# If you’re going to be a pedant, you’d better actually be correct! **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [September 25, 2019, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-re-going-to-be-a-pedant-you-d-better-actually-be-correct/840825 "2019-09-25T23:10:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2019, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-re-going-to-be-a-pedant-you-d-better-actually-be-correct/840825/1 "2019-09-25T23:10:33Z")
> :smack: Even if there were no issue about a predicate nominative, I would argue that a transitive verb would take the entire clause as its object and therefore the “whoever” would still be nominative. But I can see that being argued either way. Given the word “is”, however, there is no validity to this correction. ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2019, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-re-going-to-be-a-pedant-you-d-better-actually-be-correct/840825/2 "2019-09-26T00:35:34Z")
I believe you mean _pen_dant. (Though why being called a type of necklace is considered an insult, I’ll never understand.) ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2019, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-re-going-to-be-a-pedant-you-d-better-actually-be-correct/840825/3 "2019-09-26T00:37:21Z")
**If you’re going to be a pedant, you’d better actually be correct!** That should read “you actually should be correct.” ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2019, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-re-going-to-be-a-pedant-you-d-better-actually-be-correct/840825/4 "2019-09-26T01:52:04Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > [https://twitter.com/slackerinc/status/1176996578185363457?s=21](https://twitter.com/slackerinc/status/1176996578185363457?s=21) > > :smack: > > Even if there were no issue about a predicate nominative, I would argue that a transitive verb would take the entire clause as its object and therefore the “whoever” would still be nominative. “Even if there were” sets out a hypothetical condition, so “I would argue …” is correct. But how on earth do you get “transitive verb _would take_ …” and “‘whoever’ _would still be_ …”? Those are not subordinate to the hypothetical. What you’re trying to say is that if there were no such issue as you describe, you would – in that hypothetical – make a certain argument, and that argument would be “that a transitive verb _ **takes** _ the entire clause as its object and therefore the ‘whoever’ _ **must** _ still be nominative”. The point being that, by your own statement, whether the hypothetical is true or not, your conclusion is invariant and not hypothetical. And whether or not you choose to wade in and make your argument, the conclusion remains invariant. So the use of the hypothetical forms “would take” and “would still be” is incorrect. So you’re wrong. You done writ badly-like. Regards, A pedant. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Beckdawrek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/beckdawrek/32/3647_2.png) [@Beckdawrek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beckdawrek)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2019, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-re-going-to-be-a-pedant-you-d-better-actually-be-correct/840825/5 "2019-09-26T01:55:10Z")
Bad, bad, bad. ---
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2019, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-re-going-to-be-a-pedant-you-d-better-actually-be-correct/840825/6 "2019-09-26T01:58:17Z")
“Whoever” was correct to start with. Whatever. ---
**Author:** ![Sunny\_Daze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunny_daze/32/438_2.png) [@Sunny\_Daze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunny_Daze)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2019, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-re-going-to-be-a-pedant-you-d-better-actually-be-correct/840825/7 "2019-09-26T01:58:43Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > “Even if there were” sets out a hypothetical condition, so “I would argue …” is correct. But how on earth do you get “transitive verb _would take_ …” and “‘whoever’ _would still be_ …”? Those are not subordinate to the hypothetical. What you’re trying to say is that if there were no such issue as you describe, you would – in that hypothetical – make a certain argument, and that argument would be “that a transitive verb _ **takes** _ the entire clause as its object and therefore the ‘whoever’ _ **must** _ still be nominative”. > > The point being that, by your own statement, whether the hypothetical is true or not, your conclusion is invariant and not hypothetical. And whether or not you choose to wade in and make your argument, the conclusion remains invariant. So the use of the hypothetical forms “would take” and “would still be” is incorrect. > > So you’re wrong. You done writ badly-like. > > Regards, > A pedant. 😉 What he said. Also, why are you bringing your Twitter-fights here? ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2019, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-re-going-to-be-a-pedant-you-d-better-actually-be-correct/840825/8 "2019-09-26T02:05:09Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > “Even if there were” sets out a hypothetical condition, so “I would argue …” is correct. But how on earth do you get “transitive verb _would take_ …” and “‘whoever’ _would still be_ …”? Those are not subordinate to the hypothetical. What you’re trying to say is that if there were no such issue as you describe, you would – in that hypothetical – make a certain argument, and that argument would be “that a transitive verb _ **takes** _ the entire clause as its object and therefore the ‘whoever’ _ **must** _ still be nominative”. > > The point being that, by your own statement, whether the hypothetical is true or not, your conclusion is invariant and not hypothetical. And whether or not you choose to wade in and make your argument, the conclusion remains invariant. So the use of the hypothetical forms “would take” and “would still be” is incorrect. > > So you’re wrong. You done writ badly-like. > > Regards, > A pedant. 😉 I believe you are also incorrect in your pedantry. 😛 Here is the sentence: “Even if there were no issue about a predicate nominative, I would argue that a transitive verb would take the entire clause as its object and therefore the ‘whoever’ would still be nominative.” Perhaps it would have been clearer if I had written “I would argue that even if there were no issue about a predicate nominative, a transitive verb would take the entire clause as its object and therefore the ‘whoever’ would still be nominative.” But there is no fundamental grammatical reason my chosen word order cannot also be correct. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2019, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-re-going-to-be-a-pedant-you-d-better-actually-be-correct/840825/9 "2019-09-26T02:06:43Z")
> [@CookingWithGas](#): > > “Whoever” was correct to start with. Yes, that is my point in a nutshell. ---
**Author:** ![Chingon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chingon/32/17645_2.png) [@Chingon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chingon)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2019, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-re-going-to-be-a-pedant-you-d-better-actually-be-correct/840825/10 "2019-09-26T02:27:52Z")
Ok ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2019, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-re-going-to-be-a-pedant-you-d-better-actually-be-correct/840825/11 "2019-09-26T02:30:16Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > I believe you are also incorrect in your pedantry. 😛 Here is the sentence: > > “Even if there were no issue about a predicate nominative, I would argue that a transitive verb would take the entire clause as its object and therefore the ‘whoever’ would still be nominative.” No. Think of it this way: according to your analysis, in what situation would a transitive verb **NOT** take the entire clause as its object in that exact set of circumstances? Your use of the conditional implies that it depends on whether you choose to make the argument or choose not to bother making the argument. It doesn’t. Your analysis is either right or wrong, period. Therefore, the use of conditional phrasing on how to structure the sentence is incorrect. Anyway, I was just making a lighthearted joke. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2019, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-re-going-to-be-a-pedant-you-d-better-actually-be-correct/840825/12 "2019-09-26T05:08:40Z")
I know, hence the 😛 But since we are haggling over it just for fun: the protasis here can be paraphrased as “if the verb were transitive”, and the apodosis is essentially “I would still have an argument to make as to why the use of the nominative was correct”. It is not a transitive verb, therefore that argument is superfluous and I don’t need to make it. ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2019, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-re-going-to-be-a-pedant-you-d-better-actually-be-correct/840825/13 "2019-09-26T06:06:56Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Even if there were no issue about a predicate nominative, I would argue that a transitive verb would take the entire clause as its object and therefore the “whoever” would still be nominative. But I can see that being argued either way. Given the word “is”, however, there is no validity to this correction. It’s not clear what you’re trying to say here. Yes, _whoever_ is correct, but it has nothing to do with whether the sentence as a whole is a predicate nominative or not. The reason _whoever_ is correct is simply that it’s the subject of the verb _make_ (not the object), so the pronoun takes the subject form. The rest of the sentence in which the clause is situated is irrelevant. I don’t know if that’s what you were trying to say, but if it was, it didn’t come across very clearly. ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2019, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-re-going-to-be-a-pedant-you-d-better-actually-be-correct/840825/14 "2019-09-26T06:33:44Z")
To provide some examples: _ **whoever likes Madonna** _ (i.e., Madonna fans)The pronoun is the subject of the clause (the subject of the verb _like_), so in all of these various larger sentences, it doesn’t matter. The pronoun will always be in the subject case:\*The members of the club are whoever likes Madonna The club welcomes whoever likes Madonna. Whoever likes Madonna can join the club. For whoever likes Madonna, that CD is a classic. \*Now let’s consider a clause where the pronoun is object case:_ **whomever Madonna likes** _ (i.e, people Madonna is fond of)Here the pronoun is the object of the verb _like_.\*The members of the club are whomever Madonna likes The club welcomes whomever Madonna likes. Whomever Madonna likes can join the club. For whomever Madonna likes, that CD is a classic. \*The larger sentence is not the issue here. ---
**Author:** ![dtilque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d6d6ee/32.png) [@dtilque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dtilque)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2019, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-re-going-to-be-a-pedant-you-d-better-actually-be-correct/840825/15 "2019-09-26T07:25:07Z")
> [@Darren\_Garrison](#): > > I believe you mean _pen_dant. (Though why being called a type of necklace is considered an insult, > I’ll never understand.) When they hang you for being a grammar nazi, then you’ll be a pendant. A pendant pedant, in fact. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2019, 7:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-re-going-to-be-a-pedant-you-d-better-actually-be-correct/840825/16 "2019-09-26T07:44:17Z")
> [@Sunny\_Daze](#): > > Also, why are you bringing your Twitter-fights here? What “Twitter-fight”? That tweet was not in reply to anything, and has not received any replies last I checked. It was just a way to put the images somewhere so that I could post them here (and yes, I know many people use imgur for that, but why bother?). If you look, you will see that I tweeted it literally seconds before pasting the link here. I have done this several times when I had some kind of image I wanted to talk about here. If someone happens to read the tweet on its own, that’s fine too, but not my purpose. > [@guizot](#): > > It’s not clear what you’re trying to say here. Yes, _whoever_ is correct, but it has nothing to do with whether the sentence as a whole is a predicate nominative or not. The reason _whoever_ is correct is simply that it’s the subject of the verb _make_ (not the object), so the pronoun takes the subject form. The rest of the sentence in which the clause is situated is irrelevant. > > I don’t know if that’s what you were trying to say, but if it was, it didn’t come across very clearly. Perhaps not, but yes: that is what I was trying to say: that if the sentence ended after “whoever”, it would be correct because it would be a predicate nominative. But if the rest of the sentence were the same and “will be” were changed to a transitive verb, it would still be “whoever” because it is the subject of the clause.