Sheepo
The Freeman
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 10,577
- Reaction score
- 79
I feel like I've seen you somewhere before
1) construction
2) grocery store
3) computer repair guy
4) serial killer
Fixed :O
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
I feel like I've seen you somewhere before
1) construction
2) grocery store
3) computer repair guy
4) serial killer
Whenever I see Pi, I think "Kane from Command & Conquer-wannabe".
Who's eating who?
Who's eating whom, come on people nowWho's eating who?
Who's eating whom, come on people now
come on people now
people now
Ehehe
AVGN?
Well...Who's eating whom, come on people now
The look on your face is like your girlfriend just told you she missed her period.
Actually what I meant was, "Who's biting who?". I like that picture. Your hair is some kind of brilliant metal alloy.Who's eating who?
Well...
(I was recently asked about this by someone and reproduce some of what I said.)The thing about whom is that nobody is really sure how it works anymore. It's a rare hangover from the Anglo-Saxon 'old english', which was an inflectional language where case was indicated by morphology rather than word order. Its ancestor, the Old English hwam, was used only in the dative case. You would say that "who dares wins" because there the 'who' refers to the subject. But you would instead ask "you dared - but for whom?" because you is the subject and whom is the object.
However, the dative case scarcely exists in English anymore. Like the instrumental case, it has mostly vanished from the language. Indeed, modern linguists contend it has been folded into a wider 'objective' case. So traditionally you would use who only in the subjective and whom at all other times except the possessive (it has nothing to do with being at the end of the sentence). An example of this would be to say that "he is a person whom I greatly admire".
Problem being, said rules are so rarely obeyed that such a construction looks unnatural and unnecessary to most English-speakers; the bonds that govern who and whom are loosening fast. This kind of structure (as in the example) is actually slipping so far out of general usage that it is becoming difficult to legitimately describe as part of the tongue. So instead of it actually being useful for speakers to know about, it is, increasingly, merely a mark of snobbery - to know about it is either to be a linguist or a purist, and to use it scrupulously often has little other purpose except to signal a certain ideological view of language, a certain assumed and asserted superiority. Whom, used in this way, is barely a part of English grammar at all anymore - it's becoming just a marker of status, like when one speaks French phrases in the midst of one's English. (also: like when one says 'one').
Instead, whom is nowadays only generally insisted on when preceded by a preposition - "to whom", "for whom" and so on. This is bound up with the traditional ban on ending a sentence with a preposition. You're supposed to say "I don't have anyone to whom I can speak" rather than "I don't have anyone who I can speak to". But that ban itself mainly comes from the traditional authority of Latin grammar, which in the 18th century was supposed better than English grammar, and pressed into service to improve it. Ironic that it should be a rule imposed from a foreign tongue that helps prop up the authority of a native inflectional relic, but in any case even this is slipping away.
Which parts of old language get preserved and defended by purists, and which parts get thrown away and ignored by all, seems to be fairly arbitrary, although there may be historical and cultural reasons that given forms might be selected (as if by evolutionary mechanism) or deselected. This tends to make it hard for me to take it seriously when people get too hot and bothered about whom, but also because I can't honestly think of a modern English sentence in which whom would resolve any ambiguity or create a meaning that who did not. There may be some virtue in holding on to some of the weirder, sillier parts of our language and retaining them to remind even the most consummate speakers that they will never fully be in control of a given system. We just have to be careful that they don't become social passwords.
I am discovering things...about myself for the first time. :frog:Captain M4D that isn't a black woman, it's a white man.
I don't even think you're a lesbian, Mad.
Mad?
Bro.
Eejit hangs out with racists, wow.
Eejit's girlfriend is black, wow wow.