Whom shall I say is calling?

Forums: English, Grammar, Who, Case Systems, Moribund
Email this Topic • Print this Page

If any further background is needed see, Post# 4,979,696

http://able2know.org/topic/121955-91

================

Roberta: Hey, Dr. Hedgeh. That's whoever.

JTT: As 'who/whoever' has largely taken over the objective case role in English grammar, do you think that the moribund 'whom/whomever' might acquire a new role in a formal use, Roberta?

Roberta: There are still a few old diehards who know the difference based on ancient teachings.

For the most part, I think that nowadays we encounter whom/whomever when people are trying to sound fancy shmancy--and end up sounding wrong (to me and two other people out there somewhere).

It's similar to "between you and I." (Gag.) People say "I" because they think it makes them sound educated/fancy shmancy.

Back to funny signs for I.

JTT: Just between you and I, there are many, possibly even untold thousands who know, Roberta.

Quote:

Roberta: For the most part, I think that nowadays we encounter whom/whomever when people are trying to sound fancy shmancy--and end up sounding wrong (to me and two other people out there somewhere).

JTT: So you believe it`s even more widespread than I do. Does that make it a done deal.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Lustig Andrei : 'Moribund' and 'obsolete' are not synonims, JTT. I would even question just how archaic (i.e.moribund) the objective case 'whom/whomever' useage has become. Certainly people of a certain age (read: moi)who are familiar with what you refer to as 'prescriptive' grammar and with the English language in general tend to use the proper case. I do most of the time. I suspect that so does Roberta as well as other literate souls here on A2k.

[Edit: Sorry, Roberta. Had posted this before I saw your response. I'll let it stand.]

++++++++++++++++++++++

Quote:

Lustig Andrea: 'Moribund' and 'obsolete' are not synonims, JTT.

JTT: Did I say they were, Merry?

Quote:

Lustig Andrei: I would even question just how archaic (i.e.moribund) the objective case 'whom/whomever' useage has become.

JTT: 'archaic' and 'moribund' are not synonyms either. 'whom' is part of a case system that is dead, just as 'were' is part of a subjunctive system that is dead.

That remnants remain doesn't make them any the less moribund.

Quote:

Lustig Andrei: Certainly people of a certain age (read: moi)who are familiar with what you refer to as 'prescriptive' grammar and with the English anguage
tend to use the proper case. I do most of the time. I suspect tat so does Roberta and other literate souls here on A2k.

JTT: Being literate, and prescriptive certainly doesn't make a person wise, Merry. That's not the "proper" case.

I think that a recording of your speech would illustrate to you that you know as little about your own usage as you do about the usage of others.

I haven't noticed you to be overly pompous in your postings. You're not seriously trying to suggest that you regularly say such things as,

"Whom did you tell/see/phone/call/...?"

Even 13 year old Gracie [now 14, I believe] knew that that's not how English works.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 2,736 • Replies: 24

@JTT,

I thought it was dr. Hedgehog...

1 Reply

@Rockhead,

You're usually more observant than that, Rocky.

0 Replies

@JTT,

What's the point of this post? Feeling a little superior again, JTT?

2 Replies

@Mame,

Mame wrote:

What's the point of this post? Feeling a little superior again, JTT?

She needs all the emotional support she can get, Mame, being the only one who sees anything 'superior' in her rantings.

I wasn't going to post on this thread, Mame, but it's good to 'see' you. Smile

1 Reply

@Lustig Andrei,

It's good to see you, too, MA. I read you a lot but don't post that often.

All her nitpicking gets on my nerves. Someone means 'sent' but types 'send' and it's almost an international incident. She's always trying to prove her superiority and it gets old. Big bloody deal.

1 Reply

@Mame,

The point of the thread, Mame, is to minimize the opportunity for these ridiculous prescriptions to be spread.

I understand your entry, and the nature of your post because you were once one of those prescriptivists who tried to advance these spurious notions - my dad was a reporter and he knows ... .

Merry, as usual, is bullshitting everyone. He never comes to these threads because he isn't capable of discussing these issues.

Care to weigh in, Mame?

2 Replies

@JTT,

Yes, I will weigh in, JTT. You're a ******* jackass moron.

People are free to speak whatever form of English they like, and if you're on a crusade, keep it to yourself.

2 Replies

@JTT,

In fact, "whom shall I say is calling" would be considered incorrect by any prescriptive grammarian. If someone is calling, then the pronoun should be in the nominative case, i.e. "who." Do you commonly say, "Whom shall I say etc..."? "Whom" is the objective case and should be saved for expressions e.g. "Whom did you give that to?"

****. I don't know why I let myself get drawn into these idiotic arguments with you.

1 Reply

@Mame,

Quote:

All her nitpicking gets on my nerves.

Perhaps now you might be able to grasp just how bad all you folks were with your Pet Peeves of English thread. Perhaps now, Mame, you can understand how your falsehoods, [and others like you], have caused so much damage over the years.

Quote:

Someone means 'sent' but types 'send' and it's almost an international incident.

Mame, you've completely misrepresented that. For you, I guess old habits are hard to break.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Oh, F off

1 Reply

@Lustig Andrei,

Quote:

In fact, "whom shall I say is calling" would be considered incorrect by any prescriptive grammarian.

No ****, Sherlock.

Quote:

****. I don't know why I let myself get drawn into these idiotic arguments with you.

That's a laugh, Merry. You run so fast and so far on these issues. You're the equal of OmSig.

1 Reply

@Mame,

Quote:

People are free to speak whatever form of English they like, and if you're on a crusade, keep it to yourself.

Again, the misrepresentations, Mame. You should be ashamed but that's not likely.

If I hadn't happened along you'd still be handing out dad's nonsense and making jokes about how people abused the English language.

0 Replies

@Mame,

That stands as one of your most cogent arguments on language issues, Mame.

0 Replies

@Mame,

Quote:

People are free to speak whatever form of English they like, and if you're on a crusade, keep it to yourself.

You've certainly changed your tune from your early days, haven't you, Mame? Back then you were whining and kvetching about how badly people were abusing the English language. And they most certainly were not, according to you, free to speak whatever form of English they liked.

You know the old saying - there's nothing like a reformed alcoholic/smoker.

0 Replies

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

That's a laugh, Merry. You run so fast and so far on these issues. You're the equal of OmSig.

That'a horseshit. OmSig David never runs. I do; you're quite right there. I like to believe that I have more sense than to engage in meaningless badinage with an attention-seeking lunatic.

1 Reply

@Lustig Andrei,

OmSig never addresses the language issues at all. He simply keeps up a torrent of tangential drivel.

Quote:

I like to believe that I have more sense than to engage in meaningless badinage with an attention-seeking lunatic.

You're quite good at deluding yourself, Merry. You engage, for what reason I can't imagine as you yourself admit you know nothing of language, until you see that you are providing the same drivel as Om.

I haven't noticed you to be overly pompous in your postings. You're not seriously trying to suggest that you regularly say such things as,

"Whom did you tell/see/phone/call/...?"

2 Replies

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

I haven't noticed you to be overly pompous in your postings. You're not seriously trying to suggest that you regularly say such things as,

"Whom did you tell/see/phone/call/...?"

You're not seriously going to tell me that you don't realize that there's a wide gulf between spoken language and the written transcription?

There are locutions I habitually use in speech which I'd be very leery of committing to paper. Each kind of language has entirely different standards of acceptance. This is not to even mention the fact that one's speech is quite likely to vary depending on the person being addressed. Vocabulary, for one.

1 Reply

I thought "whom" is used when the complete thought is, "to whom." So, if that is correct it would be, "Who can I say is calling?"

The earlier explanation relating to the "nominative case" is too esoteric for my understanding of English. I know English only because it was spoken correctly to me as a child, and therefore incorrect English just sounds a little "off."

0 Replies

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

OmSig never addresses the language issues at all.
He simply keeps up a torrent of tangential drivel.

I have pointed out quite a few times
that when first we met (cyber-met), I argued out the reasoning
with u, pointing out that, for the most part, English grammar is well grounded in logic.
That was true until u revealed in your posts that u were indifferent to logic
and that u did not recognize it. Argument is not well suited to the repudiation of logic.
Accordingly, I no longer deem u to be among those people
who r sufficiently sane to reason competently, or even to DESIRE to do so.

U define logic as being "drivel".

For that reason, I don 't take u seriously,
(but I 'm willing to play with u, in a spirit of frivolity).

I surmise that in your hallucinations, logic is "drivel".

1 Reply

Whom shall I say is calling?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know