I still use "whom" all the time. I don't understand how it's old fashioned when there are certain situations where "whom" is more appropriate than "who."
Do you still catch yourself saying/typing "whom"?
12/24/2011
Don't think I use it either
12/24/2011
Quote:
Yes, same. I never use "who" where "whom" should go... I just usually try to wrangle my sentences such that "whom" would never be the correct word to use.
Originally posted by
AndroAngel
I use whom when it's proper, although I try to avoid it because some people think it sounds stuffy. That said, I used to have trouble remembering the proper times to use whom and sometimes I slip up, but I think it sounds weird and ugly to use
...
more
I use whom when it's proper, although I try to avoid it because some people think it sounds stuffy. That said, I used to have trouble remembering the proper times to use whom and sometimes I slip up, but I think it sounds weird and ugly to use "who" where "whom" should go.
For instance, I might occasionally be okay saying "who are you talking to." instead of "to whom are you speaking" I will never say "to who it concerns." less
For instance, I might occasionally be okay saying "who are you talking to." instead of "to whom are you speaking" I will never say "to who it concerns." less
12/24/2011
I always use it. Along with therefore, beseech, hath, henceforth, hither, naught shalt, thee, thy, etc.
But, I have always been told I am an old soul lol
But, I have always been told I am an old soul lol
12/24/2011
I use whom when it fits into the sentence I am using. I tend to be very grammatically correct as much as possible.
12/24/2011
I don't think it's extinct at all!
12/24/2011
good grief, it's called speaking proper English. Use "whom" whenever "who" is the object of the sentence. Bad grammar is my biggest pet peeve and I correct those who can't speak their own language properly.
12/24/2011
"Whom" is grammatically correct in many instances. Just because people have trouble deciding when "whom" is correct and when "who" should be used instead, that doesn't mean it's extinct.
12/25/2011
I use it in formal letters. Didnt know it was anything else.
12/25/2011
Quote:
I use Shall a lot
Originally posted by
Gracie
I use whom a little, but I giggle at myself when I use shall, no one uses that one anymore either.
12/26/2011
Quote:
Yes. I agree.
Originally posted by
P'Gell
I use it. I don't think it's extinct. When used properly, it's proper English.
12/26/2011
Quote:
Yes. Yes. Yes. YESSSS! I agree with this times 1000.
Originally posted by
Nazaress
I use "shall". I even use "shan't". I use phrases like "But I digress" and words like "albeit". I don't see what's so wrong about being correct. Sometimes, simple words like "will" and
...
more
I use "shall". I even use "shan't". I use phrases like "But I digress" and words like "albeit". I don't see what's so wrong about being correct. Sometimes, simple words like "will" and "won't" don't cut it like "shall" and "shan't" do. And I honestly cannot think of a better word or phrase to use when "But I digress" and "albeit" are needed. I don't care if I look "silly" because I don't think I do. I look educated and not lazy. I look like someone who isn't letting everyone in the world revert to a simplistic dialect.
less
12/26/2011
Quote:
Ahh, Bignuf, that made me snicker.
Originally posted by
Bignuf
ME NO LIKE BIG WORDS. ME LIKE LITTLE WORDS. ME GOT BIG DIPLOMA DEGREE AND NEEDED BIG WORDS THEN BUT NOT NOW. PEOPLE NOW NO HAVE BRAINS. BRAINS GONE FROM PARTIES. LIKE LITTLE WORDS.
(oh...never mind. That was called sarcasm. YES Gracie, bless ... more
(oh...never mind. That was called sarcasm. YES Gracie, bless ... more
ME NO LIKE BIG WORDS. ME LIKE LITTLE WORDS. ME GOT BIG DIPLOMA DEGREE AND NEEDED BIG WORDS THEN BUT NOT NOW. PEOPLE NOW NO HAVE BRAINS. BRAINS GONE FROM PARTIES. LIKE LITTLE WORDS.
(oh...never mind. That was called sarcasm. YES Gracie, bless you. I agree fully. SOME people still know how to read and write and THAT will not become "obsolete" just because some others have become illiterate and can only write in TWEET length phrases or express their feelings and emotions in the minimum number of letters possible (LOL, LMAO). less
(oh...never mind. That was called sarcasm. YES Gracie, bless you. I agree fully. SOME people still know how to read and write and THAT will not become "obsolete" just because some others have become illiterate and can only write in TWEET length phrases or express their feelings and emotions in the minimum number of letters possible (LOL, LMAO). less
12/26/2011
I try to avoid it because it just sounds out of place.
12/26/2011
not often, but I totally know what you mean about sounding like an old-fashioned nerd! Lol. I think sometimes I do too! Ha. Ha.
12/26/2011
I was slightly taken aback by your post. I never really thought of 'whom' as old fashioned, or a dying word. I use both 'whom' and 'who' quite frequently, without any forethought, and no stopping myself when I say 'whom'
12/27/2011
Quote:
You're aware that language evolves, and that it is not static, right?
Originally posted by
Ms. Spice
good grief, it's called speaking proper English. Use "whom" whenever "who" is the object of the sentence. Bad grammar is my biggest pet peeve and I correct those who can't speak their own language properly.
I see the appeal of clinging to the false sense of superiority that comes with mastering a given moment's rules of grammar. Sadly, it's a very spurious sense of superiority. Language is variable from region to region, week to week, and it is always changing to suit the needs of a culture as they arise. It does not and should not remain inflexible. People and cultures change, splinter, fragment, etc. Language changes to suit those movements - not the other way around. Sometimes I think grammar nuts truly forget the function of language. It serves us, we do not serve it.
People talk about grammar like it's some giant in the hills; it's really just a mundane device entirely of our own creation. We, as the originators of this device, have the ability to modify it. In fact, we do so all the time, and this practice is age old and hardly "improper." For some, this notion is so unnerving that they feel compelled to attack the intelligence anyone that dares to bend a standard. I can sympathize; change can be frightening. But, you know who was a great, big offender when it came to using "incorrect" grammar - making up words, getting fast and lose with morphology, syntax, etc? Shakespeare. And he coined many of the terms, meter, etc that we consider "proper" today. Ironic, isn't it?
12/27/2011
Quote:
The ninth/tenth sentence, if you will...
Originally posted by
Owl Identified
You're aware that language evolves, and that it is not static, right?
I see the appeal of clinging to the false sense of superiority that comes with mastering a given moment's rules of grammar. Sadly, it's a very spurious sense of ... more
I see the appeal of clinging to the false sense of superiority that comes with mastering a given moment's rules of grammar. Sadly, it's a very spurious sense of ... more
You're aware that language evolves, and that it is not static, right?
I see the appeal of clinging to the false sense of superiority that comes with mastering a given moment's rules of grammar. Sadly, it's a very spurious sense of superiority. Language is variable from region to region, week to week, and it is always changing to suit the needs of a culture as they arise. It does not and should not remain inflexible. People and cultures change, splinter, fragment, etc. Language changes to suit those movements - not the other way around. Sometimes I think grammar nuts truly forget the function of language. It serves us, we do not serve it.
People talk about grammar like it's some giant in the hills; it's really just a mundane device entirely of our own creation. We, as the originators of this device, have the ability to modify it. In fact, we do so all the time, and this practice is age old and hardly "improper." For some, this notion is so unnerving that they feel compelled to attack the intelligence anyone that dares to bend a standard. I can sympathize; change can be frightening. But, you know who was a great, big offender when it came to using "incorrect" grammar - making up words, getting fast and lose with morphology, syntax, etc? Shakespeare. And he coined many of the terms, meter, etc that we consider "proper" today. Ironic, isn't it? less
I see the appeal of clinging to the false sense of superiority that comes with mastering a given moment's rules of grammar. Sadly, it's a very spurious sense of superiority. Language is variable from region to region, week to week, and it is always changing to suit the needs of a culture as they arise. It does not and should not remain inflexible. People and cultures change, splinter, fragment, etc. Language changes to suit those movements - not the other way around. Sometimes I think grammar nuts truly forget the function of language. It serves us, we do not serve it.
People talk about grammar like it's some giant in the hills; it's really just a mundane device entirely of our own creation. We, as the originators of this device, have the ability to modify it. In fact, we do so all the time, and this practice is age old and hardly "improper." For some, this notion is so unnerving that they feel compelled to attack the intelligence anyone that dares to bend a standard. I can sympathize; change can be frightening. But, you know who was a great, big offender when it came to using "incorrect" grammar - making up words, getting fast and lose with morphology, syntax, etc? Shakespeare. And he coined many of the terms, meter, etc that we consider "proper" today. Ironic, isn't it? less
12/27/2011
Quote:
I always attempt to use correct grammar in my writings. But alas, I sometimes stray from the proper to the vernacular. But I digress.
Originally posted by
Nazaress
I use "shall". I even use "shan't". I use phrases like "But I digress" and words like "albeit". I don't see what's so wrong about being correct. Sometimes, simple words like "will" and
...
more
I use "shall". I even use "shan't". I use phrases like "But I digress" and words like "albeit". I don't see what's so wrong about being correct. Sometimes, simple words like "will" and "won't" don't cut it like "shall" and "shan't" do. And I honestly cannot think of a better word or phrase to use when "But I digress" and "albeit" are needed. I don't care if I look "silly" because I don't think I do. I look educated and not lazy. I look like someone who isn't letting everyone in the world revert to a simplistic dialect.
less
12/27/2011
I was made fun of in 8th grade for using the word 'alas' in a spoken sentence...by my English teacher.
12/27/2011
I know the rules, so I use them, though there are others I tend to ignore. The whole "never end a sentence with a preposition" thing...that is a rule I break quite often.
12/27/2011
I love the word whom. I try to use it whenever I remember, which tends to be most of the time.
12/27/2011
I think the only time I use it is "To whom it may concern:" If I don't have a particular person to address in formal letters.
12/28/2011
Quote:
I forgot about this one! Every time I have to use that phrase I halt because it sounds stilted. But, if you say "To who it may concern" it sounds weird, too. I think I just try to avoid that one.
Originally posted by
Love Perpetua
I think the only time I use it is "To whom it may concern:" If I don't have a particular person to address in formal letters.
12/28/2011
Quote:
In the job hunting manuals we're told to avoid that sentence altogether and learn the person's name - usually it's head of human resources or the hiring manager. Like you said, because it sounds silted, but also because it's impersonal and shows laziness in not doing homework about the company.
Originally posted by
Owl Identified
I forgot about this one! Every time I have to use that phrase I halt because it sounds stilted. But, if you say "To who it may concern" it sounds weird, too. I think I just try to avoid that one.
12/28/2011
It's fun if it pops in every once in to speech every once in a while, and if I'm writing and the sentence structure calls for it, I'll make it proper. But I'm not going to correct someone over it. Grammar correcting in the middle of a polite conversation is kind of a pet peeve of mine, because I have yet to hear someone do it without being condescending. And in writing, as long as you use some punctuation, I'm a happy camper.
Who, whom, to each his own. I don't think it's dead, but most people don't speak in the syntax that requires it to be used anymore.
Who, whom, to each his own. I don't think it's dead, but most people don't speak in the syntax that requires it to be used anymore.
12/28/2011
Quote:
Good points!
Originally posted by
Owl Identified
You're aware that language evolves, and that it is not static, right?
I see the appeal of clinging to the false sense of superiority that comes with mastering a given moment's rules of grammar. Sadly, it's a very spurious sense of ... more
I see the appeal of clinging to the false sense of superiority that comes with mastering a given moment's rules of grammar. Sadly, it's a very spurious sense of ... more
You're aware that language evolves, and that it is not static, right?
I see the appeal of clinging to the false sense of superiority that comes with mastering a given moment's rules of grammar. Sadly, it's a very spurious sense of superiority. Language is variable from region to region, week to week, and it is always changing to suit the needs of a culture as they arise. It does not and should not remain inflexible. People and cultures change, splinter, fragment, etc. Language changes to suit those movements - not the other way around. Sometimes I think grammar nuts truly forget the function of language. It serves us, we do not serve it.
People talk about grammar like it's some giant in the hills; it's really just a mundane device entirely of our own creation. We, as the originators of this device, have the ability to modify it. In fact, we do so all the time, and this practice is age old and hardly "improper." For some, this notion is so unnerving that they feel compelled to attack the intelligence anyone that dares to bend a standard. I can sympathize; change can be frightening. But, you know who was a great, big offender when it came to using "incorrect" grammar - making up words, getting fast and lose with morphology, syntax, etc? Shakespeare. And he coined many of the terms, meter, etc that we consider "proper" today. Ironic, isn't it? less
I see the appeal of clinging to the false sense of superiority that comes with mastering a given moment's rules of grammar. Sadly, it's a very spurious sense of superiority. Language is variable from region to region, week to week, and it is always changing to suit the needs of a culture as they arise. It does not and should not remain inflexible. People and cultures change, splinter, fragment, etc. Language changes to suit those movements - not the other way around. Sometimes I think grammar nuts truly forget the function of language. It serves us, we do not serve it.
People talk about grammar like it's some giant in the hills; it's really just a mundane device entirely of our own creation. We, as the originators of this device, have the ability to modify it. In fact, we do so all the time, and this practice is age old and hardly "improper." For some, this notion is so unnerving that they feel compelled to attack the intelligence anyone that dares to bend a standard. I can sympathize; change can be frightening. But, you know who was a great, big offender when it came to using "incorrect" grammar - making up words, getting fast and lose with morphology, syntax, etc? Shakespeare. And he coined many of the terms, meter, etc that we consider "proper" today. Ironic, isn't it? less
I'll still be a stickler for subject/verb agreement and contractions.
12/28/2011
I use it when it's appropriate and I don't feel weird about it. I mean, it's there. We can pretend that "refudiate" and "fustrated" are real words, but nobody's gonna take "whom" from me without a fight!
Just jokes.
Just jokes.
12/28/2011
haha i'm an English major. it still comes out! not extinct at all!
12/28/2011
It's rare that I use it, mainly because I have trouble figuring out when it's appropriate. Since it's one of those peculiarities that only the absolute stuffiest of grammer-nazis will call you on, it doesn't usually bug me like some other cases of improper usage do.
Things like refusing to capitalize or use proper punctuation bother me more, or typing as if you're texting (lik dis f u no wat I meen) when you have ample space and time to write things out more carefully. Stuff like that actually slows down my reading speed a bit. As does mixing up similar words with distinct meanings, like "no" and "know."
I do use many words that may sound funny today, though. "Shall," "alas," and "dandy" are my favorites (that last one is usually used sarcastically, or replaced with "dandelions" just for the heck of it).
Things like refusing to capitalize or use proper punctuation bother me more, or typing as if you're texting (lik dis f u no wat I meen) when you have ample space and time to write things out more carefully. Stuff like that actually slows down my reading speed a bit. As does mixing up similar words with distinct meanings, like "no" and "know."
I do use many words that may sound funny today, though. "Shall," "alas," and "dandy" are my favorites (that last one is usually used sarcastically, or replaced with "dandelions" just for the heck of it).
12/28/2011