Language & Grammar discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
Grammar Central
>
Ask Our Grammar "Experts"
message 101:
by
Tyler
(new)
May 28, 2008 04:17PM
Is there any good way to decide between using the words "mistrust" and "distrust?"
reply
|
flag
I agree, Donna. And nicely put.I have a question about GOodreads itself: Is there a Back to Top button that I'm missing, or must one always scroll back up to click onto another topic?
Mod
R
Can "disrepect" be used as a verb as in "Don't disrespect me!" Sounds weird to me. I'd say "Don't be disrespectFUL to me". Anybody know????
Mod
Re Back to Top button: Thanks, Ruth, I posted a suggestion on Feedback, once I found it! Keeping my fingers crossed...
Mod
Mod
Actually, the few times I have seen my students write it, it was written as "diss". Of course, I am making that huge assumption that they are able to spell correctly (and viewing their papers I know this to be untrue), especially when writing jargon and slang.J
Does anyone have a handle on the who/whom conundrum? I keep thinking I understand it, and then I read something else that blows my ideas out of the water. I know about the him/he test, and I understand that who = subject, whom = object bit. (Even when it seems weird. I mean, hardly anyone--at least of the younger generations--uses whom in casual speech. Who really says "Whom did you give it to?" or "Is that whom I think it is?" No, we say "who"... at least in these parts we do!)
A related question: the American Heritage dictionary says "We write... the man whom the papers criticized did not show up, since Whom is the obejct of the verb criticized." But "Whom" here is a sort of "that" clause specifying which man, and "man" is the subject of "did not show up." Shouldn't the word be "who"? Why do the editors say it's an object? Am I simply obtuse, and the answer ought to be obvious? Your collective wisdom would be appreciated!
A related question: the American Heritage dictionary says "We write... the man whom the papers criticized did not show up, since Whom is the obejct of the verb criticized." But "Whom" here is a sort of "that" clause specifying which man, and "man" is the subject of "did not show up." Shouldn't the word be "who"? Why do the editors say it's an object? Am I simply obtuse, and the answer ought to be obvious? Your collective wisdom would be appreciated!
the man whom the papers criticized did not show upThe subject of the clause "whom the papers criticized" is papers. That implies the pronoun, whatever it is, has to be the direct object. That's how I decide that "whom" is correct. The mental gymastic to work it out is to see if you can say, "The papers criticized (x)." Here you can. If you can work out such a sentence from the clause, you know to use "whom." Think, "What did the papers criticize? They critized whom."
Put another way, you could change this clause to say, "The man who criticized the papers did not show up." The difference here is that who has now become the subject of the clause. The fact that this new clause has a direct object, papers, directs attention to the question of what the subject must be if you can already identify a direct object. In addition, you would not be able to perform the mental gymnastic I mentioned above, indicating you should use "who."
So that's how I parse it in my mind: if I already see a direct object in this sort of clause, I know I have to go with "who." If I can clearly make out a subject, I know the next thing is going to have to be a "whom," not a "who."
I actually say, "Whom did you give it to?" But I also say, "Is that who I think it is?" I don't know why. I'm guessing here that some expressions are just so common that they take on an idiomatic quality.
Mod
Mod
Who/Whom is darn near unteachable. Reading relyt's post (which gave my potassium-starved brain a cramp) about proves it.
The problem, though, is that this goes beyond just who/whom. There's also whoever and whomever. Although these are found mostly in more formal constructions, when they do come up there's no easy way around the question.
Mod
Kidding.
... I think.
You could look away and cough slightly when unsure. I couldn't find the exact procedure in my English guidebook. Oh, wait! Wrong book. I should be looking it up in Amy Vanderbilt's etiquette volumes.Either way, the grimace definitely works. It tells your listener, "Don't you dare ask me what I just said!"
Mod
Mod
Wait a minute, this isn't the kitchen sink chat thread, is it? Serious thread drift! Um... I wonder how much potassium comes in a sleeve of grammar crackers...?
Mod
Mod
Mod
Mod
That sounds really good!
NE- we grill pineapple chunks on skewers between onions, peppers, and various meats. I've also grilled slices of pineapple to go with my mother's "Hawaiian Chicken"-- a childhood favorite :)
NE- we grill pineapple chunks on skewers between onions, peppers, and various meats. I've also grilled slices of pineapple to go with my mother's "Hawaiian Chicken"-- a childhood favorite :)
Mod
Sounds yummy!
Thanks all, for the who/whom help. I think you've hit it on the nose (and may it run away in pain and never return...)
Thanks all, for the who/whom help. I think you've hit it on the nose (and may it run away in pain and never return...)
Mod
and wondering about the significance of the hyphen in the title. Could it be hooked to something grammatical. Doesn't the use of the hyphen turn it into a compound adjective?
Mod
Mod
Mod
Mod
Alternate explanation: Ms. Deep married Mr. Holes and they agreed to hyphenate so Junior's last name wouldn't fit on any standardized test forms...
Mod
"NewEngland: (person A asks) "Who did it?" (person be replies) "My sister and me/I". Which would it be "me or I" and why? I'll have to post when I come across the confusing ones :)
Ruth: with your suggestion could you say "My sister and I did it" as if you were to complete the sentence (instead of using a short answer) and then make a rule that "I" is always followed by a verb but "me" isn't? This doesn't work all the time though :( --and these are the examples I can't remember!!! "
I know this was months and months ago but it didn't look answered and I wanted to toss in my two cents.
Just as in who and whom, I is a subject while me is an object.
For the "Who did it?" part, the answer is "I (did)." The did is not spoken. Since "Me did." doesn't make sense, I is the only one left. Again, the I is the subject. If you used "done" as in "It was done by me", than "me" would be correct. In other languages, sister would also be modified to show that she was the object or the subject but english never picked up that particular construction. Actually, the only language I know off the top of my head that does that is Latin (not that I am very educated in languages...). Taking latin showed me the who/whom phenomenon so I understand it.
So now that I have weighed in on a very old subject, how about a question: Has comma usage changed in the past few years? I was editing an english teacher's document (I am totally not qualified for it but I was the only one who had not read it) and she was using so many commas. For example, she would say something like "The lady walked to the door, and knocked." My memory is not perfect but that is something she did as well as putting commas between every adjective.
I have also noticed that fantasy uses many, many commas. Personally, I rather dislike commas and think that they are over used. I don't want to put that many pauses in my speech or my reading. Much of the comma usage is technically correct but why are there so many?
Right, introduction thread. On my way.
In another post, I started writing: "women are the group"Is this correct? Or is it more appropriate to say "women is the group?"
Now that I'm writing it, it sounds improbable.
Context? Do you mean that the group is composed of women (exclusively) or something else?("Is" is wrong no matter what. Women is plural and therefore requires the plural "are".)
Mod
Hi Lasairfiona --Some flexibility governs the use of commas, so what's important is for the writer to use them consistently.
What I see is the use of commas where something else would have worked better, such as a dash or a semicolon. The problem is that people know commas, but they feel unsure about other punctuation.
For example, she would say something like "The lady walked to the door, and knocked."
An English teacher has no excuse for making this mistake. A comma is never used before a conjunction in a short sentence.
A comma would have been appropriate in a series: The lady parked her car, walked to the door and knocked. But again, no comma appears before that "and."
If the teacher had meant to pace the short sentence, she could have said, "The lady walked to the door -- and knocked." She also could have said, "The lady walked to the door; she knocked." But as it stands, it reads as if the teacher were trying to err on the side of caution.
The exception involving conjunctions occurs when the sentence involves a lengthy or complex structure: The lady got out of her car, straightened the green skirt she had worn earlier, and knocked. The first three sentences in this post illustrate the point, too, as well as my preference for commas where a speaker might pause as well.
Mod
"The lady walked to the door, and she knocked three times for want of a doorbell."
Also, I know it's optional, but I always vote YES for the serial comma before the final "and" in a series. It clears up those few situations where it leads to confusion:
"The lady parked her Lincoln, walked to the door, and knocked thrice."
Do I sit corrected?
Also, comma rules (which are as numerous as mosquitoes in Maine) are the bane of many, many people. Kids do have trouble with colon and semi-colon rules, too. They like to use a semi- where they need the full Magilla...
Mod
The use of the comma has been affected by the trend toward shorter sentences. The general rule is to use a comma before a conjunction, but an exception occurs if the clauses are so linked that the meaning is clear.I checked a couple of readers. On this point, an older one said, "The comma is sometimes omitted when the clauses are short and there is no danger of misreading." A newer one says, "If the clauses are short enough and the relation is clear enough, we do not need any punctuation mark."
Their examples:
The weather was clear and the pilot landed.
The passenger's bag is lost and a claim has been filed.
but notice ...
The passenger's bag has been lost, and the claim on it was filed yesterday.
The more the verbiage, the greater the need for the comma. But it has largely been dropped in shorter sentences. The newer guide concedes an element of discretion to the writer, who alone can know how the sentence should sound. I just don't think the English teacher intended a pause.
What Debbie is saying applies to a long series in which other items are separated by commas --
Relyt is handsome, smart, literate, refined, composed and modest.
As you might suspect, that list could go on and on. But the "and" can never be separated by a comma from the whatever adjective precedes it. In NE's example, the comma before the "and" is needed because of the sheer length of the sentence.
I may have simplified what she wrote but even in your exampleThe passenger's bag has been lost, and the claim on it was filed yesterday.
I think the comma isn't needed.
Also, the writer's guide I own states, "Use a comma between all items in a series" including the last two. It provides the example:
"My uncle willed me all of his property, houses, and warehouses."
Did the uncle will his property and houses and warehouses - or simply his property, consisting of houses and warehouses? If the first meaning is intended, a comma is necessary to prevent ambiguity.
It does state that other conventions omit the comma but says that it can lead to ambiguity. Uh, it was published in 2001.
Hi Lasairfiona --I just happened to be online still, so I decided to look up that rule in my guides. The older one says the final comma before the "and" may be left out as long as there is no danger of misreading the sentence.
The newer guide lists both ways equally as options, noting that editors prefer to leave the comma in to avoid any misreading.
In the example you give, clearly the comma is needed because of the possible misreading. I have always left it out, except in cases like the one you cited. But despite the diminishing use of the comma, this is obviously a matter of style rather than a hard rule to leave the comma out, so I am mistaken in expressing it that way in my last post.
The passenger's bag has been lost, and the claim on it was filed yesterday.
I'm not so sure this sentence would have caused all that much confusion if the comma had been left out, but the style book cited it as a companion to the other example, the one that didn't need a comma. If I were to justify this comma, I would do so on the grounds that if you read the sentence aloud, you'd naturally pause before the "and."
Sorry, I had to jump on that one because I was always taught to put the last comma in for a series. I've had a few people tell me different so it was actually good for me to dust off the reference book that I was required to buy as a freshman.I am all for commas with sentences that could be confusing (I am not a fan of all writing going to the super short forms) but it does seem that the old guard tends to use commas more, as in your example. Perhaps I don't pause as much as other people.
Mod
Sounds too good to be true really....
You are right about the list business....that is what I recall being taught but because such emphasis was put on not using it before a conjunction at the end of a list, I tend to avoid using it before a conjunction at all!
Mod
The serial comma was always taught as an option (how convenient!), but I figure if there are bound to be points of confusion (e.g. "I ate hot dogs, porks and beans.") in a sentence, why not opt to use it always? So I do. No serial (comma) killer, I.
And I once believed that you always needed a comma before "too" at the end of a sentence. Then I read that this rule is also dependent. Meaning, when the moon is in the 5th sun in conjunction with Saturn in Gemini eclipsed by a waning harvest moon, you use it. Otherwise, consult your crystal ball.
Ain't language fun?
Even looking it up doesn't provide satisfactory guidance. NE points out that who's to know when a sentence is short enough, and all I have to go on is breath groups. All we can be sure of is that the comma's use has diminished.Thinking about this made me ask why I drop the final comma in a series as a rule. I realized that when the lack of the last comma causes confusion, I usually take that as a warning to look at the entire sentence:
My uncle willed me all of his property, houses, and warehouses.
Perhaps it should be reworded:
My uncle willed me his houses, warehouses and property.
or even
My uncle willed me his property, plus his houses and warehouses.
Something's still not right. "Property" is actually too vague to properly include in this series. So that really needs to be corrected, if possible:
My uncle willed me his houses, warehouses and personal property.
Likewise, NE's example could be rewritten:
I ate both hot dogs and pork and beans.
I think the context is clearer and "pork and beans" will still be understood without the comma.
In other words, the necessity of a final comma in a series should cause a writer to consider rewriting the sentence altogether. I think we've become blindsided by the comma discussion to the larger fact that nothing prevents us from changing the word order.
Meaning, when the moon is in the 5th sun in conjunction with Saturn in Gemini eclipsed by a waning harvest moon, you use it. Otherwise, consult your crystal ball.Of course, everyone also knows not to use a comma before the final "too" when Mercury is aligned with Mars, on alternate Tuesdays, or during North Korean missle tests. The comma must be included, however, if you're writing in a country where the people drive on the wrong side of the road.
Mod
I'm going to keep my style of using the last comma in a series because a) it was how I was taught and b) I think it is useful. Other styles do exist so I suppose I will stop telling others they must put it in.However, I would like to point out that your reordering of NE's sentence makes it just as confusing. In his original sentence, the pork was plural and used as an example of confusion so I think the intent was not the dish Pork & Beans but rather pork (perhaps chops?) and beans (baked beans?). Therefore, the comma would be necessary unless the adjectives were added.
Oh, and you could changed property to land and it would make sense without the comma.
Boy, I seem to get really pedantic sometimes. As useful as that is in grammar, I hope I am not coming off as argumentative.
Mod
* ("i" before "e" except after "feisty")
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
Language & Grammar
Books mentioned in this topic
Little Women (other topics)A Tale of Two Cities (other topics)
Twilight (other topics)
The Associated Press Stylebook (other topics)
Someday This Pain Will Be Useful to You (other topics)
More...
