Ask Our Grammar "Experts" Showing 351-400 of 1,580

[Debbie, sardonic princess of cheerfulness]

Yes you are.

[David]

The Pennsylvania Dutch would say, "The glue is all."

[Ken, Moderator]

The Jersey Dutch would say, "Da bottle's come unglued."

[Tyler]

I've never heard anyone say "has got over." Maybe it's a regional style.

[Nita]

Thank you, Debbie! I'll remember that, David! :-)

[Nita]

Hi!

Can I safely change the following:
Create a custom content metadata field, which has the same name OF the custom security field
To:
Create a custom content metadata field, which has the same name AS the custom security field

Thank you!

[Debbie, sardonic princess of cheerfulness]

Yes

[Nita]

Thank you, Debbie.

[Debbie, sardonic princess of cheerfulness]

You're welcome :-)

[Sarah]

Is this use of "whom" correct? It looks wrong to me.

"Iraqis know who they were, and they don’t always like it, but they still have not figured out whom they want to be as a country." (NYT)

[Nita]

I believe it should be:
"Iraqis know who they were, and they don’t always like it, but they still have not figured out WHO they want to be as a country."

I found the following note on m-w.com:

Usage: Observers of the language have been predicting the demise of whom from about 1870 down to the present day . Our evidence shows that no one—English or not—should expect whom to disappear momentarily; it shows every indication of persisting quite a while yet. Actual usage of who and whom—accurately described at the entries in this dictionary—does not appear to be markedly different from the usage of Shakespeare's time. But the 18th century grammarians, propounding rules and analogies, rejecting other rules and analogies, and usually justifying both with appeals to Latin or Greek, have intervened between us and Shakespeare. It seems clear that the grammarians' rules have had little effect on the traditional uses. One thing they have accomplished is to encourage hypercorrect uses of whom . Another is that they have made some people unsure of themselves .

[Sarah]

I agree with you. The "whom" should in this case be "who." If you know "who you were," you should know "who you are" and "who you want to be."

You wouldn't ask "Whom am I?" (laugh)

Or have I missed something here?

[David]

The traditional English teacher explanation is that the verb "to be" is a "copula" (don't ask), and so both the subject and the complement are in the nominative. "Whom" is in the oblique (genitive/dative/accusative) case and hence is inappropriate.

Moreover, in the colloquial register of American English, "whom" is vanishing. "Who're ya gonna call? Ghostbusters!"

[Ken, Moderator]

Agreed. "Whom" is now on life support. The correct word "all right" is vanishing in favor of that new being, "alright," and few people are saying, "If I were..." because they prefer "If I was...."

Language, like our reflections in the mirror, slowly changes.

[David]

Anyways, there ain't much we can do about it except piss and moan.

[Sarah]

It's true, but I still like "whom." Last summer I read Anne Enright's "The Gathering" and it will sound fussy but I remember being repeatedly irritated by the absence of "whom."

[Ruth]

Newengland wrote: "Agreed. "Whom" is now on life support. The correct word "all right" is vanishing in favor of that new being, "alright," and few people are saying, "If I were..." because they prefer "If I was......."

Not to mention "a lot" which is morphing into "alot." Yech.

[David]

Arright, fuggedabadit aready.

[Tyler]

Iraqis know who they were, and they don’t always like it, but they still have not figured out whom they want to be as a country.

I'm in favor of whom. It's clear that the final phrase is the direct object of the clause; in addition, whom is the object of they in the final phrase.

I personally say things like, "Whom shall I say is calling." If the most egregious thing a style book can say is that it's "hypercorrect," then that makes me a jerk, I suppose. But it remains grammatically correct.

[Ken, Moderator]

And if someone calls and asks if Tyler is there, I'll bet you say, "This is he."

[Debbie, sardonic princess of cheerfulness]

And why not....when I get "Is this the lady of the house", I say "This is she"!

[Ken, Moderator]

As you should. It's correct English. But many would use the objective case there.

[Debbie, sardonic princess of cheerfulness]

Philistines!

[Tyler]

Indeed. Philistines. Objective case abusers! "It's me." Why, who would ever dream of ... same cretins who say "real good." Ah, yes, I am he. Much better.

English usage may be in flux; I just don't want to be ahead of the curve. Conservative is safer.

[Ken, Moderator]

Yes. Safety is what we need. Language prophylactics.

[David]

Grammar: a riddle wrapped in a cundrum?

[Debbie, sardonic princess of cheerfulness]

Hehehehehehehe!!! Hahahahaha!!!!

[Tyler]

Conservative to prophylactic wrappen in three easy posts.

[David]

OK, I fixed the typo.

My copy editing latex leaked. That's how solecisms and malapropisms get born.

[Ken, Moderator]

This is where the rubbers hit the road.

[Ruth]

ouch.

[Sarah]

Hi -
'nother question:

"They all smoked cigarettes. Gina's suffocated in an ashtray. Two unfiltered were stomped dead on the floor."

Should "unfiltered" have an -s?

Thanks!

[Ken, Moderator]

My guess is you could go either way. I like it the way you have it because it keeps "unfiltered" as an adjective and assumes the missing noun "cigarettes."

Working on a piece, I see. Great!

[Jan (the Gryphon)]

S. wrote: "Hi -
'nother question:

"They all smoked cigarettes. Gina's suffocated in an ashtray. Two unfiltered were stomped dead on the floor."

Should "unfiltered" have an -s?

Thanks!"

I'm with Newengland on this. The immediate precedent of "Gina's suffocated..." has set up the "Two unfiltered..." sufficiently for the reader's comprehension.

[Gail]

I agree with both of the above. "Unfiltereds" would both sound clumsy and create a bit of mess if the sentence were mentally completed with the understood "cigarettes".

[Tyler]

Newengland is right. "Unfiltered" works much better as an adjective. As a reader, the last sentence didn't confuse me, and it fit creatively with the preceding ones.

[Sarah]

Thanks Newengland, Janice, Gail and Tyler. I wrote it without the -s but began to wonder.... It's part of a short poem that isn't quite like it is written here but I used this as a prose example.
Danke schön!

[Ken, Moderator]

My father-in-law, who was visiting from Connecticut last week, brought up a Sunday New York Times, including the Sunday magazine. There was a column by the language maven about the pronoun THEY and how it was used as a singular throughout history. Seems only in the mid-18th century that a woman who wrote a best-selling grammar started the habit of using HE or HIM to refer to both singular men or women (similar to "mankind" representing both sexes).

Furthermore, the column claimed that the singular THEY is coming back strong (as it was used by Dickens, Chaucer, Thackeray, etc.) and even showing up as a singular/plural in some dictionaries.

I've always taught that indefinite pronouns like anybody, someone, everybody should be treated as SINGULAR ANTECEDENTS (e.g. Everyone take out his or her books), but it appears I'm fighting against the tide and only teaching the more recent quirks of some grammarians sprouting up only 250 years ago -- a short span given the English language's storied history.

Interesting.

[David]

So they says.

[Sarah]

What does the expression "the ink (on the contract) isn't dry yet" mean? Specifically, has the contract been signed or not? I think it means it has been signed but only very recently (like 5 minutes ago), but a friend says it means it's not signed yet.

thanks!

[Ruth]

I think you're right, S. If it hadn't been signed yet there would be no ink on the contract.

[Debbie, sardonic princess of cheerfulness]

Maybe it means that only one party has signed it.....ie the ink isn't dry from the first signature so it is not too late to back out?

[Sarah]

Ruth, right. If there's no ink, it can't be dry.
German has the same expression and we were going to use it in a story yesterday (i work in news) but didn't know if were would be implying that the contract had been signed or not.
Debbie, thanks. The expression does carry that suggestion that someone wants out.

[David]

An oral contract is not worth the paper it's written on.

--Sam Goldwyn

[Debbie, sardonic princess of cheerfulness]

A Goldwynism!!! Love them! "Include me out".

[David]

"When you reach a fork in the road--take it!"

--Yogi Berra (the Sam Goldwyn of American baseball)

[David]

Lifelong quandary: INnovative or inNOVative? I use no. 1, but I hear no. 2. It seems arbitrary; IMmolation, inVENtion, INsulate, inSPECtion, but there may be a rule or rules in there somewhere. What does Jespersen say?

[Carol]

Where did the expression to fork over something ie:fork over the money etc. originate from ?

[David]

An Irishman who couldn't say "feck?"

[Debbie, sardonic princess of cheerfulness]

David!! Behave!
Carol, I think it has links with pitchforks and hay!