Oops, I guess I'm the idiot for assuming that those two levels of usage go together. (Should have taken a sociolinguistics course in school, back in the Neolithic.) I am in awe that you use "whom" regularly in speech--and I have no doubt you use it correctly. But perhaps that's expected in an Empress. (But no longer in a journalist. Apparently papers no longer have copy editors, even for facts: the Boston Globe recently feared that a bill could get stuck in the House Rules Committee, already noted as having 13 members, on a 7-7 tie. Not a good day to have a byline.) I note that wiktionary.org, my go-to reference, explicitly endorses "whom" with a final preposition. I live and learn.
Empress, why do we see the word "less" when it should be "fewer" so often in advertising? You don't see grammatical errors that often in print or in voiceover "headlines," but this one is everywhere. Isn't someone being paid to know better? I understand confusing the two up to a point, with "more" being the opposite of both. But explanations of which to use are oddly confusing or difficult themselves. Countable or uncountable, singular or plural? How about this–Fewer answers the question "How many?" Less answers the question "How much?" Nobody has trouble with whether to use many or much.
And along the same line, "amount" vs. "number." I can't believe that it feels natural for someone to say "a large amount of people." But you hear it among educated native speakers all the time.
On the other hand, there's also overcorrecting to incorrectly change "less" to "fewer," usually in measurements of time or distance. Between now and nine months from now, it's less than nine months, not fewer than nine months: The measure is the block of time, not pages of a calendar. And just yesterday I saw a story in the New York Post mocking Biden for seeming to spell "eight" as E-I-G-H during a speech in " Accokeek, fewer than 20 miles from the nation’s capital." Nope, it means that it's somewhere in the quantity of "distance" between zero and 20. (Even though we DO say "how many miles to go?"(
Perhaps ad writers feel that "fewer" sounds overly educated and prissy, like "whom," and they want to sound more "authentic." But I think there's a big difference: If you were talking to someone and noted that "hmm, fewer people seem to be here today than yesterday," the person isn't going to notice. But if you asked the person, "Whom did you come with today?" the person might well think: "La. Di. Da."
(I know I'm late to the game here, but life happens.) If someone says, "Whom did you come with today?" I think, "Idiot!" If you choose, you can say, "With whom did you come today?" or, more likely, "Who did you come with today?" But to use high style for who/whom and not for the location of the preposition is really tone-deaf. (I realize, of course, that you would never do that and only shifted mechanically to "whom" for the sake of the example, so I'm not rapping the imperial knuckles.)
Welp, I don't, obviously, think that using "whom" in most cases requires the writer/speaker also to refrain from ending a sentence in a preposition; I personally use "whom" regularly in conversation, along with less formal constructions; I suppose you think I'm an idiot, but that's who I am.
I concede that using "who" for "whom" and then ending the sentence in a preposition would create a more consistent tone of informality; I wouldn't "correct" someone who did this. And even I wouldn't reply to "I'm going out tonight" with "Whom with?"
The choice of words has to do with what we want to accomplish with language at the time we're using it or, to your point about copywriters, how they want you the consumer to feel about a product or service. There are a handful of generally accepted (and, of course, over simplified) categories into which word wonks put the function of language, This is, of course, what readily causes a disconnect when its use is subtle or crosses these artificially constructed borders. Understanding is the too often overlooked or ignored part of the process of communication.
The neologism judging was almost entirely mine this week: Gene and I were going to pare down my shortlist over lunch yesterday, but unfortunately Gene spent yesterday losing his own lunch. He's feeling better now. So he just weighed in at the end with a few suggested cuts and tweaks.
Indiscriminate selection of roadkill will do it every time. And probably condiment free at that. Sheesh! I assume he "weighed in" several ounces lighter. I'm presuming here, but since you're (more or less...) among friends you're free to reveal that the actual cause of the re-examination of his stomach contents was as a result of Gene foolishly attempting to make amends by eating phaal curry.
John and Abigail Adams corresponded when he was in quarantine after being inoculated against smallpox, and he admonished her to make sure the letters were "smoaked" before she read them so as not to transfer the illness to her.
Oops, I guess I'm the idiot for assuming that those two levels of usage go together. (Should have taken a sociolinguistics course in school, back in the Neolithic.) I am in awe that you use "whom" regularly in speech--and I have no doubt you use it correctly. But perhaps that's expected in an Empress. (But no longer in a journalist. Apparently papers no longer have copy editors, even for facts: the Boston Globe recently feared that a bill could get stuck in the House Rules Committee, already noted as having 13 members, on a 7-7 tie. Not a good day to have a byline.) I note that wiktionary.org, my go-to reference, explicitly endorses "whom" with a final preposition. I live and learn.
Who would name a racehorse "Low Expectations"? I sense a "Producers" vibe here.
Empress, why do we see the word "less" when it should be "fewer" so often in advertising? You don't see grammatical errors that often in print or in voiceover "headlines," but this one is everywhere. Isn't someone being paid to know better? I understand confusing the two up to a point, with "more" being the opposite of both. But explanations of which to use are oddly confusing or difficult themselves. Countable or uncountable, singular or plural? How about this–Fewer answers the question "How many?" Less answers the question "How much?" Nobody has trouble with whether to use many or much.
And along the same line, "amount" vs. "number." I can't believe that it feels natural for someone to say "a large amount of people." But you hear it among educated native speakers all the time.
On the other hand, there's also overcorrecting to incorrectly change "less" to "fewer," usually in measurements of time or distance. Between now and nine months from now, it's less than nine months, not fewer than nine months: The measure is the block of time, not pages of a calendar. And just yesterday I saw a story in the New York Post mocking Biden for seeming to spell "eight" as E-I-G-H during a speech in " Accokeek, fewer than 20 miles from the nation’s capital." Nope, it means that it's somewhere in the quantity of "distance" between zero and 20. (Even though we DO say "how many miles to go?"(
Perhaps ad writers feel that "fewer" sounds overly educated and prissy, like "whom," and they want to sound more "authentic." But I think there's a big difference: If you were talking to someone and noted that "hmm, fewer people seem to be here today than yesterday," the person isn't going to notice. But if you asked the person, "Whom did you come with today?" the person might well think: "La. Di. Da."
(I know I'm late to the game here, but life happens.) If someone says, "Whom did you come with today?" I think, "Idiot!" If you choose, you can say, "With whom did you come today?" or, more likely, "Who did you come with today?" But to use high style for who/whom and not for the location of the preposition is really tone-deaf. (I realize, of course, that you would never do that and only shifted mechanically to "whom" for the sake of the example, so I'm not rapping the imperial knuckles.)
Welp, I don't, obviously, think that using "whom" in most cases requires the writer/speaker also to refrain from ending a sentence in a preposition; I personally use "whom" regularly in conversation, along with less formal constructions; I suppose you think I'm an idiot, but that's who I am.
I concede that using "who" for "whom" and then ending the sentence in a preposition would create a more consistent tone of informality; I wouldn't "correct" someone who did this. And even I wouldn't reply to "I'm going out tonight" with "Whom with?"
The choice of words has to do with what we want to accomplish with language at the time we're using it or, to your point about copywriters, how they want you the consumer to feel about a product or service. There are a handful of generally accepted (and, of course, over simplified) categories into which word wonks put the function of language, This is, of course, what readily causes a disconnect when its use is subtle or crosses these artificially constructed borders. Understanding is the too often overlooked or ignored part of the process of communication.
Well, I'm going to go feed the crickets. You know where to find me. Have a good weekend, and happy breeding!
I'm happy to see that it's Jonathan Jensen who wins the 12 fake mustaches -- he can attend the Flushies incognito.
Alternative Reality has 19 characters. Are you sure there's a space in the name?
I just looked--it appears the actual name is Alternate Reality.
Ooh, great catch. It's Alternate Reality. Will fix right away.
And yet you still give the guy ink, St. Pat.
What? That is a horse name we are going to use to get, not a contest entry that got ink.
The neologism judging was almost entirely mine this week: Gene and I were going to pare down my shortlist over lunch yesterday, but unfortunately Gene spent yesterday losing his own lunch. He's feeling better now. So he just weighed in at the end with a few suggested cuts and tweaks.
Indiscriminate selection of roadkill will do it every time. And probably condiment free at that. Sheesh! I assume he "weighed in" several ounces lighter. I'm presuming here, but since you're (more or less...) among friends you're free to reveal that the actual cause of the re-examination of his stomach contents was as a result of Gene foolishly attempting to make amends by eating phaal curry.
So sorry he's ill, but hoping tomorrow is a big improvement. There is no humor in driving that porcelain bus.
OK, I guess it's you and me, Pat. How ya doing?? :)
I'm swell. I hope I don't catch whatever Gene got. Can you catch the flu through email?
John and Abigail Adams corresponded when he was in quarantine after being inoculated against smallpox, and he admonished her to make sure the letters were "smoaked" before she read them so as not to transfer the illness to her.
That probably made sense! Fingers and perhaps saliva all over the paper.
Yes,it's called a computer virus, you moron! Stupid Questions, indeed.
Spam has been known to cause an occasional violent reaction.
And a very large "Bravo!" for the Fetal Motel from this Floriduh resident.
"The men may never come in after sundown,
The price of breaking this will be a lot.
We know this will be hard
But we play that bitchy card
Because WE RULE FEM-A-LOT!"