| Science Forum Index » Languages Forum » The Business Memoir - the ``whom'' question |
|
Page 1 of 11 Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Ron Hardin |
 Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 11:57 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Harlan Messinger wrote:
[quote:7d56d13e3f]credibility," she reminds us. "To conduct effective negotiations, know
whom you're dealing with."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110009076
My feeling is that she thinks ``whom'' is the object of ``know,''
rather than ``with,'' that being the most natural way it could get
there.
Not content with finding mistakes, now you're picking on people for
writing correctly for what you imagine to be the wrong reason?
[/quote:7d56d13e3f]
Is prescriptively correctly? It sounds so bad that it has to be either
a really tin ear, or the suggested mistake, which actually sounds better.
A positive reason not to use ``whom'' there is that it suggests it's
an object of ``know,'' so rare is the alternative.
--
Ron Hardin
rhhardin@mindspring.com
On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter T. Daniels |
| Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 12:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Ron Hardin wrote:
[quote:cfd930e466]Harlan Messinger wrote:
credibility," she reminds us. "To conduct effective negotiations, know
whom you're dealing with."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110009076
My feeling is that she thinks ``whom'' is the object of ``know,''
rather than ``with,'' that being the most natural way it could get
there.
Not content with finding mistakes, now you're picking on people for
writing correctly for what you imagine to be the wrong reason?
Is prescriptively correctly? It sounds so bad that it has to be either
a really tin ear, or the suggested mistake, which actually sounds better.
A positive reason not to use ``whom'' there is that it suggests it's
an object of ``know,'' so rare is the alternative.
On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
[/quote:cfd930e466]
Let's see you come up with a sentence where the object of "know" could
be a "whom" that isn't a relative pronoun in exactly this construction. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Stefano MAC:GREGOR |
| Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 2:31 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
[quote:2bf5972b3a]Let's see you come up with a sentence where the object of "know" could
be a "whom" that isn't a relative pronoun in exactly this construction.
[/quote:2bf5972b3a]
"Whom are you dealing with?" -- There: an interrogative pronoun in
that construction.
--
Stefano
"No matter where you go, there you are. But your luggage is in Nuuk,
Greenland." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Stefano MAC:GREGOR |
| Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 2:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Ron Hardin wrote:
[quote:94c34ebff1]My feeling is that she thinks "whom'' is the object of "know,''
rather than "with,'' that being the most natural way it could get
there.
[/quote:94c34ebff1]
The second most natural way is that she *does* know that it's the
object of the preposition "with", and is using the correct form.
--
Stefano
"No matter where you go, there you are. But your luggage is in Moose
Jaw, Saskatchewan." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Brian M. Scott |
| Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 2:44 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 12 Oct 2006 10:31:07 -0700, "Stefano MAC:GREGOR"
<esperantujo@yahoo.com> wrote in
<news:1160674267.473942.276480@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
[quote:bcc5bd17a8]Peter T. Daniels wrote:
Let's see you come up with a sentence where the object of
"know" could be a "whom" that isn't a relative pronoun
in exactly this construction.
"Whom are you dealing with?" -- There: an interrogative
pronoun in that construction.
[/quote:bcc5bd17a8]
Not relevant: it's not the object of 'know'.
Brian |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Stefano MAC:GREGOR |
| Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 2:46 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Harlan Messinger wrote:
[quote:306623d26e]Meanwhile, you missed this from an article in today's Washington Post by
Jamie Stockwell: "One night last week, Feltman and other task force
detectives zigzagged across Arlington County and the District in search
of a man who they said had exposed himself over a Web camera to a
detective whom he thought was a teenage girl."
[/quote:306623d26e]
Interesting. The writer made the correct who/whom distinction the
first time, but got it wrong the second time in in the same
construction.
--
Stefano
"No matter where you go, there you are. But your luggage is in Podunk
Center, Iowa." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Stefano MAC:GREGOR |
| Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 2:59 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Brian M. Scott wrote:
[quote:232f6d0b0b]Not relevant: it's not the object of 'know'.
[/quote:232f6d0b0b]
Sorry. I thought you were talking about the subordinate clause only.
"You know him."
Now you have a personal pronoun as the object.
If this is still not correct, please be specific as to what you want.
--
Stefano
"No matter where you go, there you are. But your luggage is in Myrtle
Point, Oregon." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Brian M. Scott |
| Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 3:11 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 12 Oct 2006 10:59:53 -0700, "Stefano MAC:GREGOR"
<esperantujo@yahoo.com> wrote in
<news:1160675993.805324.128690@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
[quote:35b2ba7c1e]Brian M. Scott wrote:
Not relevant: it's not the object of 'know'.
Sorry. I thought you were talking about the subordinate
clause only.
[/quote:35b2ba7c1e]
*I* wasn't talking about anything: Peter was.
[quote:35b2ba7c1e]"You know him."
Now you have a personal pronoun as the object.
If this is still not correct, please be specific as to
what you want.
[/quote:35b2ba7c1e]
You shouldn't have snipped so much: Peter's request was
still present in my last post. He wrote: 'Let's see you
come up with a sentence where the object of "know" could be
a "whom" that isn't a relative pronoun in exactly this
construction.' First you ignored the 'object of "know"',
and now you've ignored the 'whom'.
Brian |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Harlan Messinger |
| Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 3:13 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Ron Hardin wrote:
[quote:3b048f4816]Harlan Messinger wrote:
credibility," she reminds us. "To conduct effective negotiations, know
whom you're dealing with."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110009076
My feeling is that she thinks ``whom'' is the object of ``know,''
rather than ``with,'' that being the most natural way it could get
there.
Not content with finding mistakes, now you're picking on people for
writing correctly for what you imagine to be the wrong reason?
Is prescriptively correctly?
[/quote:3b048f4816]
Yes.
[quote:3b048f4816]It sounds so bad that it has to be either
a really tin ear,
[/quote:3b048f4816]
Yours is the tin one. It's correct.
[quote:3b048f4816]or the suggested mistake, which actually sounds better.
A positive reason not to use ``whom'' there is that it suggests it's
an object of ``know,'' so rare is the alternative.
[/quote:3b048f4816]
The reason to use it or not to use it should be based on applicable,
real rules, not inapplicable, made-up rules. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Harlan Messinger |
| Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 3:14 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Stefano MAC:GREGOR wrote:
[quote:d1e614ec9b]Harlan Messinger wrote:
Meanwhile, you missed this from an article in today's Washington Post by
Jamie Stockwell: "One night last week, Feltman and other task force
detectives zigzagged across Arlington County and the District in search
of a man who they said had exposed himself over a Web camera to a
detective whom he thought was a teenage girl."
Interesting. The writer made the correct who/whom distinction the
first time, but got it wrong the second time in in the same
construction.
[/quote:d1e614ec9b]
Different article, different writer, different publication. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Brian M. Scott |
| Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 3:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:14:21 -0400, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net> wrote in
<news:4p7evtFhnijiU2@individual.net> in sci.lang:
[quote:3e569cff22]Stefano MAC:GREGOR wrote:
Harlan Messinger wrote:
Meanwhile, you missed this from an article in today's Washington Post by
Jamie Stockwell: "One night last week, Feltman and other task force
detectives zigzagged across Arlington County and the District in search
of a man who they said had exposed himself over a Web camera to a
detective whom he thought was a teenage girl."
Interesting. The writer made the correct who/whom distinction the
first time, but got it wrong the second time in in the same
construction.
Different article, different writer, different publication.
[/quote:3e569cff22]
No, Stefano's right: Stockwell correctly wrote 'who they
said' but got 'whom he thought' wrong.
Brian |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Harlan Messinger |
| Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 3:35 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Brian M. Scott wrote:
[quote:dded71a379]On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:14:21 -0400, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net> wrote in
news:4p7evtFhnijiU2@individual.net> in sci.lang:
Stefano MAC:GREGOR wrote:
Harlan Messinger wrote:
Meanwhile, you missed this from an article in today's Washington Post by
Jamie Stockwell: "One night last week, Feltman and other task force
detectives zigzagged across Arlington County and the District in search
of a man who they said had exposed himself over a Web camera to a
detective whom he thought was a teenage girl."
Interesting. The writer made the correct who/whom distinction the
first time, but got it wrong the second time in in the same
construction.
Different article, different writer, different publication.
No, Stefano's right: Stockwell correctly wrote 'who they
said' but got 'whom he thought' wrong.
[/quote:dded71a379]
Oh, I see. I hadn't noticed that Stockwell had two instances. I thought
Stefano was referring to Ron's quote versus mine. Sorry. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ron Hardin |
| Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 4:32 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Harlan Messinger wrote:
[quote:68c41986ee]Not content with finding mistakes, now you're picking on people for
writing correctly for what you imagine to be the wrong reason?
Is prescriptively correctly?
Yes.
[/quote:68c41986ee]
That pretty much cuts out any interest in the rules in fact followed.
---
Ron Hardin
rhhardin@mindspring.com
On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Harlan Messinger |
| Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 5:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Ron Hardin wrote:
[quote:4e2f4d1dcf]Harlan Messinger wrote:
Not content with finding mistakes, now you're picking on people for
writing correctly for what you imagine to be the wrong reason?
Is prescriptively correctly?
Yes.
That pretty much cuts out any interest in the rules in fact followed.
[/quote:4e2f4d1dcf]
The way people use it doesn't follow rules. That's the problem. They
don't understand it, so they use it haphazardly and it follows no pattern. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Joachim Pense |
| Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 6:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Am Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:17:57 -0400 schrieb Brian M. Scott:
[quote:16c09fe139]
It is. Ron's being an ass again.
[/quote:16c09fe139]
Are you British or American? (Well, MGP seems to suggest the
latter...)
Joachim |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
