Equestrian Court of Grammatical Peeves

[Fadleen]

@SillyHorse

Nah, you’re wrong. You should check some sources.

OK, I checked some sources:

New York Times Style Manual says: “Sometimes whoever or whomever will occur, confusingly, in a clause that is part of a larger sentence. In that case, disregard the overall sentence and choose the pronoun according to its function inside the clause: Give the book to whoever answers the door. (He* or she answers.) Hand the package to whomever you see first. (You see her or him.)"

Bernstein’s The Careful Writer says: “The most common misuse of whom for who occurs in relative clauses in which another verb diverts attention from the verb that governs or is governed by the pronoun.” His example of a misuse is: “One purge victim whom the President apparently believed was innocent was Amelito.” This sentence is wrong because the President believed he – therefore, who – was innocent.

In response to S1969, yes, “who” is nominative case. But here it’s the subject of a clause: “whoever is waiting for it.” And because it’s the subject of that clause, we use the nominative case – who, not whom.

I’ve wasted 30 years of my life correcting other people’s writing for pay, and a lot of that was grammar. Show me a publicly available, professional editor who teaches “Give it to whomever is waiting for it,” and I’ll buy you a saddle.

[SillyHorse]

I’ve read more published copy, that I assume went through the hands of copy editors, with such awful grammatical and usage errors that set my teeth grinding, that employment history in this area doesn’t mean a lot to me.

[S1969]

@Fadleen

In response to S1969, yes, “who” is nominative case. But here it’s the subject of a clause: “whoever is waiting for it.” And because it’s the subject of that clause, we use the nominative case – who, not whom.

OK, I’ll agree with you. I was thinking about this earlier after writing my post also, and wondering about that “subject of a clause” thing. E.g. If we change it to a name instead of “who” or “whom” – “Give this book to John, who is waiting for it.” It definitely will not work with “whom”.

[SillyHorse]

But you changed the sentence to be very different. So, yes, it’s “who” if you know who John is. If you don’t, it has to be “whom.”

[Fadleen]

@SillyHorse

If you don’t, it has to be “whom.”

“Whom” is still wrong in the sentence “Give this book to whoever/whomever is waiting for it.”
No harm to you, but this isn’t a judgment call.
Here’s the AP Stylebook: “Who is grammatically the subject (never the object) of a sentence, clause or phrase.”
The clause is “whoever is waiting for it.” “Whoever” is the subject. It’s not the object of a prepositional phrase.

[SillyHorse]

Well, then what is “to” if not a preposition?

[S1969]

@SillyHorse

But you changed the sentence to be very different. So, yes, it’s “who” if you know who John is. If you don’t, it has to be “whom.”

“Give this package to the person who is waiting for it.”

The predicate is a clause - “the person who is waiting for it”…so I guess the whole clause would be considered dative case – “to whom should I give the package?” “the person who is waiting for it.”

I still stick by my original opinion that saying “Give this to whoever/whomever is waiting for it” fails the awkward language test, and should just never be used.

“Some guy is going to pick this up. I don’t know his name. Just give it to him.”

[Fadleen]

@SillyHorse

Well, then what is “to” if not a preposition?

Absolutely right, “to” is a preposition. But the clause “whoever is waiting for it” takes precedence.

That New York Times Style Manual extract I quoted is nice and clear about it:
“In that case, disregard the overall sentence and choose the pronoun [whoever/whomever] according to its function inside the clause: Give the book to whoever answers the door. (He or she answers.)”
He or she or whoever is waiting for it.
But S1969’s version for the win!

[Janet]

Unfortunately, diagramming sentences has become a lost art!

[sami-joe]

Preposition misuse driving me crazy intermittently for the last decade or so:
“…on accident,” instead of “…by accident”;
“…based off of,” instead of “…based on”;

My peeves stem from growing up the daughter and granddaughter of English teachers, working as a print reporter and public radio announcer, then teaching English for 20 years myself.

These days, I live alone and listen to so many radio shows, podcasts, & audiobooks that it’s my ears suffering the worst assaults.

[Ghazzu]

@S1969

I think that people who misspell ridding and riding are probably poor readers as well.

I think they may read just fine but not type well.

[anon15718925]

I’ve always seen “prolly” as kind of a casual/slang-y word or a word used in a tongue-in-cheek manner, and that’s how I’ve used it when I’ve used it. Not b/c I don’t know how to spell “probably.”

I feel like there’s some terms like this that a certain type of person gets almost irrationally irritated by and they miss that piece of context re. how and where that word is being used.

[anon15718925]

Reading this thread, I could probably tick a lot of the folks on here who are fussy about grammatical correctness off by simply taking a sentence and slashing the word count like I would if I had to fit it into a tight article.

[S1969]

@anon15718925

I’ve always seen “prolly” as kind of a casual/slang-y word

Yes. It makes me crazy when my otherwise educated and literate kids use it in a text. I have been known to point out to them that it makes them look uneducated, not cool. At least not when conversing with people other than their friends. (E.g. their mom.)

[anon15718925]

Again, context:

A text to my mother, for example, would be phrased much differently than, say, a business email or a text message to someone I’m coordinating a meeting with for work.

I wouldn’t wince at someone using “prolly” if we were friends or friendly acquaintances in a casual setting. Nor would I wince much at using it with someone I considered a friend or family member.

But if I was dealing w/someone for work, huh-uh, nope.

The problem, IMO, isn’t the slang it’s whether people know when to use it and who to use and not use it with.

[anon15718925]

@sami-joe

…on accident,” instead of “…by accident”;

Oh for god’s sake people just say “accidentally” and omit the preposition and having to worry about using the right one.

[S1969]

@anon15718925

I wouldn’t wince at someone using “prolly” if we were friends or friendly acquaintances in a casual setting. Nor would I wince much at using it with someone I considered a friend or family member.

I would wince. This is not a word anyone in my generation uses regularly, that I’ve ever heard/read among friends or acquaintainces. (i’m 53) I hear it used by a lot of undereducated people and then, of course, teens, 20s as slang.

[anon15718925]

Well that’s a generational difference then.

And I wouldn’t use “prolly” with anyone that age unless, again, they were someone I knew well and quite likely close family.

EDIT: Again, see my point about it’s not really slang itself that’s the problem but it’s whether people know when it is and isn’t appropriate to use.

[anon40672407]

@anon15718925

I wouldn’t wince at someone using “prolly” if we were friends or friendly acquaintances in a casual setting. Nor would I wince much at using it with someone I considered a friend or family member.

yes and no.

I understand what you are saying about the casual exchange. (I should have typed that “I 'stand wut ur saying”) but this is literally the slippery slope. It’s OK with casual texts. Then it’s OK with casual emails to friends. Then it’s OK in casual emails at work, because those folks are your friends. Then it’s OK in non-formal writing at work and in the marketplace. Then it’s simply OK and anybody who says different is “uptight”.

People literally have fights about commas; we should not relax vigilance for “prolly”. In France they have banned English words added in to the language. In Wales you no longer sing Delilah at rugby games (but that one’s just wrong).

[frugalannie]

RE: prolly. That is OBVIOUSLY British slang for an umbrella attached to a pram.