2 of 2
2
To ‘Whom’ it may concern
Posted: 19 June 2017 01:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6323
Joined  2007-01-03
venomousbede - 19 June 2017 11:35 AM

Hemingway was quoting John Donne from 1624 when grammatical practice was different. Spencer seems to be suggesting Ernest should have corrected John’s grammar (and appalling spelling if he’d recognised the allusion).

Spencer Jakab is not saying Hemingway was wrong, quite the opposite. He says:

As for when “whom” is appropriate: It is the correct choice if the word is the object of a preposition or a verb, such as in Hemingway’s “For Whom the Bell Tolls.” The choice should be “who” if the word serves as the subject of a sentence or clause.

It is the object of the preposition for, not the subject of the clause (which is an implied you), therefore it should be whom.

And here is The Oatmeal on the topic of who vs. whom.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 June 2017 03:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  471
Joined  2007-02-17
aldiboronti - 17 June 2017 10:47 AM

Yes, indeed. The Spectator too. I submitted entries a few times for both, alas unsuccessfully. My friend Graham, who had started to read my Spectators, did actually get an honorable mention one week, much to my annoyance (owing to the fact that he took the piss the whole week after. “Where’s your name then? I must have missed it”, said with a broad grin. OK, Graham, I can wait. I’ll get you yet!)

I managed to win both money and the whisky twice, long ago, under Jaspistos. I don’t know whether it had anything to do with the fact that I used a pseudonym that was rather more English-sounding than my actual name. But the previous entries submitted under that one didn’t manage anything better than a misspelt honourable mention.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 June 2017 12:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1404
Joined  2007-04-28

Yes, I didn’t read it properly and screwed up again. Sorry.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 June 2017 10:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3466
Joined  2007-01-31

Oeco writes:

I wonder whether Senning ever finished his chemical dictionary.

Oh, yes! I thought he mentioned it at the time; I recall having a discussion about the fact that the subtitle read “...Whies and Wherefores...” which I thought was classically Senningesque.  However, Elsevier seems to have adopted a more usual, if less rule-bound, spelling.

https://smile.amazon.com/Elseviers-Dictionary-Chemoetymology-Nomenclature-Terminology/dp/0444522395/ref=mt_hardcover?_encoding=UTF8&me=

It was too rich for my blood when it came out, but looking it up on Amazon just now I saw that one alternate seller had it, ostensibly new, for $28 plus S&H, so I ordered it. (Their last one, sorry.)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 June 2017 12:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3024
Joined  2007-01-30

I miss Senning; hope he’s still with us, all the Alexander Sennings on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter are much younger and he hasn’t updated his webpage since 1996, long before he joined WO.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 2
2
 
‹‹ Skive      Pluperfect tense ››