Cato's Grammar Grumble

[karlhenning]

"Whomever it was" . . . oh, that's nae guid.

[MN Dave]

Maybe it's a typo.

[Joe Barron]

I'd say it's pretty tricky.

Not at all. Whoever is clearly called for. Here are some tricky ones:

Police arrested Josquin, whom they believe to be the killer.

and

Police arrested Josquin, who they believe is the killer.

Whom and who are correct in both these instances. In the first, whom is the object of believe. In he second, who is the subject of is. The distinction becomes clear if you rearrange the sentences, using he and him instead of who and whom:

Police believe him to be the killer (him/whom, objective case).

Police believe he is the killer (he/who, nominative case).

The example from Shapiro is nowhere near this subtle. Here, the use of whomever is just an affectation, like saying "between you and I."

[knight66]

I thought, 'Between you and I.' was an outright error rather than any kind of affectation. It is a contraction of 'Between you and between me.' I don't think the word 'I' could be substituted for 'me'.

Mike

[Joe Barron]

I thought, 'Between you and I.' was an outright error rather than any kind of affectation. It is a contraction of 'Between you and between me.' I don't think the word 'I' could be substituted for 'me'.

Mike

It is wrong, but you'll find otherwise educated people using it  because they think it makes them sound smart. They think it's in the same category as saying "If I were he" instead of saying "If I was him." The former is correct (though the latter is idiomatic and acceptable).

[DavidRoss]

It is wrong, but you'll find otherwise educated people using it  because they think it makes them sound smart. They think it's in the same category as saying "If I were he" instead of saying "If I was him." The former is correct (though the latter is idiomatic and acceptable).

Yes.  To me, cases like this and "whomever it was" are more egregious than something like "Who did you give it to?" because the speaker is going out of his way to sound superior to common usage and failing. 

[MN Dave]

Not at all. Whoever is clearly called for.

I see it now.

[Cato]

Amen to all the very sensible comments above from Joe Barron and David Ross!   0:)

Cato has been out of action for too many weeks now!  But I have been keeping track of assaults and peppers against proper English!

While visiting an intellectually endarkened city in California, I came across the following monstrosity: nailed to a telephone pole was a cardboard sign:

"Keen Mattres 4 Sale: Pillow Top!  $200."

Now it is quite possible that the "mattres" was even "peachy keen"  0:)   but we suspect that perhaps it was actually a "king mattress" which - since it was for sale via  a telephone pole, whose uses for communication apparently transcend electricity - was not so "keen."   

This shows the death of the nasalized "ng" in many areas, and so "keen" now is identical to "king" in many mouths.

[Joe Barron]

Well, a hand-lettered sign on a telephone pole is a different situation than a scholarly book on Shakespeare.

[Scarpia]

Now it is quite possible that the "mattres" was even "peachy keen"  0:)   but we suspect that perhaps it was actually a "king mattress"...

You're referring to yourself as "we" now?

[Cato]

You're referring to yourself as "we" now?

           Yes, Cato is full of personality!   0:)         

Of course, you might think I am full of myself, or ourselves, or something else!   

[Chosen Barley]

Re your avatar, Cato, my sources here (youngish member of my household) tell me it's from Billions to Sneeze At, written & drawn by C. Barks.  Is this correct?

"Hurry up and bring me that penny; I need it to make the pile deeper!"

P.S.  I only just now found this thread.  I have always wondered where cork-up-the-arseness ends and accepted popular usage begins.  Personally, I like to point out others' written flaws, but when I speak and write, it's usually full of improprieties that would curl your toes. 

[karlhenning]

P.S.  I only just now found this thread.  I have always wondered where cork-up-the-arseness ends and accepted popular usage begins.

Forget Space; that shifting borderland is the Final Frontier! ; )

[Cato]

Re your avatar, Cato, my sources here (youngish member of my household) tell me it's from Billions to Sneeze At, written & drawn by C. Barks.  Is this correct?

"Hurry up and bring me that penny; I need it to make the pile deeper!"

P.S.  I only just now found this thread.  I have always wondered where cork-up-the-arseness ends and accepted popular usage begins.  Personally, I like to point out others' written flaws, but when I speak and write, it's usually full of improprieties that would curl your toes. 

Welcome to one of the more reasonable areas of Life (in general)!   

Yes, I do believe the Uncle Scrooge McDuck drawing is from that story! 

Carl Barks (not to be confused EVER with Karl Marx  0:)    ) was quite a genius!

[karlhenning]

I chuckled at one of the earlier episodes in the first season of Get Smart when there was a who/whom joke.

It seems to me that the "easy fix" for this is . . . high school.  Most of us who have spent some time learning a foreign language, absorb the grammatical distinction between who & whom, which is then easy to reinforce en anglais.

I know:  it's so old-school of me to think of high school as a place where students learn things, rather than participate in sports and (perhaps) learn to construct only very basic sentences.

[DavidRoss]

I chuckled at one of the earlier episodes in the first season of Get Smart when there was a who/whom joke.

It seems to me that the "easy fix" for this is . . . high school.  Most of us who have spent some time learning a foreign language, absorb the grammatical distinction between who & whom, which is then easy to reinforce en anglais.

I know:  it's so old-school of me to think of high school as a place where students learn things, rather than participate in sports and (perhaps) learn to construct only very basic sentences.

Aye--I think first of nominative & dative rather than subjective & objective. 

[Cato]

Aye--I think first of nominative & dative rather than subjective & objective.

Many Latin accusative endings have an "-m" in the singular, and that "-m" is directly related to the "-m" in "whom."

I point this out to my present grade-school Latin students, who too often ask: "Uh, what's 'whom'?"   

[MN Dave]

Hume? Hoom?

[Chosen Barley]

It rubs me the wrong way when someone trying to make an argument says "many people" when "one or two persons" is the reality. How can professional opinioneers, etc. get away with this?

[MN Dave]

It rubs me the wrong way when someone trying to make an argument says "many people" when "one or two persons" is the reality. How can professional opinioneers, etc. get away with this?

People are idiots.