Grammar issue

[Bondwriter]

By the way, I like this title of Grammar Knight... it's nice.

Hey, I was flattering indeed.

It makes me imagine a little final fantasy tactics (video game) character

Final Fantasy? Is it like a sick snuff stuff?

jumping around and spouting off things like "Subject-verb agreement!" and then BAM the other guy drops dead, bwaha!

The Grammar Knight, with his sidekick the Linguistics Squire, brandishing the Holy Spelling Handbook ("First shalt thou take out the Holy Spelling Handbook, then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then openest thou thy Holy Spelling Handbook of Antioch towards thy foe, who being ignorant in my sight, shall get it.") and converting the masses to Chomsky's Generative Grammar theory, making them eager to hear about rules that recursively "specify" or "generate" the well-formed expressions of a natural language.

[Graeme]

The Grammar Knight, with his sidekick the Linguistics Squire, brandishing the Holy Spelling Handbook ("First shalt thou take out the Holy Spelling Handbook, then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then openest thou thy Holy Spelling Handbook of Antioch towards thy foe, who being ignorant in my sight, shall get it.") and converting the masses to Chomsky's Generative Grammar theory, making them eager to hear about rules that recursively "specify" or "generate" the well-formed expressions of a natural language.

Very, very good. It would be even better if it was an original. Sadly, I'm sad enough to recognise where it came from.... :2hands:

[Conner]

...

 

Grammar is the knowledge of writing correctly and effectively. Just as a painter must know what brushes and strokes to use, and a singer must know how to read music, so must an author know how to use their medium of choice.

 

...

 

Brillance! Sheer brillance!

 

Even those of us with simple intellects can grasp this wisdom, freely offered. It is in our youth that hope springs eternal!

 

You did it in two sentences, too!

 

 

Conner

[GaryKelly]

If you try to write a longer version of this sentence you get "Jill was angry at Tom and Jill was angry at I." I know that's wrong, but is saying "Jill was angry at Tom and I," acceptable?

 

No...unless it's written by a black belt karate expert.

[jfalkon]

Now that I got everyone to take out their grammar books let me ask one more question. When do you use whom instead of who? Some how I never understood that lesson in school.

[Bondwriter]

Another subjective/ objective case issue.

Here is an example, see if you can work out which is the subject and which is the object.

1/ I talked to the guy whom I saw last night at the store.

2/ I talked to the guy who bought a pound of peaches last night at the store.

 

I won't deal with it much more, since it's likely the Grammar Knight will do a 800-word explanation. I thought of having a lewder example for memory's sake, but decided against it to keep the thread proper. If it helps you to design a more graphic example to remember the difference, do so.

[jfalkon]

Thanks for answering.

If I understand correctly the guy in sentence 1 is being treated as an object. He is the subject in 2.

[Bondwriter]

Thanks for answering.

If I understand correctly the guy in sentence 1 is being treated as an object. He is the subject in 2.

He is an object or a subject. The example can be misleading.

In both sentences, he's the object of the verb talked to.

1/ (...) the guy whom I saw last night at the store. : here he's the object of the verb saw

2/ (...) the guy who bought a pound of peaches last night at the store. : here he's the subject of the verb bought. The object of the verb being a pound of peaches

 

And notice who has a possessive case (someone brought that up not too long ago in these grammar threads)

3/ I talked to the guy whose pound of peaches comes from the store.

 

*looks nervously over shoulder waiting to have someone correct him, since there hasn't been a reaction in a day*

[Camy]

*looks nervously over shoulder waiting to have someone correct him, since there hasn't been a reaction in a day*

Don't look in my direction, I have an idea, but it'll probably be wrong ... and anyway, that's what editors are for

 

More importantly, did the guy you met at the store enjoy the peaches?

 

Camy

[Bondwriter]

More importantly, did the guy you met at the store enjoy the peaches?

 

Camy

I think he liked the cream best. OK, another example for the sake of memorizing.

 

The hit man whacked the guy who insulted Don Corleone.

The hit man whacked the guy whom Don Corleone had pointed out.

The hit man whacked the guy whose words had offended Don Corleone.

[Conner]

Then, of course, there's the "object of a preposition" which follows the theory already described but causes many writers considerable consternation. This case also brings up sentence structure.

 

Let's say that your friend, John, gave the book that you lent him to someone else. So you ask...

 

Who did John give the book to?

John gave the book to who?

To whom did John give the book?

Whom did John give the book to?

 

Hmmmm......

[jfalkon]

I am certainly one of the above mentioned writers. I understand the hit man example.

 

The hit man whacked the guy who insulted Don Corleone.

The hit man whacked the guy whom Don Corleone had pointed out.

 

The preposition thing still has me confused. I would guess that "to whom" is correct because it indicates that the action is being done to whoever "whom" is refering too. Am I making any sense?

[Conner]

I am certainly one of the above mentioned writers. I understand the hit man example.

 

The hit man whacked the guy who insulted Don Corleone.

The hit man whacked the guy whom Don Corleone had pointed out.

 

The preposition thing still has me confused. I would guess that "to whom" is correct because it indicates that the action is being done to whomever "whom" is refering too. Am I making any sense?

 

Yup, yup. "To whom" is most correct. It also avoids ending the sentence with a preposition. In everyday language, though, you will hear "Who did John give the book to?"

 

I have a question, too. Who made "good" an adverb? In my day, long long ago, it was just an adjective. I can now say, "I talk good." Yuck.

 

Conner

[Menzoberranzen]

I have a question, too. Who made "good" an adverb? In my day, long long ago, it was just an adjective. I can now say, "I talk good." Yuck.

 

Conner

 

The same person who made 'super' an adverb.

[Lugh]

I have a question, too. Who made "good" an adverb? In my day, long long ago, it was just an adjective. I can now say, "I talk good." Yuck.

 

 

Bleh

 

Good is not an adverb!

 

The problem with good/well comes in with linking verbs.

 

For example:

 

The future looks good.

The car runs well.

[Razor]

~wanders in, looks about, and stays out of it~ ....... see? I can shut up.

[rec]

Then, of course, there's the "object of a preposition" which follows the theory already described but causes many writers considerable consternation. This case also brings up sentence structure.

 

Let's say that your friend, John, gave the book that you lent him to someone else. So you ask...

 

Who did John give the book to?

John gave the book to who?

To whom did John give the book?

Whom did John give the book to?

 

Hmmmm......

 

 

Just to confuse things: a puzzler. Which is correct?

 

1. I am writing this to whoever is out there in cyberspace.

2. I am writing this to whomever is out there in cyberspace.

[Conner]

Bleh

 

Good is not an adverb!

 

The problem with good/well comes in with linking verbs.

 

For example:

 

The future looks good.

The car runs well.

 

This was the case. That's why I posed the question I did. Many references I've checked, including Websters, also classify good as an adverb (it's also an adjective and a noun - relative to its use).

 

Conner

[Conner]

Just to confuse things: a puzzler. Which is correct?

 

1. I am writing this to whoever is out there in cyberspace.

2. I am writing this to whomever is out there in cyberspace.

 

Excellent puzzler, rec. I don't know the correct answer but I'm going to go with #1 - whoever.

 

Conner

[Graeme]

Just to confuse things: a puzzler. Which is correct?

 

1. I am writing this to whoever is out there in cyberspace.

2. I am writing this to whomever is out there in cyberspace.

I'm going with #2. As I see it, the sentence has two sections, with the word in question in the middle. "whoever" fits the second part of the sentence, but "whomever" fits the first part. Since the first part is, to me, the dominant part, it should be "whomever".

[Razor]

~coughcoughwhomevercoughcough~

 

#2 is correct because whomever is the object of a preposition (to) and if followed with a pronoun, must be followed with a pronoun in objective case since it will act as an object.

 

Good rule: If "me" sounds right, then it is whom. If "I" sounds right, then it is who.

[Conner]

Well here's my thinking for choosing #1. I see the entire subordinate clause as being the object of the preposition to.

The subordinate clause has a subject, namely, whoever.

 

Just because it's a subordinate clause, that's no reason to use poor grammar.

 

rec had better have an answer for us. :2hands:

 

Conner

[rec]

First prize goes to Conner.

 

Paraphrasing the Handbook of English by McPeak and Wright, whoever is the subject of "is," not the object of "to." The whole clause "whoever is out there in cyberspace" is the substantive object (McPeak and Wright's term) of the preposition "to."

 

In (obtuse) rule form, the Handbook of English says that "the pronoun subject of a clause that is itself the object of a verb or proposition is always nominative."

 

The objective form would require whomever; the nominative form requires whoever.

 

rec

 

Well here's my thinking for choosing #1. I see the entire subordinate clause as being the object of the preposition to.

The subordinate clause has a subject, namely, whoever.

 

Just because it's a subordinate clause, that's no reason to use poor grammar.

 

rec had better have an answer for us. :2hands:

 

Conner

[Conner]

* The Grammar Hun walks proudly to centre stage*

 

Thank you for this honour. It's hard to be humble when you're this good. I do wish to thank my grade four teacher, Miss Clarke, for inspiring me to reach for Grammar Hun status. I've surpassed that biatch now, so who cares, right? I can assure you that there'll be no living with me now! I'm so cool.

 

Conner

Grammar Hun

[Razor]

Well here's my thinking for choosing #1. I see the entire subordinate clause as being the object of the preposition to.

The subordinate clause has a subject, namely, whoever.

 

Just because it's a subordinate clause, that's no reason to use poor grammar.

 

rec had better have an answer for us. :2hands:

 

Conner

 

 

ZOMG!!!! I HAVE BEEN PWNED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

~dies~!!!!!!!!!!

 

I hereby knight Conner... and give up my pseudo-title. ~cries~ Hey, you know what though? I still win. 'Cause he's MY editor, so there.