in reply to Re^2: Password request (*sandy*) in thread Password request
You are mistaken. (Unless you meant to be "funny", in which case you merely forgot the smiley.)
Re^4: Password request (*sandy*)
by thezip (Vicar) on May 18, 2015 at 15:57 UTC
|
Whether he meant to be funny is not the point. This is a hysterical thread whether intentional or not.
:-D
(thezip does not forget the smiley!)
*My* tenacity goes to eleven...
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
|
Nope, i meant it. The poll idea i posted was driven by by a few things lately: A friend related to me a few of his annoyances with people speaking English incorrectly, who/whom included, Old Time Radio's Superman English terms and pronunciations of note, including phrases such as, "who knows whom," and my followup by reading some of the rules. So, when i read the statement, i wondered which was the correct word, and come to the (incorrect) conclusion. I posted it because techies are often notorious for exact word usage, and was hoping to be corrected if wrong. I have not been disappointed. :)
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
|
"...annoyances with people speaking English incorrectly"
Perhaps this is a totally wrong approach?
I suggest reading Treasure Island by Robert Louis Stevenson.
Who speaks "correct" English? Squire Trelawney? Doctor Livesay? Long John Silver? Or one of the other buccaneers?
Next step: Read The Long Goodbye by Raymond Chandler. Perhaps this book will drive you insane. Or that book? Or it might?
"...who/whom included..."
See who and whom in Swan page 612 ff: "Whom is unusual in modern informal English".
For variations see at the same place. Or is it deviations, or even aberrations?
I'll take a look at my flashcard tonight.
Just some thoughts. Best regards, Karl
«The Crux of the Biscuit is the Apostrophe»
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
|
Re^4: Password request (*sandy*)
by chacham (Prior) on May 18, 2015 at 13:10 UTC
|
Nope, i meant it. I even read two write-ups on it first. I might not be correct, and i'm certain i don't know all the correct terms, but i reasoned that the unknown person is the subject of the clause, regardless of the rest of the sentence.
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
|
Sorry, no. The subject is always in the subjective case: he, she, it, we, you, they, who, whoever. It is the object which takes the objective case: him, her, it, us, you, them, whom, whomever. So “whoever it is” is correct.
Actually, in this instance it doesn’t matter whether “whoever” or “it” is the subject of the clause, because the verb to be doesn’t take an object, it takes a complement, which is always in the subjective case anyway. Hence “it is he” is correct, “it is him” is not.
Well, that’s what was (still is?) taught in traditional English grammar, which is modelled on the classical languages Latin and ancient Greek. In those languages distinctions of case are vitally important. It is debatable whether the classical rules apply to English. Hence, many English speakers say (and write) “it is him,” although pedants (like me) prefer “it is he”. Consider the following from the Gospel of John (18:4–5a) in a modern English translation (NIV):
Jesus, knowing all that was going to happen to him, went out and asked them, “Who is it you want?”
“Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied.
“I am he,” Jesus said.
(Note also the use of “who” in “Who is it you want?” If Jesus had used the verb to seek instead of the verb to be, it would have been “Whom do you seek?”)
But anyway, “whomever it is” just sounds wrong!
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
|
Thank you for the explanation. Oddly enough, i said to myself "it is she" and even posted it (then quickly removed it.) I had it in my head that although "she" was the correct word, it was the same as "her." Heh. I'm still learning the rules (but actually caring more of late) so i'm glad you corrected it. This is one of the best ways to lean the rules. That is, saying what you think, and being corrected when wrong.
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
|
the unknown person is the subject of the clause
Exactly. And that means "who", not "whom".
You know, it's fine to be wrong. But it's not so fine to go "correcting" someone else with your wrongness.
You've handled your corrections with grace, though, so I kudologize you for that. :-)
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
|
it's not so fine to go "correcting" someone else with your wrongness.
Considering i thought i was correct and i wrote, "i believe that should be," which denotes not being sure, i would not consider that "correcting." Rather, "suggesting."
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
|
|
|
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
|
"whom" is always preceded by "to", "with", "at" or similar.
Only when it's the object of a preposition. Not when it's a different use of the objective case, such as the direct objects in, "Whom do you love?" and, "The man whom I had hired called in sick."
Aaron B.
Available for small or large Perl jobs and *nix system administration; see my home node.
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
|
|
|