"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! - Page 230 - Other Topics Forum - Discuss Pop Culture, Arts and Entertainment

Two Plus Two Forums 2+2 Communities Other Other Topics

"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode!

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 230 of 247

First

30 130 180 210 220 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 240

Last

Page 230 of 247

First

30 130 180 210 220 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 240

Last

11-18-2018 , 11:46 AM

#5726

Garick

Oberbiergenießer

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 27,351

But would they ever use it if Bob weren't there? "The police talked to myself" sounds completely stupid, right? Then don't use it when you add Bob to the sentence.

As for whom, I agree that it is somewhat archaic, but if people are going to use it at all, they should use it correctly. Otherwise, just let it die like almost all other case-based words in English.

Quote

11-18-2018 , 11:56 AM

#5727

Didace

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 20,465

Quote:

Originally Posted by daveT

My point was that "whom" was never once discussed in the 12 years I went to grade school or high school, and I'd guess many people have had the same experience.

I'm sorry to hear about your incompetent educational experience, but you're projecting here.

Quote

11-18-2018 , 12:07 PM

#5728

daveT

S.A.G.E. Master

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 23,955

Garick, of course they would say it if they were talking only about themselves.

Didace, I may well be projecting. I did go to a bottom 10 school district, and that would be a topic for another thread.

I do talk to people now and then and even read words now and then. I seldom see the word "whom" used. If it was a natural part of common speech, it would be used as such, not incorrectly well into adulthood. A "proper" education would hopefully ensure that people don't get this one wrong.

Quote

11-18-2018 , 06:54 PM

#5729

GMan42

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 5,330

Quote:

Originally Posted by daveT

Garick, of course they would say it if they were talking only about themselves.

Ew.

I mean it's just one of those random "button-mashing of grammar" kind of things, it sounds vaguely sophisticated to use "myself" so people happened to pick up the idea of using it everywhere. In an alternate universe it could very well be "whom" that people decided to pepper throughout their speech incorrectly because it sounds smurt.

Quote

11-18-2018 , 10:47 PM

#5730

RussellinToronto

veteran

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 2,243

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garick

But would they ever use it if Bob weren't there? "The police talked to myself" sounds completely stupid, right? Then don't use it when you add Bob to the sentence.

It's a strange Britishism. According to this 2016 NYTimes piece ("England’s Reflexive Pronoun Epidemic"), it's on the rise: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/29/o...-yourself.html

Quote

11-23-2018 , 01:04 PM

#5731

RussellinToronto

veteran

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 2,243

Quote:

Originally Posted by daveT

This whole "whom" vs "who" thing is making my head explode. Never once, in my education growing up, have we ever used "whom." I woudno't be surprised if many others have had the same experience.

I think that "whom" is becoming a bit of an archaic term, slowly moving out of common use. ...

Here's a dissenting view:
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cu...it-may-concern

Quote

11-23-2018 , 11:43 PM

#5732

daveT

S.A.G.E. Master

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 23,955

I feel like using The New Yorker as an example of proper style and grammar for any year past 1862 is a bit of a reach.

Quote

11-25-2018 , 09:24 PM

#5733

RussellinToronto

veteran

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 2,243

Quote:

Originally Posted by daveT

I feel like using The New Yorker as an example of proper style and grammar for any year past 1862 is a bit of a reach.

We all have our blind spots.

Quote

11-26-2018 , 07:29 AM

#5734

daveT

S.A.G.E. Master

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 23,955

Some people agree me and some people disagree with me:

http://www.latimes.com/socal/burbank...725-story.html

Quote

11-27-2018 , 01:32 PM

#5735

RussellinToronto

veteran

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 2,243

Quote:

Originally Posted by daveT

Some people agree me and some people disagree with me:

http://www.latimes.com/socal/burbank...725-story.html

That's a much better response that your original breezy dismissal of my post. Casagrande makes valid observations, certainly (though she's being nit-picking about the spelling choices).

As well, I've read Mary Norris's first Comma Queen book and don't agree with her on several points, so -- even though I am in accord with her about maintaining the who/whom distinction (in writing) -- I did have some mild reservations about citing her.

However, while it may have some finicky and eccentric punctuation, The New Yorker remains too much an exemplary source of well-written and well-edited prose to dismiss out of hand.

Quote

11-28-2018 , 06:22 AM

#5736

daveT

S.A.G.E. Master

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 23,955

I'm certainly not dismissing the writing quality of the The New Yorker articles. I'm only saying that it's grammar and punctuation is a little eccentric and a bit old-timey.

My argument is that "whom" is falling out of modern use. The New Yorker isn't the guiding light to modern language.

Quote

11-28-2018 , 06:02 PM

#5737

John Cole

Lounge Nighthawk

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 19,207

My daughter, who has been an avid reader since childhood and takes great pains with language (mostly), works for a major American corporation. She frequently sends me frightening examples of corporate speak. Today's included "I will caveat that with Dave" and "The only thing I would supplement is that in every instance they need to work with myself."

Quote

11-28-2018 , 10:46 PM

#5738

Garick

Oberbiergenießer

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 27,351

wat? I mean, the second one is obviously just a "myself" where a "me" should go and some unnecessary fluff, but IHNFI what the first one is even trying to say. Check with Dave? Dave might be an exception?? Warn Dave???

Quote

11-28-2018 , 10:49 PM

#5739

John Cole

Lounge Nighthawk

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 19,207

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garick

wat?

My response was "WTF?"

Quote

11-29-2018 , 12:17 AM

#5740

Didace

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 20,465

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Cole

"The only thing I would supplement is that in every instance they need to work with myself."

I don't think I've seen "supplement" used quite that way before. Seems like some words are missing.

Quote

11-29-2018 , 12:36 AM

#5741

John Cole

Lounge Nighthawk

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 19,207

Quote:

Originally Posted by Didace

I don't think I've seen "supplement" used quite that way before. Seems like some words are missing.

Hence "corporate" speech. Instead of saying, "the only thing I would add," say "supplement" instead.

Quote

11-29-2018 , 03:28 AM

#5742

chillrob

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 23,195

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garick

I figured it meant "warn Dave". Still silly though.

Quote

11-29-2018 , 03:58 AM

#5743

John Cole

Lounge Nighthawk

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 19,207

Quote:

Originally Posted by chillrob

I figured it meant "warn Dave". Still silly though.

That's all I could figure.

Quote

11-30-2018 , 12:49 AM

#5744

meshanti

old hand

Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 1,923

http://www.cugelman.com/comic-reflec...bring-back-ye/

What do ye think?

Quote

11-30-2018 , 01:06 AM

#5745

Garick

Oberbiergenießer

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 27,351

I think that he's confused. Ye is the object form of you, not a plural. Thou/thee, you/ye.

AFAIK, you/ye was the plural/formal second person pronoun in those days, and thou/thee was the informal.

Quote

11-30-2018 , 01:07 AM

#5746

chillrob

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 23,195

What about Come All Ye Faithful? That's plural, not an object, right?

Quote

11-30-2018 , 01:17 AM

#5747

Garick

Oberbiergenießer

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 27,351

It's a prepositional phrase, missing its preposition to make it fit in the song, imo. Should be "all of ye." Of course, that doesn't work with the "come ye, oh come ye" portion, but I suspect that's poetic license.

Also, pretty sure it wasn't actually written in Middle English. Heaven knows I've seen churches get cases completely wrong when they use thou/thee/thy.

Quote

11-30-2018 , 08:30 AM

#5748

meshanti

old hand

Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 1,923

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garick

I think that he's confused. Ye is the object form of you, not a plural. Thou/thee, you/ye.

AFAIK, you/ye was the plural/formal second person pronoun in those days, and thou/thee was the informal.

From m-w.com:

Quote:

ye pronoun

\ˈyē

\
Definition of ye (Entry 1 of 2)
: you sense 1 —used originally only as a plural pronoun of the second person in the subjective case and now used especially in ecclesiastical or literary language and in various English dialects

Are y'all you guys yuze you ye with me?

Quote

11-30-2018 , 09:10 AM

#5749

JayTeeMe

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 29,419

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Cole

Quote

11-30-2018 , 09:18 AM

#5750

Garick

Oberbiergenießer

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 27,351

Quote:

Originally Posted by meshanti

From m-w.com:

Are y'all you guys yuze you ye with me?

I sit corrected.

I'm surprised by that, as the pattern of "e" endings in objective case is pretty common: I/me, thou/thee. When I think about it, though, she, he, and we are all subjective, so why not ye?

Quote

Page 230 of 247

First

30 130 180 210 220 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 240

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 230 of 247

First

30 130 180 210 220 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 240

Last