarify who did what.

So, if a grammar rule is broken for sake of clarity, then the spirit of grammar actually is preserved.

And do you realize we're breaking every grammar rules that Shakespeare used, right?

[LudwigVan]

Originally Posted by Banana And do you realize we're breaking every grammar rules that Shakespeare used, right?

Shakespeare broke a few of his own, e.g. plural noun with singular verb (or is it the other way around?). I'll try to find some examples later.

[Windswept]

Originally Posted by LudwigVan Shakespeare broke a few of his own, e.g. plural noun with singular verb (or is it the other way around?). I'll try to find some examples later.

A common 'American vs. British' usage difference has always bothered me somewhat.

We say: The team 'has' arrived. (collective-singular subject; singular verb)

Brits say: The team 'have' arrived. (collective-pural subject; plural verb)

But the dilemma is that the Brits also have to say, "The teams have arrived," so there is no distinction between 'team' and 'teams'.

I love it when the Brits say "whilst". It sounds so old-fashioned and quaint, like right out of the 1600-1700's. Really quite charming, imo, and a continual reminder to Americans (okay, to *me*) not only of Britain's lengthy historical past but of our own fledgling status as a nation.

P.S. - Hey, LoCash. Maybe you should add "whilst" to your 'British spelling' repertoire.

[ohara]

Um, grammar wasn't yet codified in "Shakespeare's" day, so no one really cared. That was why Donnelly's Bacon-cipher failed, for example.

[Banana]

Well, golly!

Ol' Bill didn't have a grammar book? And he churned out quite a few masterpieces in English literature! And ignorant masses managed to get it!

Thus, my point remains= grammar is there for convenience and clarity. It does not define English. At least not English as of 21:42 GMT, March 7, 2005.

You are free to bitch over misuse of Latin or Morse code; they aren't going to be updated or anything, but English... a little like trying to hold water in your palms. Good luck.