Awhile back I finally had the whole who/whom thing explained and grasp that. The new one I’m wondering about is among/amongst. What are the rules about when to use which?
Do you mean the difference between ‘among’ and ‘between’, because ‘amongst’ is just a more archaic version of ‘among’ to all intents and purposes? (Compare ‘while’ and ‘whilst’.) Thus, if you want to write in a consistent modern style/tone, which most of us do in our work, for example, then it’s good to use the non-‘st’ forms.
Regarding ‘among/between’, the simple “rule” is that ‘among’ is used with objects denoting three or more (a group), and ‘between’ with those denoting only two (or twos).
More (from two reputable linguists, incidentally, and a flavour of what corpus linguistics can do) here.
What got me thinking of this was another thread where a poster seemed to deride another poster for using the phrase “amongst friends”. Are the two equally correct, or is there some sort of who/whom difference?
Well, ‘among friends’ is about ten times more common, according to Google (which fucntions as a pretty damn good corpus!) I think this is the sort of occasion where people like to deride those who lack a bit of advanced education but desperately want to compensate for it by using the most unusual, lengthy or “Latinate” way of expressing something. The major problem for the socially-wannabe-upwardly-mobile user of such language is that they look a bit of a plonker when they mix registers (i.e. switch from formal to informal apparently at random, unlike, say, me, who gets away with it because I do it deliberately and for effect). So, a sentence which contains both ‘amongst’ and a grammatical error, or an infelicitous choice of words, would attract attention in the kind of way that the user would not be hoping for.
There are those who get a kick out of demonising others for this kind of thing.
I had a feeling that was the case, so barring a cascade of protests I’ll continue thinking that. Thanks for the response.
Betwenst you and I, only pedants really give a damn.
I think that should be ‘betwenst I and you’.
There is absolutely no difference in meaning between “among” and “amongst”, so you can use either with impunity.
Incidentally, you say you “finally got” the who/whom thing. What worked for you? I remember having no end of trouble until I came up with this:
“Who would you like to pay for your meal?”
“Whom would you like to pay for your meal?”
In the first instance, you’re getting your food gratis. In the second, you’d better get your wallet out…
That’s a good way to remember, but I believe the first sentence–while probably acceptable to many-- isn’t correct, strictly speaking: both should be whom, (and the meaning is unavoidably ambiguous).
Answering the question demonstrates this.
I would like he to pay** for my meal.*
is not grammatical to most native English speakers. This is because the pronoun after the verb should take the object case (him, not he).
Both grammatically acceptable answers take the object case for the pronoun, though the syntax is different, (and they thereby are not ambiguous).
I would like him to pay for my meal.
and
I would like to pay him for for my meal.
Since whom is the object case (who the subject case), both intended meanings of the question–according to strict, old-fashioned grammar–are formulated the same way: with whom.
The ambiguity doesn’t arise from who vs. whom. It arises because, when you “move” the question word (whom) to the beginning of the sentence to make the two different questions, you remove the pronoun from the two different verb phrases (like [someone] to pay for [something] and like to pay [someone] for [something]), and the syntax of each question becomes the same.
But, hey, if it helps you to remember the difference, who cares?
I was thinking about this yesterday, etmiller, and it occurred to me before I read your reply that I may have been mistaken. But the rules (such as they are) on this sort of situation don’t seem clear to me.
For instance, one of the party slogans in the run-up to the UK general election is “Who do you want to run the country?”. I read a letter in the paper from somebody moaning about how ignorant the politicians were, and that is should be “Whom do you want to run the country?”. Then someone else wrote in to say that no, “who” is correct after all. To save further hijack, I’ll take this to a new thread.
In fact, no need. It is “whom”, and the writer of the last letter is a dullard 
And so am I, as my example above is also wrong :smack:
Who’s fine. English isn’t much of an inflected language, and who is perfectly acceptable. Even among educated speakers and writers of Standard British English such as you and me.
A plague on all those arnchair grammarians of the 19th century who attempted to impose Latin grammar on English (essentially a Germanic language).
NO! It’s “Twixt Thee & Me” combined with an arm around the shoulder & a nose to nose conspriational repetition whispered & lengthened: “Twixt Theeeeeeee and Meeeeee.” And sealed with a knowing wink.
Duh… :rolleyes:
There are a few other words like among/amongst.
Amid/amidst, while/whilst, unbeknown/unbeknownst, between/betwixt, and I’m sure there are more. Other than the dictates of style, there is no rule for using the different forms.
I doubt the who/whom distinction can be blamed on the latinizers. Almost all germanic languages differentiate nominative from other cases in this case, e.g. German wer vs. wem. English (or Old English at least) was originally as inflected as German, but these inflections have been lost except for pronouns and the possessive. (I expect you know this, roger, since you are a linguist, but I thought I’d try to clarify for others.)
It’s possible that, with time, whom will just disappear, and make things easier for everyone–especially in questions. The only context which seems likely to stick around is after prepositions (e.g., To whom it may concern…, etc.).
What made the who/whom click for me was an easier way to decide which to use when. I still don’t get the subjective/objective/dative etc, which made it harder to learn a foreign language, but who/whom comes down to a simple test.
If the answer can be answered her/him, etc it’s whom. If the answer is she/he it whould be who.
As in: Who broke this chair? He did.
Whom do speak to about getting this chair fixed? Him. (Usually pointing to someone there at the same time.)
That’s oversimplified, but seems to work pretty well.
WEll, it might work well, but the problem is you’ll end up coming across as very affected, especially if your normal practice is to talk colloquially. Also, the context of for example (your example) getting a chair fixed just doesn’t lend itself to such precise, precious and (pseudo?) archaic language. I mean, folks will think you’re taking the piss. Or they’ll just think you’re striving to sound educated (a little knowledge is a dangerous thing).
I mean when you slice a ball into the lake, do you really say “Whom do I speak to about fishing the ball out?” (It’s possible that you might in a more formal context say “Whom do I consult regarding mandated ball-retrieval procedures?”, but then again, I hope not!)
aldi, of the words in your list, all of them apart from ‘while’, ‘between’ and arguably ‘amid’ (though this can often be replaced by ‘among’, ‘in’, etc, depending on context) are archaic to one degree or another. I mean, you might argue that there’s no difference in meaning between ‘thee’ and ‘you’, or between ‘omnibus’ and ‘bus’, except that one of the terms has more or less dropped out of usage in all apart from specialised (usually jokey) contexts.
Well, I’ve got bachelors, masters and doctoral (two months away) degrees in linguitstics, but there’s still loads of stuff I don’t know - German being a good example! I spent three years though working on an online pedagogical grammar (making extensive use of corpora), so how English is really used is a geat interest of mine. (This PC approach to language is counter-balanced by the fact that I love words, hate prefabricated phrases, am utterly conservative, almost deify tradition (while hating convention), and dislike change.)
My point remains that most of the Victorian armchair grammarians were steeped in Latin, not German, which makes their attempts to squeeze English grammar into Latin categories even more dubious.
I think change is the only thing that will get rid of whom.