From Newsgroup: alt.english.usage

Dear alt.usage.english, alt.english.usage,

As I'm sure all of you know, the best way to be sure who vs. whom
is used correctly, particularly when a gentleman wants to sound
posh on Usenet, is to replace /who(m)?/ [1] with /him/ [2]. If the
sentence is still correct -- the word order may be stilted -- the
proper form is to use /whom/, otherwise /who/.

This makes it trivial to figure it out, particularly in written text,
rather than verbal arguments where a gentleman is likely to resort to
baser insults, and refer to the disputee [3] as a /troglodyte/ over
proper /who/ vs. /whom/ usage.


Best wishes, and happy flame wars on Usenet!


[1] This is regular expression syntax, wrapped in an AWK matcher,
or alternatively dtrace if you prefer.

[2] This is just regular italics, as typeset with A.S.C.I.I.

[3] Did I really just make up this word?
--
Johann | email: invalid -> com | http://www.myrkraverk.com/blog/
I'm not from the Internet, I just work there. | via Easynews.com https://bsky.app/profile/myrkraverk.bsky.social | for ( ;; ) _:;

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.english.usage

Den 06.09.2026 kl. 15.25 skrev Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson:

As I'm sure all of you know, the best way to be sure who vs. whom
is used correctly, particularly when a gentleman wants to sound
posh on Usenet, is to replace /who(m)?/ [1] with /him/ [2].-a If the
sentence is still correct -- the word order may be stilted -- the
proper form is to use /whom/, otherwise /who/.

I have no intention of sounding posh. Besides I'm not sure that "whom"
is - it's more like outdated. But I may use it once in a wahile simply
because that is what I learnt sixty years ago. I have a stronger
tendency if "who(m)" is connected to a preposition.
--
Bertel, Kolt, Danmark

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.english.usage

On 07/09/26 02:56, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:

Den 06.09.2026 kl. 15.25 skrev Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson:

As I'm sure all of you know, the best way to be sure who vs. whom
is used correctly, particularly when a gentleman wants to sound
posh on Usenet, is to replace /who(m)?/ [1] with /him/ [2]. If
the sentence is still correct -- the word order may be stilted --
the proper form is to use /whom/, otherwise /who/.

I have no intention of sounding posh. Besides I'm not sure that
"whom" is - it's more like outdated. But I may use it once in a
wahile simply because that is what I learnt sixty years ago. I have a stronger tendency if "who(m)" is connected to a preposition.

So do I, and I think that is the way the word has evolved for most
people. Use it with a preposition, but not otherwise.
--
Peter Moylan peter@pmoylan.org http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.english.usage


Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> posted:

On 07/09/26 02:56, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:

Den 06.09.2026 kl. 15.25 skrev Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson:

As I'm sure all of you know, the best way to be sure who vs. whom
is used correctly, particularly when a gentleman wants to sound
posh on Usenet, is to replace /who(m)?/ [1] with /him/ [2]. If
the sentence is still correct -- the word order may be stilted --
the proper form is to use /whom/, otherwise /who/.

I have no intention of sounding posh. Besides I'm not sure that
"whom" is - it's more like outdated. But I may use it once in a
wahile simply because that is what I learnt sixty years ago. I have a stronger tendency if "who(m)" is connected to a preposition.

So do I, and I think that is the way the word has evolved for most
people. Use it with a preposition, but not otherwise.

Yes. If even Jesus got it wrong ("Whom say men that I am?") why worry.
--
athel

Living in Marseilles for 39 years; mainly in England before that,
with long periods in Singapore, California, Chile and Canada
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.english.usage

Le 07/09/2026 |a 07:33, athel.cb@gmail.com a |-crit :

Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> posted:

On 07/09/26 02:56, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:

Den 06.09.2026 kl. 15.25 skrev Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson:

As I'm sure all of you know, the best way to be sure who vs. whom
is used correctly, particularly when a gentleman wants to sound
posh on Usenet, is to replace /who(m)?/ [1] with /him/ [2]. If
the sentence is still correct -- the word order may be stilted --
the proper form is to use /whom/, otherwise /who/.

I have no intention of sounding posh. Besides I'm not sure that
"whom" is - it's more like outdated. But I may use it once in a
wahile simply because that is what I learnt sixty years ago. I have a
stronger tendency if "who(m)" is connected to a preposition.

So do I, and I think that is the way the word has evolved for most
people. Use it with a preposition, but not otherwise.

Yes. If even Jesus got it wrong ("Whom say men that I am?") why worry.

Gosh, you're right. In the KJV, the error occurs twice, in Matthew 16.13
and Mark 8.27. Is there a corresponding error in Aramaic?

I'm a bit puzzled by the trouble people have with 'whom'. If they can
master 'he' and 'him' (not everyone can), then why not 'who' and 'whom'?
Why the inconsistency and double standard? Shouldn't we be ashamed in
front of foreigners, who master much trickier rules of grammar?

Anyway, I expect I use 'whom' more often in aue than to our roofer,
plumber, et al..

Those whom God wishes to destroy, he first makes pedantic?

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.english.usage

On 7/09/2026 7:15 p.m., Hibou wrote:

Le 07/09/2026 |a 07:33, athel.cb@gmail.com a |-crit :

Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> posted:

On 07/09/26 02:56, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:

Den 06.09.2026 kl. 15.25 skrev Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson:

As I'm sure all of you know, the best way to be sure who vs. whom
is used correctly, particularly when a gentleman wants to sound
posh on Usenet, is to replace /who(m)?/ [1] with /him/ [2].-a If
the sentence is still correct -- the word order may be stilted --
the proper form is to use /whom/, otherwise /who/.

I have no intention of sounding posh. Besides I'm not sure that
"whom" is - it's more like outdated. But I may use it once in a
wahile simply because that is what I learnt sixty years ago. I have a
stronger tendency if "who(m)" is connected to a preposition.

So do I, and I think that is the way the word has evolved for most
people. Use it with a preposition, but not otherwise.

Yes. If even Jesus got it wrong ("Whom say men that I am?") why worry.

Gosh, you're right. In the KJV, the error occurs twice, in Matthew 16.13
and Mark 8.27. Is there a corresponding error in Aramaic?

I'm a bit puzzled by the trouble people have with 'whom'. If they can
master 'he' and 'him' (not everyone can), then why not 'who' and 'whom'?
Why the inconsistency and double standard? Shouldn't we be ashamed in
front of foreigners, who master much trickier rules of grammar?

Two reasons:
- 'whom', much more often than 'him', gets separated from the word which
is responsible for its object case (verb or preposition);
- children have hardly any experience of 'whom', which is a feature of
written or formal spoken English.

Anyway, I expect I use 'whom' more often in aue than to our roofer,
plumber, et al..

Those whom God wishes to destroy, he first makes pedantic?

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.english.usage

Den 07.09.2026 kl. 09.15 skrev Hibou:

I'm a bit puzzled by the trouble people have with 'whom'. If they can
master 'he' and 'him' (not everyone can), then why not 'who' and 'whom'?

They can master anything that they put their minds to - of they can see
the point. Don't forget that it has been the case for many years
(centuries?). Or maybe not. Do we really know how correctly ordinary
people spoke long time ago?

It's a question of simplification. In Danish we used to have two forms
of the corresponding word (not counting genitive), "hvo, hvem". Today we
only have "hvem" (the old accusative form), and most Danes don't know
"hvo". I don't miss it. It was gone already when I was a child.

So maybe you should be pleased that it's not "who" that's disappeard?

Why the inconsistency and double standard?

Inconsistency? It's quite conasistent that people only say "who".

Shouldn't we be ashamed in front of foreigners,
who master much trickier rules of grammar?

On the contrary. You should be proud that you can master the most
complex and inconsistent spelling system in the world.
--
Bertel, Kolt, Danmark

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.english.usage

Hibou wrote in article <ng76l9FmahuU1@mid.individual.net>:

I'm a bit puzzled by the trouble people have with 'whom'. If they can
master 'he' and 'him' (not everyone can), then why not 'who' and 'whom'?
Why the inconsistency and double standard? Shouldn't we be ashamed in
front of foreigners, who master much trickier rules of grammar?

I agree.

I think it's the American streak of anti-intellectualism. We're
happy to volunteer that we don't understand this and can't do
that. Many Americans will cheerfully tell you that they have no
idea what the difference is, and they'll smile like they're proud
of themselves for knowing it's not important.
--
The True Melissa - Canal Winchester - Ohio
United States of America - North America - Earth
Solar System - Milky Way - Local Group
Virgo Cluster - Laniakea Supercluster - Cosmos
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.english.usage


Ross Clark <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> posted:

On 7/09/2026 7:15 p.m., Hibou wrote:

Le 07/09/2026 |a 07:33, athel.cb@gmail.com a |-crit :

Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> posted:

On 07/09/26 02:56, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:

Den 06.09.2026 kl. 15.25 skrev Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson:

As I'm sure all of you know, the best way to be sure who vs. whom
is used correctly, particularly when a gentleman wants to sound
posh on Usenet, is to replace /who(m)?/ [1] with /him/ [2].-a If
the sentence is still correct -- the word order may be stilted --
the proper form is to use /whom/, otherwise /who/.

I have no intention of sounding posh. Besides I'm not sure that
"whom" is - it's more like outdated. But I may use it once in a
wahile simply because that is what I learnt sixty years ago. I have a >>>> stronger tendency if "who(m)" is connected to a preposition.

So do I, and I think that is the way the word has evolved for most
people. Use it with a preposition, but not otherwise.

Yes. If even Jesus got it wrong ("Whom say men that I am?") why worry.

Gosh, you're right. In the KJV, the error occurs twice, in Matthew 16.13 and Mark 8.27. Is there a corresponding error in Aramaic?

I'm a bit puzzled by the trouble people have with 'whom'. If they can master 'he' and 'him' (not everyone can), then why not 'who' and 'whom'? Why the inconsistency and double standard? Shouldn't we be ashamed in front of foreigners, who master much trickier rules of grammar?

Two reasons:
- 'whom', much more often than 'him', gets separated from the word which
is responsible for its object case (verb or preposition);
- children have hardly any experience of 'whom', which is a feature of written or formal spoken English.

When my youngest daughter was three or four, and perfecting her English (and simultaneously her French and Spanish) she used "whom" a lot. I had the impression that she regarded it as a more fancy and emphatic form of "who". I never tried to correct her, and over the years she came to use "whom" after
a preposition, like you and me.

Anyway, I expect I use 'whom' more often in aue than to our roofer, plumber, et al..

Those whom God wishes to destroy, he first makes pedantic?

--
athel

Living in Marseilles for 39 years; mainly in England before that,
with long periods in Singapore, California, Chile and Canada
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.english.usage

On Mon, 7 Sep 2026 08:09:05 -0400, The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> wrote:

Hibou wrote in article <ng76l9FmahuU1@mid.individual.net>:

I'm a bit puzzled by the trouble people have with 'whom'. If they can
master 'he' and 'him' (not everyone can), then why not 'who' and 'whom'?
Why the inconsistency and double standard? Shouldn't we be ashamed in
front of foreigners, who master much trickier rules of grammar?

I agree.

I think it's the American streak of anti-intellectualism. We're
happy to volunteer that we don't understand this and can't do
that. Many Americans will cheerfully tell you that they have no
idea what the difference is, and they'll smile like they're proud
of themselves for knowing it's not important.

Are you sure they are smiling like they're proud of themselves for
knowing it's not important? Maybe they're smiling because they are
baffled that you think it's important.

A smile is noticed only when the conversation is person-to-person. If
the conversation requires this question, and I reply "Who should I
address the letter to?", and you think I should have asked "To whom
should I address the letter?", have I not more than adequately
expressed what I need to know?

When writing something in a context like aue, I'm careful (but not
always successful) about using what the audience will consider to be
correct. When I'm speaking to someone I'm more concerned with just
being clear.

There's a "code-switching" aspect to written communication vs spoken communication, and the audience is a critical factor in this. In my
business career I've done quite a bit of spoken presentations to
groups. I've also written a lot of formal presentations.

I don't think I was guilty of anti-intellectualism because I tailored
my style and vocabulary to the audience.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.english.usage


Bertel Lund Hansen <rundtosset@lundhansen.dk> posted:

Den 07.09.2026 kl. 09.15 skrev Hibou:

I'm a bit puzzled by the trouble people have with 'whom'. If they can master 'he' and 'him' (not everyone can), then why not 'who' and 'whom'?

They can master anything that they put their minds to - of they can see
the point. Don't forget that it has been the case for many years (centuries?). Or maybe not. Do we really know how correctly ordinary
people spoke long time ago?

It's a question of simplification. In Danish we used to have two forms
of the corresponding word (not counting genitive), "hvo, hvem". Today we only have "hvem" (the old accusative form), and most Danes don't know
"hvo". I don't miss it. It was gone already when I was a child.

So maybe you should be pleased that it's not "who" that's disappeard?

Why the inconsistency and double standard?

Inconsistency? It's quite conasistent that people only say "who".

Shouldn't we be ashamed in front of foreigners,
who master much trickier rules of grammar?

On the contrary. You should be proud that you can master the most
complex and inconsistent spelling system in the world.

I'm told that Tibetan is worse.
--
athel

Living in Marseilles for 39 years; mainly in England before that,
with long periods in Singapore, California, Chile and Canada
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.english.usage


Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> posted:

Le 07/09/2026 |a-a|e-a|a-e|e-a 07:33, athel.cb@gmail.com a |a-a|e-a|a-e|e--crit :

Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> posted:

On 07/09/26 02:56, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:

Yes. If even Jesus got it wrong ("Whom say men that I am?") why worry.

Gosh, you're right. In the KJV, the error occurs twice, in Matthew 16.13
and Mark 8.27.

The website www.biblegateway.com has 64 different English translations.
KJV, Wycliffe, Geneva and Douay-Rhrims all have "Whom" but several
others show "Who." (CEV has "What do people say about me?|a-a|e-o|a-e|e-C|a-e|e-Y)

Is there a corresponding error in Aramaic?

There IS evidence that parts of Mark, as well as Q (Matthew/Luke) were translated from much older Aramaic Gospels, but AFAIK there isn't a single shred or scrap of any such Aramaic text.

Here is Mark 8:27 in Greek:

[I'm afraid Newsgrouper may mangle this UTC-8. :-( )

|a-A|e-U|a-A|e-#|a-i|e-+|e-| |a-i|e-+|e-E|a-A|e-+|a-i|e-+|e-a|a-A|e-+|a-A|e-+|a-A|e-||a-A|e-+ |a-i|e-+|e-U |a-i|e-+|e-+|a-A|e-+|a-A|e-a|a-A|e-+|a-i|e-+|e-a|a-A|e-e |a-A|e-||a-A|e-#|a-i|e-+|e-| |a-A|e-+|a-i|e-+|e-# |a-A|e-+|a-A|e-#|a-A|e-+|a-A|e-+|a-A|e-a|a-A|e-#|a-i|e-+|e-| |a-A|e-#|a-i|e-+|e-E|a-A|e-a|a-A|e-+|a-i|e-+|e-a |a-A|e-||a-i|e-+|e-#|a-A|e-e |a-A|e-a|a-i|e-+|e-#|a-A|e-e |a-A|e-||a-A|e-A|a-A|e-+|a-A|e-#|a-A|e-e |a-A|e-U|a-A|e-#|a-A|e-||a-A|e-a|a-A|e-#|a-A|e-U|a-A|e-||a-A|e->|a-A|e-#|a-A|e-e
|a-A|e-a|a-i|e-+|e-a|a-A|e-e |a-A|e-a|a-A|e-||a-A|e-+|a-A|e->|a-A|e-C|a-A|e-C|a-A|e-+|a-A|e-a|a-e|e-+ |a-A|e-||a-A|e-#|a-i|e-+|e-| |a-i|e-+|e-E|a-A|e-+ |a-A|e-a|a-i|e-+|e-c |a-i|e-+|e-U|a-A|e-||a-i|e-+|e-+ |a-i|e-+|e-E|a-A|e-C|a-A|e-+|a-A|e-U|a-A|e-A|a-A|e-a|a-A|e-# |a-A|e-a|a-A|e-+|a-i|e-+|e-||a-A|e-e |a-A|e-+|a-A|e-#|a-A|e-+|a-A|e-+|a-A|e-a|a-i|e-+|e-#|a-A|e-e |a-A|e-#|a-i|e-+|e-E|a-A|e-a|a-A|e-+|a-i|e-+|e-a |a-A|e-+|a-A|e-!|a-A|e-||a-A|e-e|a-A|e-+ |a-A|e-#|a-i|e-+|e-E|a-A|e-a|a-A|e-+|a-i|e-+|e-u|a-A|e-e,
|a-A|e-n|a-A|e->|a-A|e-+|a-A|e-# |a-A|e-+|a-A|e-| |a-A|e-+|a-A|e-!|a-A|e-||a-A|e-+|a-A|e-a|a-A|e-a|a-A|e-||a-A|e-+ |a-A|e-+|a-i|e-+|e-# |a-i|e-+|e-a|a-A|e-+|a-A|e-+|a-A|e-U|a-A|e-e|a-A|e-C|a-A|e-+|a-A|e-| |a-A|e-||a-i|e-+|e-||a-A|e-+|a-A|e-#|a-A|e-|;

Google Translate puts "Whom" in the final clause, but I'll guess it
trained on KJV or such! If I erase all but the final clause
Google Translate produces "What do people say I am?" -- much like
CEV (Contemporary English Version).

www.abarim-publications.com/Interlinear-New-Testament/Mark/Mark-8-parsed.html offers word-by-word translation from Greek and produces
"What? / me / they say / the / men / to be"

I'll cross-post to sci.ling in case they want to shed light.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.english.usage

On 07/09/2026 16:33, Tony Cooper wrote:

On Mon, 7 Sep 2026 08:09:05 -0400, The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> wrote:

Hibou wrote in article <ng76l9FmahuU1@mid.individual.net>:

I'm a bit puzzled by the trouble people have with 'whom'. If they can
master 'he' and 'him' (not everyone can), then why not 'who' and 'whom'? >>> Why the inconsistency and double standard? Shouldn't we be ashamed in
front of foreigners, who master much trickier rules of grammar?

I agree.

I think it's the American streak of anti-intellectualism. We're
happy to volunteer that we don't understand this and can't do
that. Many Americans will cheerfully tell you that they have no
idea what the difference is, and they'll smile like they're proud
of themselves for knowing it's not important.

Are you sure they are smiling like they're proud of themselves for
knowing it's not important? Maybe they're smiling because they are
baffled that you think it's important.

A smile is noticed only when the conversation is person-to-person. If
the conversation requires this question, and I reply "Who should I
address the letter to?", and you think I should have asked "To whom
should I address the letter?", have I not more than adequately
expressed what I need to know?

When writing something in a context like aue, I'm careful (but not
always successful) about using what the audience will consider to be
correct. When I'm speaking to someone I'm more concerned with just
being clear.

There's a "code-switching" aspect to written communication vs spoken communication, and the audience is a critical factor in this. In my
business career I've done quite a bit of spoken presentations to
groups. I've also written a lot of formal presentations.

I don't think I was guilty of anti-intellectualism because I tailored
my style and vocabulary to the audience.

Not everyone calls it anti-intellectualism. Some call it 'dumbing down',
in order to reach their audience. Even the BBC has been accused of this
in the past.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.english.usage

On 2026-09-07, athel.cb gmail.com wrote:

Bertel Lund Hansen <rundtosset@lundhansen.dk> posted:

Den 07.09.2026 kl. 09.15 skrev Hibou:

...

Shouldn't we be ashamed in front of foreigners,
who master much trickier rules of grammar?

On the contrary. You should be proud that you can master the most
complex and inconsistent spelling system in the world.

I'm told that Tibetan is worse.

Then there's the weird set of un-to-little-used fraction symbols in
Unicode.

https://www.babelstone.co.uk/Blog/2007/04/numbers-that-dont-add-up-tibetan-half.html
--
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not
preserved, except in memory. LLAP. ---Leonard Nimoy
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.english.usage


Ar an seacht|| l|i de m|! M|-an F||mhair, scr|!obh James Dow Allen:

[...] [I'm afraid Newsgrouper may mangle this UTC-8. :-( )

I include below a version of your entire post with the UTF-8 corrected. (It was some
fairly enthusiastic mangling!)

Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> posted:

Le 07/09/2026 |a 07:33, athel.cb@gmail.com a |-crit :

Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> posted:

On 07/09/26 02:56, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:

Yes. If even Jesus got it wrong ("Whom say men that I am?") why worry.

Gosh, you're right. In the KJV, the error occurs twice, in Matthew 16.13
and Mark 8.27.

The website www.biblegateway.com has 64 different English translations.
KJV, Wycliffe, Geneva and Douay-Rhrims all have "Whom" but several
others show "Who." (CEV has "What do people say about me?rCY)

Is there a corresponding error in Aramaic?

There IS evidence that parts of Mark, as well as Q (Matthew/Luke) were translated from much older Aramaic Gospels, but AFAIK there isn't a single shred or scrap of any such Aramaic text.

Here is Mark 8:27 in Greek:

[I'm afraid Newsgrouper may mangle this UTC-8. :-( )

+U+#b+| b+E++b+a+++++|++ b+U b++++-a++b+a-e +|+#b+| ++b+# +++#++++-a+#b+| +#b+E-a++b+a +|b+#-e -ab+#-e +|-A+++#-e +U+#+|-a+#-U+|+>+#-e
-ab+a-e +a+|+++>-C-C++-a-+ +|+#b+| b+E++ -ab+c b+U+|b++ b+E-C++-U-A-a+# -a++b+|-e +++#++++-ab+#-e +#b+E-a++b+a +++!+|-e++ +#b+E-a++b+u-e,

+++# +++| +++!+|++-a-a+|++ ++b+# b+a++++-U-e-C+++| +|b+|+++#+|;

Google Translate puts "Whom" in the final clause, but I'll guess it
trained on KJV or such! If I erase all but the final clause
Google Translate produces "What do people say I am?" -- much like
CEV (Contemporary English Version).

www.abarim-publications.com/Interlinear-New-Testament/Mark/Mark-8-parsed.html offers word-by-word translation from Greek and produces
"What? / me / they say / the / men / to be"

I'll cross-post to sci.ling in case they want to shed light.
--
rCyAs I sat looking up at the Guinness ad, I could never figure out /
How your man stayed up on the surfboard after fourteen pints of stoutrCO
(C. Moore)
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.english.usage

On Mon, 7 Sep 2026 08:09:05 -0400
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> wrote:

Hibou wrote in article <ng76l9FmahuU1@mid.individual.net>:

I'm a bit puzzled by the trouble people have with 'whom'. If they can master 'he' and 'him' (not everyone can), then why not 'who' and 'whom'? Why the inconsistency and double standard? Shouldn't we be ashamed in front of foreigners, who master much trickier rules of grammar?

I agree.

I think it's the American streak of anti-intellectualism. We're
happy to volunteer that we don't understand this and can't do
that. Many Americans will cheerfully tell you that they have no
idea what the difference is, and they'll smile like they're proud
of themselves for knowing it's not important.

Barbie quote: "math is hard". IIRC.
--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.english.usage

James Dow Allen <user4353@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote or quoted:

"What? / me / they say / the / men / to be"
I'll cross-post to sci.ling in case they want to shed light.

There is one rule which says that verbs have certain
slots which require certain forms. For example,

I told him.

. "Told" has two slots:
1. The slot for the person telling ("I") and
2. The slot for the person being told ("him").

Rule "told":
"The first slot of 'told' requires the subjective case.
The second slot of 'told' requires the objective case."

These rules may vary with the verb, so there is one rule
per verb.

But there is another rule:

Rule "order":
"The subjective case is used before the verb;
the objective case is used after it."

In the case of the verb form "am", rule A says,

Rule "am":
"The first slot of 'am' requires the subjective case.
The second slot of 'am' requires the subjective case."

According to rule "am", we say:

I am I.
I am who?

But according to rule "order", we say:

I am me.
I am whom?

The most famous example of this distinction is
"It is I." versus "It is me.", existings since
about 1500. Before, there was, "It am I.".


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.english.usage

Kerr-Mudd, John wrote in article <20260907211420.56867a7e2becd82633fbd704@127.0.0.1>:

On Mon, 7 Sep 2026 08:09:05 -0400
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> wrote:

I think it's the American streak of anti-intellectualism. We're
happy to volunteer that we don't understand this and can't do
that. Many Americans will cheerfully tell you that they have no
idea what the difference is, and they'll smile like they're proud
of themselves for knowing it's not important.

Barbie quote: "math is hard". IIRC.

IIRC, "Math class is hard." I suppose she might have been talking
about AP Calculus.

In fairness, Talking Barbie said other things which made her
sound smarter. :-)
--
The True Melissa - Canal Winchester - Ohio
United States of America - North America - Earth
Solar System - Milky Way - Local Group
Virgo Cluster - Laniakea Supercluster - Cosmos
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.english.usage

Bertel Lund Hansen hat am 07.09.2026 um 13:07 geschrieben:

Den 07.09.2026 kl. 09.15 skrev Hibou:

Shouldn't we be ashamed in front of foreigners,
who master much trickier rules of grammar?

On the contrary. You should be proud that you can master the most
complex and inconsistent spelling system in the world.

Did you ever try Japanese? They have to learn TWO syllabic alphabets and
over 1,900 ideograms to be allowed to go to a university.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.english.usage

Op 7/09/2026 om 22:22 schreef Stefan Ram:

James Dow Allen <user4353@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote or quoted:

"What? / me / they say / the / men / to be"
I'll cross-post to sci.ling in case they want to shed light.

There is one rule which says that verbs have certain
slots which require certain forms. For example,

I told him.

. "Told" has two slots:
1. The slot for the person telling ("I") and
2. The slot for the person being told ("him").

Rule "told":
"The first slot of 'told' requires the subjective case.
The second slot of 'told' requires the objective case."

These rules may vary with the verb, so there is one rule
per verb.

But there is another rule:

Rule "order":
"The subjective case is used before the verb;
the objective case is used after it."

In the case of the verb form "am", rule A says,

Rule "am":
"The first slot of 'am' requires the subjective case.
The second slot of 'am' requires the subjective case."

According to rule "am", we say:

I am I.
I am who?

But according to rule "order", we say:

I am me.
I am whom?

I am Who am/is?
NL. Ik ben Die ben.

The most famous example of this distinction is
"It is I." versus "It is me.", existings since
about 1500. Before, there was, "It am I.".

Like in Dutch (FL: Het ben ik.-a NL: Ik ben het.)

Also confusing in English et al:

It *is* persons like *him*/he who...
Het zijn lieden zoals hij die...
Ce sont des personnes comme lui qui...

It *is* us.
Het zijn wij. Wij zijn het.
C'*est* nous.

...
--
guido wugi

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.english.usage

Le 07/09/2026 |a 13:46, athel.cb@gmail.com a |-crit :

Ross Clark posted:

On 7/09/2026 7:15 p.m., Hibou wrote:

Le 07/09/2026 |a 07:33, athel.cb@gmail.com a |-crit :

Yes. If even Jesus got it wrong ("Whom say men that I am?") why worry.

Gosh, you're right. In the KJV, the error occurs twice, in Matthew 16.13 >>> and Mark 8.27. Is there a corresponding error in Aramaic?

I'm a bit puzzled by the trouble people have with 'whom'. If they can
master 'he' and 'him' (not everyone can), then why not 'who' and 'whom'? >>> Why the inconsistency and double standard? Shouldn't we be ashamed in
front of foreigners, who master much trickier rules of grammar?

Two reasons:
- 'whom', much more often than 'him', gets separated from the word which
is responsible for its object case (verb or preposition);

Yes. Did you give it to him? Whom did you give it to?

- children have hardly any experience of 'whom', which is a feature of
written or formal spoken English.

Yes.

When my youngest daughter was three or four, and perfecting her English (and simultaneously her French and Spanish) she used "whom" a lot. I had the impression that she regarded it as a more fancy and emphatic form of "who". I never tried to correct her, and over the years she came to use "whom" after
a preposition, like you and me.

Yes, after verbs and prepositions. Subjects ride out in front, like postillions; objects ride behind, in the carriage.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.english.usage

Le 06/09/2026 |a 17:56, Bertel Lund Hansen a |-crit :

Den 06.09.2026 kl. 15.25 skrev Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson:

As I'm sure all of you know, the best way to be sure who vs. whom
is used correctly, particularly when a gentleman wants to sound
posh on Usenet, is to replace /who(m)?/ [1] with /him/ [2].-a If the
sentence is still correct -- the word order may be stilted -- the
proper form is to use /whom/, otherwise /who/.

I have no intention of sounding posh. Besides I'm not sure that "whom"
is - it's more like outdated. But I may use it once in a wahile simply because that is what I learnt sixty years ago. I have a stronger
tendency if "who(m)" is connected to a preposition.

There are three classes of people: those who never say 'whom'; those who
do say 'whom' and use it correctly; and those who use 'whom'
incorrectly, where they should say 'who'. All three may elicit
unfavourable reactions.

"It is impossible for an Englishman to open his mouth without making
some other Englishman hate or despise him" - GBS.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.english.usage

Den 07.09.2026 kl. 22.36 skrev Silvano:

Shouldn't we be ashamed in front of foreigners,
who master much trickier rules of grammar?

On the contrary. You should be proud that you can master the most
complex and inconsistent spelling system in the world.

Did you ever try Japanese?

No.

They have to learn TWO syllabic alphabets and
over 1,900 ideograms to be allowed to go to a university.

Is it inconsistent? Is large = complex?
--
Bertel, Kolt, Danmark

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.english.usage

Bertel Lund Hansen hat am 08.09.2026 um 09:31 geschrieben:

Den 07.09.2026 kl. 22.36 skrev Silvano:

Shouldn't we be ashamed in front of foreigners,
who master much trickier rules of grammar?

On the contrary. You should be proud that you can master the most
complex and inconsistent spelling system in the world.

Did you ever try Japanese?

No.

They have to learn TWO syllabic alphabets and
over 1,900 ideograms to be allowed to go to a university.

Is it inconsistent? Is large = complex?

Even in Chinese, you have: 1 ideogram = 1 pronunciation. In Japanese,
more often than not, you have 1 ideogram = 2 main pronunciations,
sometimes several more.
On the other hand, e. g. the syllable "shi" can be written with at least
47 different ideograms and therefore meanings. Two of them are four and
death, which explains why most tall buildings in Japan do not have a
fourth floor.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.english.usage

On 08/09/2026 3:31 PM, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:

Den 07.09.2026 kl. 22.36 skrev Silvano:

Shouldn't we be ashamed in front of foreigners,
who master much trickier rules of grammar?

On the contrary. You should be proud that you can master the most
complex and inconsistent spelling system in the world.

Did you ever try Japanese?

No.

They have to learn TWO syllabic alphabets and
over 1,900 ideograms to be allowed to go to a university.

Is it inconsistent? Is large = complex?

It's not any more /inconsistent/ than our alphabets. Consider the syl-
labary equivalent to learning "print" and "cursive" handwriting, a lot
of people still use and learn both, though sometimes neither is taught
in schools [1], and the ideograms -- called kanji in Japanese -- aren't
as complicated as they look at first glance. They're composed of lesser components called /radicals/ in dictionaries.

Consider "rain above sword" for /atmosphere, fog/, though my interpre-
tation is sometimes wrong, and I'm not sure what the "roof" is because
it seems to be the number eight, when looked up separately.

https://jisho.org/search/%E9%9B%B0%20%23kanji

If you click the link, you can check out the "parts" links under the
ideogram in the top left [2]. And these parts are not always explained
in the dictionaries.

I only consider myself a student of Japanese, and I'm sure the teachers
in alt.usage.english can fill us in much better about how this system
works.


Happy studies of Japanese!

[1] Or so I heard recently, that some schools have stopped teaching handwriting. Your guess is as good as mine as to the truth of it.

[2] More or less, as I write this; if you're reading this hundreds of
years from now, I'm not going to guess which dictionary you can look it
up in.
--
Johann | email: invalid -> com | http://www.myrkraverk.com/blog/
I'm not from the Internet, I just work there. | via Easynews.com https://bsky.app/profile/myrkraverk.bsky.social | for ( ;; ) _:;
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.english.usage

Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote or quoted: >It's not any more /inconsistent/ than our alphabets. Consider the syl- >labary equivalent to learning "print" and "cursive" handwriting, a lot

of people still use and learn both, though sometimes neither is taught
in schools [1], and the ideograms -- called kanji in Japanese -- aren't
as complicated as they look at first glance.

Just as we have print and cursive handwriting, Japanese also has
two ways to render each letter: Hiragana and Katakana.

Hiragana is more like cursive handwriting with its rounded forms,
and Katakana is used similar to an italics font to highlight certain
words, like foreign loanwords.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.english.usage

ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote or quoted:

Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote or quoted: >>It's not any more /inconsistent/ than our alphabets. Consider the syl- >>labary equivalent to learning "print" and "cursive" handwriting, a lot

of people still use and learn both, though sometimes neither is taught
in schools [1], and the ideograms -- called kanji in Japanese -- aren't
as complicated as they look at first glance.

Just as we have print and cursive handwriting, Japanese also has
two ways to render each letter: Hiragana and Katakana.

Sorry! Reading too superficially, I believed that Johann was talking
about English and wanted to add something about Japanese syllabaries.
But now I see that Johann was already talking about them. And he was
more precise than I because he correctly called them "syllabaries",
while I was talking about "letter(s)".


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.english.usage

On Mon, 7 Sep 2026 10:49:19 +1000, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>
wrote:

On 07/09/26 02:56, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:

I have no intention of sounding posh. Besides I'm not sure that
"whom" is - it's more like outdated. But I may use it once in a
wahile simply because that is what I learnt sixty years ago. I have a
stronger tendency if "who(m)" is connected to a preposition.

So do I, and I think that is the way the word has evolved for most
people. Use it with a preposition, but not otherwise.

I use it most often in response to the academic obfuscatory passive
voice.

"Thousands were killed."
"By whom?"
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.english.usage

On Wed, 09 Sep 2026 05:22:02 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:

On Mon, 7 Sep 2026 10:49:19 +1000, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>
wrote:

On 07/09/26 02:56, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:

I have no intention of sounding posh. Besides I'm not sure that
"whom" is - it's more like outdated. But I may use it once in a
wahile simply because that is what I learnt sixty years ago. I have a
stronger tendency if "who(m)" is connected to a preposition.

So do I, and I think that is the way the word has evolved for most
people. Use it with a preposition, but not otherwise.

I use it most often in response to the academic obfuscatory passive
voice.

"Thousands were killed."
"By whom?"

Hemingway's first draft for the title of his new book was: Who Does
the Bell Toll For?
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.english.usage

On 07/09/2026 08:33, athel.cb@gmail.com wrote:

Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> posted:

On 07/09/26 02:56, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:

Den 06.09.2026 kl. 15.25 skrev Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson:

As I'm sure all of you know, the best way to be sure who vs. whom
is used correctly, particularly when a gentleman wants to sound
posh on Usenet, is to replace /who(m)?/ [1] with /him/ [2]. If
the sentence is still correct -- the word order may be stilted --
the proper form is to use /whom/, otherwise /who/.

I have no intention of sounding posh. Besides I'm not sure that
"whom" is - it's more like outdated. But I may use it once in a
wahile simply because that is what I learnt sixty years ago. I have a
stronger tendency if "who(m)" is connected to a preposition.

So do I, and I think that is the way the word has evolved for most
people. Use it with a preposition, but not otherwise.

Yes. If even Jesus got it wrong ("Whom say men that I am?") why worry.

Jesus? Or the translators of the bible?
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.english.usage


occam <occam@nowhere.nix> posted:

On 07/09/2026 08:33, athel.cb@gmail.com wrote:

Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> posted:

On 07/09/26 02:56, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:

Den 06.09.2026 kl. 15.25 skrev Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson:

As I'm sure all of you know, the best way to be sure who vs. whom
is used correctly, particularly when a gentleman wants to sound
posh on Usenet, is to replace /who(m)?/ [1] with /him/ [2]. If
the sentence is still correct -- the word order may be stilted --
the proper form is to use /whom/, otherwise /who/.

I have no intention of sounding posh. Besides I'm not sure that
"whom" is - it's more like outdated. But I may use it once in a
wahile simply because that is what I learnt sixty years ago. I have a
stronger tendency if "who(m)" is connected to a preposition.

So do I, and I think that is the way the word has evolved for most
people. Use it with a preposition, but not otherwise.

Yes. If even Jesus got it wrong ("Whom say men that I am?") why worry.

Jesus? Or the translators of the bible?

Of course. Don't take it so seriously. In any case, as the original was in Greek, and you can read Greek, you can tell us.
--
athel

Living in Marseilles for 39 years; mainly in England before that,
with long periods in Singapore, California, Chile and Canada
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.english.usage

In article <1789121124-12588@newsgrouper.org>,
athel.cb@gmail.com <user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:

Yes. If even Jesus got it wrong ("Whom say men that I am?") why worry.

Jesus? Or the translators of the bible?

Of course. Don't take it so seriously. In any case, as the original was in >Greek, and you can read Greek, you can tell us.

Perhaps they were influenced by the Greek "tina" (whom) even though
they changed the construction - the Greek is literally "whom do men
say me, the son of man, to be?".

-- Richard
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.english.usage

On 11/09/2026 12:05, athel.cb@gmail.com wrote:

occam <occam@nowhere.nix> posted:

On 07/09/2026 08:33, athel.cb@gmail.com wrote:

Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> posted:

On 07/09/26 02:56, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:

Den 06.09.2026 kl. 15.25 skrev Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson:

As I'm sure all of you know, the best way to be sure who vs. whom
is used correctly, particularly when a gentleman wants to sound
posh on Usenet, is to replace /who(m)?/ [1] with /him/ [2]. If
the sentence is still correct -- the word order may be stilted --
the proper form is to use /whom/, otherwise /who/.

I have no intention of sounding posh. Besides I'm not sure that
"whom" is - it's more like outdated. But I may use it once in a
wahile simply because that is what I learnt sixty years ago. I have a >>>>> stronger tendency if "who(m)" is connected to a preposition.

So do I, and I think that is the way the word has evolved for most
people. Use it with a preposition, but not otherwise.

Yes. If even Jesus got it wrong ("Whom say men that I am?") why worry.

Jesus? Or the translators of the bible?

Of course. Don't take it so seriously. In any case, as the original was in Greek, and you can read Greek, you can tell us.

I don't (take it seriously). Perhaps the translator of the original
Greek (who/whom) was the same person who transliterated '++b+# -C+++++++++>' to hoi polloi (aka 'hoy polloy').
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.english.usage

Tony Cooper:

Are you sure they are smiling like they're proud of
themselves for knowing it's not important? Maybe they're
smiling because they are baffled that you think it's
important.

It is a bad, lousy, and standard excuse for viloating the
rules of grammar and "optimising" both logical structure and
beautful nuances and niceties out of the language. Anything
goes, such people say, as long as the speaker is understood.
That is, they use the poorest possible language, futhering
its degradation.

A smile is noticed only when the conversation is person-
to-person. If the conversation requires this question,
and I reply "Who should I address the letter to?", and you
think I should have asked "To whom should I address the
letter?", have I not more than adequately expressed what I
need to know?

I prefer the latter form because it is grammatical (unlike
the former) and actually sounds better. When Bo Didley
sings "Who do you love?", it is pardonable because it is
illiterate collouial black dialect of American English and
because it sounds better than "Whom do you love?".

When writing something in a context like aue, I'm careful
(but not always successful) about using what the audience
will consider to be correct. When I'm speaking to someone
I'm more concerned with just being clear.

Why the populism and double standards? Why stoop down
before the audience so low as to sacrifice correct grammar
and syntax, when you can retain your dignity by using
simpler (yet still correct) vocabulary, simpler (yet still
correct) sentences written or uttered in a style and tone
becoming the occasion?

There's a "code-switching" aspect to written communication
vs spoken communication, and the audience is a critical
factor in this.

I have never understood this! Written and spoken word are
different mediums for the same language! Why deliberately
relax grammar rules and lower the bar of correctness when
speaking, which is already more conducive to errors because
of its spontaneious nature? If anything, one should be
/more/ chary when speaking because no error remains
unperceived.

Another reason for conscious effort at correct speech is the
development of a mental discipline for the perfection of one's
language, which process brooks no double standards, when one
tries to write correctly but lets himself speak carelessly.
Correct language is both a precursor and postcursor of
correct thinking. Slipshod speech must needs spill out into
one's writing and infect it. Also remember the second law
of thermodynamics stating that constant effort is required
lest disorder and chaos prevail.
--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org -- against proprietary attachments
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.english.usage

In article <20260914031340.3a73cae6c259a55cb75bccd0@gmail.moc>,
Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> wrote:

I prefer the latter form because it is grammatical

Grammatical acccording to a made-up grammar for a language that
doesn't exist.

Every construction in the English you approve of was "ungrammatical"
when it was first used. You've just picked a point in the history of
the grammar of atypical speakers and claimed it as correct. You are
condemned to eternal disappointment.

-- Richard
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.english.usage

On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 03:13:40 +0300, Anton Shepelev
<anton.txt@gmail.moc> wrote:

Tony Cooper:

Are you sure they are smiling like they're proud of
themselves for knowing it's not important? Maybe they're
smiling because they are baffled that you think it's
important.

It is a bad, lousy, and standard excuse for viloating the
rules of grammar

I gotta laugh at this. I have stated that I'm careful to try to
follow the rules of grammar when I write for an audience like this,
but admit to being less careful in conversation. You feel that in
doing so I'm "viloating" [sic] the rules of grammar.

I suggest you proofread your posts before sending lest you violate the
rules of spelling. I know it was just a typo, but pointing out the
slippage as a typo is just a bad, lousy, and standard excuse for not
being careful when writing. We don't want the rules of spelling to be degraded, do we? Disorder and chaos may follow.

and "optimising" both logical structure and
beautful nuances and niceties out of the language. Anything
goes, such people say, as long as the speaker is understood.
That is, they use the poorest possible language, futhering
its degradation.

A smile is noticed only when the conversation is person-
to-person. If the conversation requires this question,
and I reply "Who should I address the letter to?", and you
think I should have asked "To whom should I address the
letter?", have I not more than adequately expressed what I
need to know?

I prefer the latter form because it is grammatical (unlike
the former) and actually sounds better. When Bo Didley
sings "Who do you love?", it is pardonable because it is
illiterate collouial black dialect of American English and
because it sounds better than "Whom do you love?".

It's "colloquial" and "Bo Diddley".

When writing something in a context like aue, I'm careful
(but not always successful) about using what the audience
will consider to be correct. When I'm speaking to someone
I'm more concerned with just being clear.

Why the populism and double standards?

Why stoop down
before the audience so low as to sacrifice correct grammar
and syntax, when you can retain your dignity by using
simpler (yet still correct) vocabulary, simpler (yet still
correct) sentences written or uttered in a style and tone
becoming the occasion?

There's a "code-switching" aspect to written communication
vs spoken communication, and the audience is a critical
factor in this.

I have never understood this! Written and spoken word are
different mediums for the same language! Why deliberately
relax grammar rules and lower the bar of correctness when
speaking, which is already more conducive to errors because
of its spontaneious

spontaneous

thing, one should be
/more/ chary when speaking because no error remains
unperceived.

Even more so when writing...particularly when casting stones.

Another reason for conscious effort at correct speech is the
development of a mental discipline for the perfection of one's
language, which process brooks no double standards, when one
tries to write correctly but lets himself speak carelessly.
Correct language is both a precursor and postcursor of
correct thinking. Slipshod speech must needs spill out into
one's writing and infect it.

That last sentence's construction is a bit slipshod.

Also remember the second law
of thermodynamics stating that constant effort is required
lest disorder and chaos prevail.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.english.usage

Den 14.09.2026 kl. 02.13 skrev Anton Shepelev:

I have never understood this! Written and spoken word are
different mediums for the same language! Why deliberately
relax grammar rules and lower the bar of correctness when
speaking, which is already more conducive to errors because
of its spontaneious nature? If anything, one should be
/more/ chary when speaking because no error remains
unperceived.

That is so wrong. You can get away with almost anything unnoticed in
live conversation.
--
Bertel, Kolt, Danmark

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.english.usage


Ar an ceathr|| l|i d|-ag de m|! M|-an F||mhair, scr|!obh Bertel Lund Hansen:

Den 14.09.2026 kl. 02.13 skrev Anton Shepelev:

I have never understood this! Written and spoken word are different mediums for the same language! Why deliberately relax grammar rules and lower the bar of correctness when speaking, which is already more conducive to errors because of its spontaneious nature? If anything, one should be /more/ chary when speaking because no error remains unperceived.

That is so wrong. You can get away with almost anything unnoticed in live conversation.

Well, unless itrCOs a second language yourCOre not particularly good at, and your
errors are not errors that native speakers make.
--
rCyAs I sat looking up at the Guinness ad, I could never figure out /
How your man stayed up on the surfboard after fourteen pints of stoutrCO
(C. Moore)
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.english.usage

Den 14.09.2026 kl. 10.53 skrev Aidan Kehoe:

> > conducive to errors because of its spontaneious nature? If anything, one
> > should be /more/ chary when speaking because no error remains unperceived.
>
> That is so wrong. You can get away with almost anything unnoticed in live
> conversation.

Well, unless itrCOs a second language yourCOre not particularly good at, and your
errors are not errors that native speakers make.

True. I was thinking of first language.
--
Bertel, Kolt, Danmark

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.english.usage

System Administrator <root@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

In article <20260914031340.3a73cae6c259a55cb75bccd0@gmail.moc>,
Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> wrote:

I prefer the latter form because it is grammatical

Grammatical acccording to a made-up grammar for a language that
doesn't exist.

Every construction in the English you approve of was "ungrammatical"
when it was first used. You've just picked a point in the history of
the grammar of atypical speakers and claimed it as correct. You are condemned to eternal disappointment.

The response of some non-native speakers to that problem
is to claim that the natives are doing it all wrong.
They know for certain, because they learned correct English,
(no doubt from a book)

Jan



--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.english.usage

On 14/09/2026 4:56 PM, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:

Den 14.09.2026 kl. 10.53 skrev Aidan Kehoe:

-a > > conducive to errors because of its spontaneious nature? If
anything, one
-a > > should be /more/ chary when speaking because no error remains
unperceived.
-a >
-a > That is so wrong. You can get away with almost anything unnoticed
in live
-a > conversation.

Well, unless itrCOs a second language yourCOre not particularly good at,
and your
errors are not errors that native speakers make.

True. I was thinking of first language.

Well, one verbal error I made, once and quite memorably, was to use the
word /plethora/ in a spoken sentence -- correctly.

The rest of the conversation consisted of talking about plethora. I
have totally forgotten what the original conversation was about.

I speak with a strong Icelandic accent. People generally don't expect
me to out-vocabularize the native speakers of English.


Best wishes, and happy verbal English!
--
Johann | email: invalid -> com | http://www.myrkraverk.com/blog/
I'm not from the Internet, I just work there. | via Easynews.com https://bsky.app/profile/myrkraverk.bsky.social | for ( ;; ) _:;
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.english.usage

Den 14.09.2026 kl. 12.13 skrev Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson:

-a > That is so wrong. You can get away with almost anything unnoticed
in live
-a > conversation.

Well, unless itrCOs a second language yourCOre not particularly good at, >>> and your
errors are not errors that native speakers make.

True. I was thinking of first language.

Well, one verbal error I made, once and quite memorably, was to use the
word /plethora/ in a spoken sentence -- correctly.

Okay. I remember the word because it appears in a joke.
--
Bertel, Kolt, Danmark

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.english.usage


Ar an ceathr|| l|i d|-ag de m|! M|-an F||mhair, scr|!obh J. J. Lodder:

System Administrator <root@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

In article <20260914031340.3a73cae6c259a55cb75bccd0@gmail.moc>,
Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> wrote:

I prefer the latter form because it is grammatical

Grammatical acccording to a made-up grammar for a language that
doesn't exist.

Every construction in the English you approve of was "ungrammatical"
when it was first used. You've just picked a point in the history of
the grammar of atypical speakers and claimed it as correct. You are condemned to eternal disappointment.

The response of some non-native speakers to that problem
is to claim that the natives are doing it all wrong.
They know for certain, because they learned correct English,
(no doubt from a book)

The most useful term is rCLstandard.rCY When my three year old daughter asks rCLwhorCOs
<her name> doing, Dada?rCY when she means rCLwhatrCOs <her name> doing, Dada?rCY she is
successfully communicating, so it is pragmatically not wrong. DoesnrCOt mean I want her using that construction with that intended meaning when she is sixteen.
--
rCyAs I sat looking up at the Guinness ad, I could never figure out /
How your man stayed up on the surfboard after fourteen pints of stoutrCO
(C. Moore)
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.english.usage

Anton Shepelev wrote in article <20260914031340.3a73cae6c259a55cb75bccd0@gmail.moc>:

I have never understood this! Written and spoken word are
different mediums for the same language! Why deliberately
relax grammar rules and lower the bar of correctness when
speaking, which is already more conducive to errors because
of its spontaneious nature? If anything, one should be
/more/ chary when speaking because no error remains
unperceived.

What an interesting philosophy. I've long made a habit of being
precise with speech, but I've thought of it as a quirk rather
than a virtue.

Another reason for conscious effort at correct speech is the
development of a mental discipline for the perfection of one's
language, which process brooks no double standards, when one
tries to write correctly but lets himself speak carelessly.
Correct language is both a precursor and postcursor of
correct thinking. Slipshod speech must needs spill out into
one's writing and infect it. Also remember the second law
of thermodynamics stating that constant effort is required
lest disorder and chaos prevail.

That's more or less how I view it. Doing it right is always worth
the trouble, not so much for the sake of the sentence as for my
own sake.
--
The True Melissa - Canal Winchester - Ohio
United States of America - North America - Earth
Solar System - Milky Way - Local Group
Virgo Cluster - Laniakea Supercluster - Cosmos
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.english.usage

On 14/09/2026 15:24, The True Melissa wrote:

Anton Shepelev wrote in article <20260914031340.3a73cae6c259a55cb75bccd0@gmail.moc>:

I have never understood this! Written and spoken word are
different mediums for the same language! Why deliberately
relax grammar rules and lower the bar of correctness when
speaking, which is already more conducive to errors because
of its spontaneious nature? If anything, one should be
/more/ chary when speaking because no error remains
unperceived.

What an interesting philosophy. I've long made a habit of being
precise with speech, but I've thought of it as a quirk rather
than a virtue.

Another reason for conscious effort at correct speech is the
development of a mental discipline for the perfection of one's
language, which process brooks no double standards, when one
tries to write correctly but lets himself speak carelessly.
Correct language is both a precursor and postcursor of
correct thinking. Slipshod speech must needs spill out into
one's writing and infect it. Also remember the second law
of thermodynamics stating that constant effort is required
lest disorder and chaos prevail.

That's more or less how I view it. Doing it right is always worth
the trouble, not so much for the sake of the sentence as for my
own sake.

Also, a closer reading of the second law says that disorder and chaos
_will_ prevail, despite anyone's puny efforts.
"Ye canna break the laws of physics Cap'n!"
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2