# Grammar/Spelling Errors **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 12, 2005, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-spelling-errors/325873 "2005-10-12T11:29:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2005, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-spelling-errors/325873/41 "2005-10-13T12:55:24Z")
> [@Case Sensitive](#): > > Sorry, but I’m not buying it: if you take the relative clause “who is without sin” out, you’re left with “Let he…cast the first stone.”, which just doesn’t work.[/SIZE] I’m not sure I’m buying your explanation, either, but I can’t find a definite ruling. My gripe is the difference between a restrictive and non-restrictive clause. This is a restrictive clause and shoud be parsed: Let [he who is without sin] cast the first stone. NOT Let him [who is without sin] cast the first stone. “He who is without sin” is a noun clause, and a single syntactic unit. “Him who is without sin” sounds jarring and incorrect to my ears. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2005, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-spelling-errors/325873/42 "2005-10-13T13:29:33Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > “He who is without sin” is a noun clause, and a single syntactic unit. “Him who is without sin” sounds jarring and incorrect to my ears. See, it looks to me like: [You]: implied subject of main clause let: predicate of main clause him: indirect object of main clause who is without sin: adjectival clause modifying “him”; “who” is a pronoun referring to “him” cast: direct object of main clause the first stone: direct object of cast I could easily be wrong on this, though. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2005, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-spelling-errors/325873/43 "2005-10-13T14:12:37Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > See, it looks to me like: > > [You]: implied subject of main clause > let: predicate of main clause > him: indirect object of main clause > who is without sin: adjectival clause modifying “him”; “who” is a pronoun referring to “him” > cast: direct object of main clause > the first stone: direct object of cast > > I could easily be wrong on this, though. > > Daniel I agree that the ‘who is without sin’ is bound to the ‘he’ to make a full phrase. Try this: ‘Let [he who is without sin] cast the first stone \<=\> Let [him] cast the first stone \<=\> Let [Bob] cast the first stone.’ He-who-is-without-sin fills the same role as him when satisfying case. Since the ‘he’ is simply an atom in that phrase rather than a discrete part, it’s not required to change. Change it to a non-restrictive clause and the meaning changes entirely. ‘Let [him], who is without sin, cast the first stone \<=\> Let [Bob], who is without sin, cast the first stone.’ There, you’re talking about a specific person while making a parenthetical comment about what kind of guy he is. ‘He who is without sin’ is a descriptor that doesn’t have a particular person in mind, only anyone that fits the description. Taking out ‘who is without sin’ and changing it to ‘him’ makes no sense in the context that 'he who is without sin is used: [To the crowd] “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone!” _raises a hand_ “…Um, I don’t think I’ve ever sinned.” “Great! What’s your name?” “Um, Bob.” “Bob! Let Bob, who is without sin, cast the first stone!” or “Let Bob cast the first stone!” Bob’s got a mean fastball, too ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2005, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-spelling-errors/325873/44 "2005-10-13T14:18:09Z")
> [@BayleDomon](#): > > I agree that the ‘who is without sin’ is bound to the ‘he’ to make a full phrase. Try this: ‘Let [he who is without sin] cast the first stone \<=\> Let [him] cast the first stone \<=\> Let [Bob] cast the first stone.’ > > He-who-is-without-sin fills the same role as him when satisfying case. Since the ‘he’ is simply an atom in that phrase rather than a discrete part, it’s not required to change. > > Change it to a non-restrictive clause and the meaning changes entirely. ‘Let [him], who is without sin, cast the first stone \<=\> Let [Bob], who is without sin, cast the first stone.’ I don’t think that the restrictive-vs.-nonrestrictive difference comes into play. “Let him in the Hawaiian shirt cast the first stone” is correct; in this, “him” is modified by a restrictive phrase, just as in “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.” Would you say, “Let he in the Hawaiian shirt cast the first stone”? Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2005, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-spelling-errors/325873/45 "2005-10-13T14:43:44Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > I don’t think that the restrictive-vs.-nonrestrictive difference comes into play. “Let him in the Hawaiian shirt cast the first stone” is correct; in this, “him” is modified by a restrictive phrase, just as in “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.” Would you say, “Let he in the Hawaiian shirt cast the first stone”? > > Daniel I dunno, still sounds odd. The original quote sounds perfectly fine to me, and I’m sure there’s a linguistic explanation. Unfortunately, I don’t have the time or the resources to pursue it further right now, so I’ll just leave you with another example of this: In Wheel of Time, which I have no idea if you’re familiar with or not, one of the characters has the title “He Who Comes With The Dawn”. It’s a syntactic atom such that it’s logical to say “I spoke to He Who Comes With The Dawn” rather than “I spoke to Him Who Comes With The Dawn.” I’m betting it’s the same rule in place, that the entire thing fulfills the case requirement rather than the individual pronoun. Really, though, I’m thinking it’s all just archaic prose meant to sound high and mighty. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2005, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-spelling-errors/325873/46 "2005-10-13T14:58:10Z")
> [@BayleDomon](#): > > In Wheel of Time, which I have no idea if you’re familiar with or not, one of the characters has the title “He Who Comes With The Dawn”. It’s a syntactic atom such that it’s logical to say “I spoke to He Who Comes With The Dawn” First, I’m not sure I’d let Robert Jordan clean my toilet, much less dictate my grammar choices ;). Second, titles are in a different category. If my title is “Him With the Funny Nose,” then it’s correct to say “Him With the Funny Nose won’t shut up about his new puppy.” It would not, of course, be correct to say, “Him with the funny nose won’t shut up about his new puppy”: in that case, you’d say, "He with the funny nose won’t shut up about his new puppy. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![rayh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@rayh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rayh)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2005, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-spelling-errors/325873/47 "2005-10-13T15:33:08Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I think it’s acceptable to [point] it out to them and suggest they use preview and a dictionary if they can’t spell. That’s [a] helpful suggestion, not “hey asswipe, did you get past 6th grade or what?” Other than that if you’re a Mr. Fussypants and it disturbs you too much, don’t look. Oops. > [@tomndebb](#): > > For all we know, RSSChen might have overreacted to a perfectly clear post written in an unfamili[a]r style. Tut, tut. > [@wring](#): > > 1. When asked, do admit that you del[/del] will [often] skip over posts by posters who refuse to use capital letters at all, or paragraph breaks. 😃 > [@ouryL](#): > > Most grammar errors don’t bother except when it’s persistent or inane, such as in a name or title. What do “most grammar errors” don’t bother about? ---
**Author:** ![Salem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8c91f0/32.png) [@Salem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Salem)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2005, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-spelling-errors/325873/48 "2005-10-13T15:33:29Z")
The way I hear it: Let he-who-is-without-sin cast the first stone. The entire phrase is acting as the direct object. You could replace the entire phrase with “him” - or “Bob”, if you prefer. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2005, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-spelling-errors/325873/49 "2005-10-13T15:50:17Z")
> [@Salem](#): > > The way I hear it: Let he-who-is-without-sin cast the first stone. The entire phrase is acting as the direct object. You could replace the entire phrase with “him” - or “Bob”, if you prefer. The problem is that “he-who-is-without-sin” isn’t a clause. “Who is without sin” is a clause that modifies “he.” “He” is the object (I believe the indirect object" of “let.” Think of it this way. Is “He who is without sin” a sentence? Nope. It’s a fragment. Is “Who is without sin” a sentence? It could be: the answer would be, “An infant.” So we have an independent clause there, **if it’s a question**. If it’s not a question, then it’s a dependent clause, since “Who is without sin.” is not a proper sentence. When you’ve got an independent clause, and you’ve added enough words to make it a fragment, that usually means you’ve added a bit of another clause. In this case, you’ve added a subject–“he”–without adding a predicate. You need to add a predicate for which “he” is the subject: “He who is without sin is a freakin baby, dude.” However, in our example, “he” isn’t a subject of another clause: it’s the object of the predicate in another clause. Objects take the objective case. It should be “him.” Daniel ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2005, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-spelling-errors/325873/50 "2005-10-13T17:10:22Z")
[Well, here’s an argument](http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20041130/COGRAMMAR30/TPComment/) for the “Let he” side of the debate. To be honest, even though I am defending the “let he” usage, I don’t buy his explanation. It seems the weight of grammars I’ve found support the “Let him” usage over “Let he.” Personally, I prefer “he without sin” if used as a restrictive clause, but my opinion is outweighed. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2005, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-spelling-errors/325873/51 "2005-10-13T17:28:16Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > [Well, here’s an argument](http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20041130/COGRAMMAR30/TPComment/) for the “Let he” side of the debate. To be honest, even though I am defending the “let he” usage, I don’t buy his explanation. Do you have a subscription to this site? They’re trying to charge me to view the article. Could you summarize the position? Daniel ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2005, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-spelling-errors/325873/52 "2005-10-13T20:42:05Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Do you have a subscription to this site? They’re trying to charge me to view the article. Could you summarize the position? > > Daniel Weird. If I google it, I can link to it from the Google result. If I C&P the link, I only get the first paragraph… > [@](#): > > Sadly, some in the journalistic profession have lost touch with the old ways of proper grammar. Despite Mr. Owen’s noble attempt, I regret to observe that he is incorrect about the “let” requiring a “him” in John 8:7. Let me explain why “let he who is without sin . . .” is not bad grammar. > > The correct translation of “he” in the original Greek depends on who the subject of the verb is. In John 8:7, “he” is the nominative subject of the verb, and hence it is the correct translation for the verb conjugated in the third person. > > The confusion stems from thinking the verb is “let.” It’s not. The verb in the passage is “throw.” Mr. Owen has smuggled in the assumption that the implicit subject of the verb is “you,” as in the command, “[you must] let him throw!” But in both the Greek and Latin text, the subject of the verb is the third-person singular: “he.” > > Allow me to illustrate with a more accurate translation of John 8:7 (from the Latin Vulgate’s subjunctive mood). > > “May he who is without sin among you throw the stone at her first.” > > Notice that the nominative subject pronoun is correct: “May he throw.” You would not wish to say (as an illiterate caveman might): “May him throw.” Like I said, I don’t like his explanation because he ventures into Latin and Greek grammar. That said, to my ears, at least “Let he who is without sin” sounds better to my ears than “Let him who is without sin,” and the reason for this, I think, is because I strongly hear it as a restrictive clause and my brain wants to treat “he who is without sin” as a single unit. ---
**Author:** ![Scissorjack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c67d28/32.png) [@Scissorjack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scissorjack)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2005, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-spelling-errors/325873/53 "2005-10-13T20:49:57Z")
This thread is yet another example of why I love this place. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2005, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-spelling-errors/325873/54 "2005-10-13T22:21:26Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > Weird. If I google it, I can link to it from the Google result. If I C&P the link, I only get the first paragraph… Ah, thanks. And I agree that his explanation is bogus. “May he throw” is correct, because “may” is an auxiliary verb. “Let he throw” is incorrect because “let” is not an auxiliary verb. [For further explanation](http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/auxiliary.htm): > [@](#): > > Helping verbs or auxiliary verbs such as will, shall, may, might, can, could, must, ought to, should, would, used to, need are used in conjunction with main verbs to express shades of time and mood. The combination of helping verbs with main verbs creates what are called verb phrases or verb strings. In the following sentence, “will have been” are helping or auxiliary verbs and “studying” is the main verb; the whole verb string is underlined: If there’s still doubt, consider this: “Let us leave, you villainous rascal!” Compare to: “May us leave, you villainous rascal?” “Let we leave, you villainous rascal!” You can see that “May,” in the same construction, cannot take an object; nor can “Let” take a subject. That’s because, in “May we leave?” the subject is “we”; in “Let us leave!” the subject is “[You].” It’s implied. His comparison to “may” is therefore bogus. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2005, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-spelling-errors/325873/55 "2005-10-13T22:23:21Z")
> [@Case Sensitive](#): > > This thread is yet another example of why I love this place. Heh: with your username, I’m not surprised! I should add that, despite my pedantry here, I’m all about the “Let he who is without sin” construction. Sounding right is worth a helluva lot in my book, and all my meandering about cases and auxiliary verbs isn’t worth tuppence compared to mellifluity. I’m only arguing on this one because prescriptive grammar can be fun, and because it’s a thread specifically about prescriptive grammar. I can play by the rules of the game when I want to. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2005, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-spelling-errors/325873/56 "2005-10-13T23:57:41Z")
Since we’re just having a bit of fun and not picking at anyone, have a go at this one: 1. Do you mind me looking into the family records? 2. Do you mind my looking into the family records? 3. I think him walking the dogs in the afternoon has helped. 4. I think his walking the dogs in the afternoon has helped. Which is correct in each set and why? I have my answer, but I hear this misused so often that I wonder if the rule has changed. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2005, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-spelling-errors/325873/57 "2005-10-14T00:09:10Z")
As one of the poor spellers on the board, I end up using Word a lot to correct my spelling and help out on my grammar. I actually feel posting here is improving both. Please feel free to correct my mistakes, especially in GD & GQ where a higher standard should be kept. Please, just try not to be nasty about it. I will personally only correct others if they make a mistake while being snarky about my spelling. I have no room to complain about others. I like the rules that are being put together. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2005, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-spelling-errors/325873/58 "2005-10-14T00:53:22Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > If there’s still doubt, consider this: “Let us leave, you villainous rascal!” Compare to: > > “May us leave, you villainous rascal?” > “Let we leave, you villainous rascal!” “Let we who are about to die leave!” “Let us who are about to die leave!” I don’t know. There’s something about that construction that lets the nominative case sound just fine to my ears. I think it’s just got something to do with archaic prose, just as certain sentences can take an OSV order and still be perfectly comprehensible (“Such a tangled web we weave!”). ---
**Author:** ![Oy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bc8723/32.png) [@Oy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oy)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2005, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-spelling-errors/325873/59 "2005-10-14T00:55:11Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > Since we’re just having a bit of fun and not picking at anyone, have a go at this one: > > 1. Do you mind me looking into the family records? > > 2. Do you mind my looking into the family records? > > 3. I think him walking the dogs in the afternoon has helped. > > 4. I think his walking the dogs in the afternoon has helped. > > Which is correct in each set and why? I have my answer, but I hear this misused so often that I wonder if the rule has changed. My understanding is the a gerund (looking, walking) is a noun (or in this case, a noun phrase (looking into the family records, walking the dogs in the afternoon), and therefore takes a possessive. Anyone care to argue and explain why I’m wrong? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2005, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-spelling-errors/325873/60 "2005-10-14T01:15:32Z")
> [@Oy!](#): > > My understanding is the a gerund (looking, walking) is a noun (or in this case, a noun phrase (looking into the family records, walking the dogs in the afternoon), and therefore takes a possessive. > > Anyone care to argue and explain why I’m wrong? Possibly because you meant to type “that a gerund”? 🙂 (Actually, this is an example of a typo really obfuscating meaning: I had to read your post several times before I could figure out what you may have meant). Other than that, I agree with you. > [@BayleDomon](#): > > “Let we who are about to die leave!” > “Let us who are about to die leave!” What about “Let I who am about to die leave”? Does that sound all right to you? It really grates on my ear. Would “Let we leave” be acceptable? I agree that “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” sounds fine, and I would never dream of correcting it in informal speech or even in rhetorical speech. However, if I were proofreading a grant proposal, I would change this construction: it looks technically nonstandard to me, and in a situation where someone might be reading for grammar and making an important decision, I’d rather play it safe. Daniel [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-spelling-errors/325873.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-spelling-errors/325873.md?page=4)