love

Author Topic: Words and Grammar and Stuff  (Read 126292 times)

mañana

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 20862
  • Check your public library
Re: Words and Grammar and Stuff
« Reply #830 on: February 07, 2013, 03:42:28 PM »
The Provincial Government thanks you for your assistance.
There's no deceit in the cauliflower.

Corndog

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17025
  • Oo-da-lolly, Oo-da-lolly, golly what a day!
    • Corndog Chats
Re: Words and Grammar and Stuff
« Reply #831 on: February 07, 2013, 04:10:46 PM »
Though I would have to say that you should not use both "to" and "with". Aren't their functions repetitive in that sentence. And since you shouldn't really end a sentence with a preposition, I would just take "with" out and leave it like that. Definitely "whomever" though.
"Time is the speed at which the past decays."

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Words and Grammar and Stuff
« Reply #832 on: February 07, 2013, 06:03:02 PM »
The Provincial Government thanks you for your assistance.

Careful! I'm not sure they approve of such brazen displays of good workmanship in this province. ;)

oneaprilday

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 13746
  • "What we see and what we seem are but a dream."
    • A Journal of Film
Re: Words and Grammar and Stuff
« Reply #833 on: February 07, 2013, 06:07:49 PM »
Whomever, I believe. Generally my trick, if I'm ever confused, is to see how I would respond if I was asking a question. If the response is "they" then it would be "who" and if the response is "them" then it would be "whom."
I concur with the "whomever" verdict.

In your sentence, "whomever" is an object of the preposition; therefore, you need the objective pronoun (whom), not the subjective pronoun (who). FLY's good trick is basically another way to help you figure out what position the pronoun holds in the sentence, whether it is objective or subjective.


oneaprilday

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 13746
  • "What we see and what we seem are but a dream."
    • A Journal of Film
Re: Words and Grammar and Stuff
« Reply #834 on: February 07, 2013, 06:18:29 PM »
And since you shouldn't really end a sentence with a preposition, I would just take "with" out and leave it like that.
There's a great discussion of this "rule" ;) on Slate's Lexicon Valley podcast.

Corndog

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17025
  • Oo-da-lolly, Oo-da-lolly, golly what a day!
    • Corndog Chats
Re: Words and Grammar and Stuff
« Reply #835 on: February 07, 2013, 11:03:57 PM »
Yea yea fine, whatever, but "to" and "with" do both serve the same purpose, referring back to the "whomever", thereby being repetitive, so one should be removed. It just doesn't sound the same when you say: "It’s probably wise that you explain this caveat whomever you’re sharing this information with."

Should either be:
1. "It’s probably wise that you explain this caveat to whomever you’re sharing this information."

OR

2. "It’s probably wise that you explain this caveat with whomever you’re sharing this information."

Two different meaning actually, but if both are used, wouldn't you say the "with" is just superfluous?
"Time is the speed at which the past decays."

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 23082
Re: Words and Grammar and Stuff
« Reply #836 on: February 08, 2013, 12:07:48 AM »
With would be incorrect there as while you are sharing the information with people, you aren't explaining with them. The with can be assumed.

oneaprilday

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 13746
  • "What we see and what we seem are but a dream."
    • A Journal of Film
Re: Words and Grammar and Stuff
« Reply #837 on: February 08, 2013, 12:12:08 AM »
Yes, I agree, CD! I was just responding to the "don't end with a preposition" part.

FLYmeatwad

  • An Acronym
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 28785
  • I am trying to impress myself. I have yet to do it
    • Processed Grass
Re: Words and Grammar and Stuff
« Reply #838 on: February 08, 2013, 10:51:06 AM »
So FLY was talking about this elsewhere the other day. Is "based off of" or "based off" ever really proper? Most people seem to use it to replace "based on" (and I get it, language is flexible and as long as we understand what they mean anything is technically fine, so get with the CINECAST!ing times FLY), but they don't mean the same thing at all. Like if a film is based on a book, that means the book was the foundation that spawned the film. If one says it's "based off of" a novel then that kind of means that the book isn't the foundation. The film is off base. I'm fine saying that new game Aliens: Colonial Marines is based off (of) Lord of the Rings since they have nothing to do with one another, right?

Is "based off" way wrong? Why does it piss FLY off so much?

oneaprilday

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 13746
  • "What we see and what we seem are but a dream."
    • A Journal of Film
Re: Words and Grammar and Stuff
« Reply #839 on: February 08, 2013, 04:06:36 PM »
Is "based off" way wrong? Why does it piss FLY off so much?
I think it is wrong, but I'm not sure I have a clear answer for why.  I'd make a correcting mark on a student essay if I saw it, anyway - and I do see that phrase pretty frequently.



Speaking of student essays:
Can eyes be "ripe with hope"?

 

love