FOR WHOM PROGRESS SOUNDS GOOD TOO
In the name of progress—real progress, not a synonym for social destruction as the term is used by the politically sinister—it is time to recognize the other side of stupid or lazy English. These are the “rules” of the language that serve no purpose other than ass-painedness. Some have been commonly complained of, some have been appealed previously, even for eons. Or at least a long time. Others are my own pet causes to which some will object. They are wrong. These things will also serve to demonstrate that conservatives are not simply blind protectors of convention and ancientness. Sometimes, change is good. But only when it is for a well-thought-out reason, not just when it seems childishly neat-o, and only when it is being replaced with something superior. Boy has that one been blown (Miss him yet? YES).
1. Question: Is it who or whom? Right answer— who. Always. There is absolutely no reason to maintain whom as a word as it adds absolutely nothing to communication. “To who are you referring?” is no less literate than any other construction to whomever it is conveyed. The awkward wording is a different and also assailable problem, as seen below.
2. Don’t end a sentence with a preposition--- it might make your meaning too clear. If “Who are you referring to?” is incomprehensible or unnatural sounding to you, then you are not a native English speaker and what does sound natural to you is probably something we uniculturalist Americans are not interested in. Anyone who knows anything about grammar has always been wise to this piece of pedagogical pedantics anyway. It is a rule from Latin that was arbitrarily stuck on English by prissy scholars who came from a part of the world where Latin speakers lived quietly in dusty old books, instead of sneaking into the country to undermine its native tongue. A tongue which ends just fine with prepositions and really does not need the tortured constructions forced by being determined not to do so. Note this does NOT give license to unnecessary or repetitive prepositions that aren’t objectionable because they are at the end of a sentence, but because they don’t belong anywhere at all. So, “I can give to whoever I want to” is still not correct, as, “I can give it to whoever I want”, is all that needs be said.
3. If an individual wants to speak properly without sounding like a moron they should assert their individual responsibility to do it. He or she should not assert his or her whatever, because that sounds bureaucrat-eseishly stupid, stilted and unnatural. The solution is, really, to use he, his, and him for the general as has been done since the beginning of English, but since the PC police frown on this, and some people for some reason want to please that group of goons, then they is the only alternative as there is no singular gender-neutral word in the language to substitute except “one” which requires other changes and is not as natural as they is.
4. Hopefully, people will change. Not just the way they speak, but entirely. But the point is that hopefully is used “wrongly” in this construction because there is no other word for what is meant. That right there is the perfect scenario for a new word or new usage. So, either make up the word hopably—which is needed but not allowed for no good reason—or accept hopefully in the way that it is used and give it some credit for filling in doing another word’s job due to its enforced absence.
5. I wish I were or I wish I was? It’s all subjunctive and there is no need for it. I wish it was true that was was what it is and were was not. Period. There is no need for the subjunctive in English, which never has been strong and which no less than Fowler (a big authority) said was on its way out back in 1926. God, how long must it linger. Would it were that were were not, but was was.
In the name of progress—real progress, not a synonym for social destruction as the term is used by the politically sinister—it is time to recognize the other side of stupid or lazy English. These are the “rules” of the language that serve no purpose other than ass-painedness. Some have been commonly complained of, some have been appealed previously, even for eons. Or at least a long time. Others are my own pet causes to which some will object. They are wrong. These things will also serve to demonstrate that conservatives are not simply blind protectors of convention and ancientness. Sometimes, change is good. But only when it is for a well-thought-out reason, not just when it seems childishly neat-o, and only when it is being replaced with something superior. Boy has that one been blown (Miss him yet? YES).
1. Question: Is it who or whom? Right answer— who. Always. There is absolutely no reason to maintain whom as a word as it adds absolutely nothing to communication. “To who are you referring?” is no less literate than any other construction to whomever it is conveyed. The awkward wording is a different and also assailable problem, as seen below.
2. Don’t end a sentence with a preposition--- it might make your meaning too clear. If “Who are you referring to?” is incomprehensible or unnatural sounding to you, then you are not a native English speaker and what does sound natural to you is probably something we uniculturalist Americans are not interested in. Anyone who knows anything about grammar has always been wise to this piece of pedagogical pedantics anyway. It is a rule from Latin that was arbitrarily stuck on English by prissy scholars who came from a part of the world where Latin speakers lived quietly in dusty old books, instead of sneaking into the country to undermine its native tongue. A tongue which ends just fine with prepositions and really does not need the tortured constructions forced by being determined not to do so. Note this does NOT give license to unnecessary or repetitive prepositions that aren’t objectionable because they are at the end of a sentence, but because they don’t belong anywhere at all. So, “I can give to whoever I want to” is still not correct, as, “I can give it to whoever I want”, is all that needs be said.
3. If an individual wants to speak properly without sounding like a moron they should assert their individual responsibility to do it. He or she should not assert his or her whatever, because that sounds bureaucrat-eseishly stupid, stilted and unnatural. The solution is, really, to use he, his, and him for the general as has been done since the beginning of English, but since the PC police frown on this, and some people for some reason want to please that group of goons, then they is the only alternative as there is no singular gender-neutral word in the language to substitute except “one” which requires other changes and is not as natural as they is.
4. Hopefully, people will change. Not just the way they speak, but entirely. But the point is that hopefully is used “wrongly” in this construction because there is no other word for what is meant. That right there is the perfect scenario for a new word or new usage. So, either make up the word hopably—which is needed but not allowed for no good reason—or accept hopefully in the way that it is used and give it some credit for filling in doing another word’s job due to its enforced absence.
5. I wish I were or I wish I was? It’s all subjunctive and there is no need for it. I wish it was true that was was what it is and were was not. Period. There is no need for the subjunctive in English, which never has been strong and which no less than Fowler (a big authority) said was on its way out back in 1926. God, how long must it linger. Would it were that were were not, but was was.
posted by the wrightist at 4:07 PM
1 Comments:
Making money on the internet is easy in the underground world of [URL=http://www.www.blackhatmoneymaker.com]clickbank blackhat[/URL], It's not a big surprise if you haven’t heard of it before. Blackhat marketing uses alternative or not-so-known avenues to generate an income online.
Post a Comment
<< Home