“Hanging preposition.” I’m intrigued; to the Little, Brown Handbook, Robin!
Thanks, kunilou.
Or, go all Charles Emerson Winchester (deceased) and ask, “With whom would you rather dine, Joseph or Robert?” Bonus, it’s easily modified for Hannibal Lector, “On whom…”
Please…Mozart!
I referred to it as “stranded preposition” earlier in the thread, and it’s the basis for the whole “Don’t end a sentence with a preposition” thing.
However, that really is not the issue, because any object case interrogative pronoun (or object case relative pronoun in an adjective clause) will result in the same thing:Who do you prefer? vs.
Whom do you prefer?,
I just saw the guy who she prefers, vs.
I just saw the guy whom she prefers, etc.It shouldn’t be confused with particles on phrasal verbs, and in fact, in the famous quotation by Churchhill (which always eventually gets dredged up in these threads), he does indeed confuse those two things.
The Economist has always had fabulous headlines.
The most notable language that is not spoken is Latin. It can be spoken and is from time to time, but it is rarely used as a conversational tool. It is really the only “dead” language I can think of that is still in common use, mostly written. Its vernacular is mostly frozen.
I’m a little mystified about what you’re saying here.
“Descriptivism” just means linguistics, i.e. the empirical scientific study of language (all of science is descriptivist). When juxtaposed with prescriptivism, descriptivism is nothing more than saying that the rules of language evolve as spontaneous consensus among users of the language, and we discern the true valid rules by observing the language; as opposed to the prescriptivist notion that language derives from a set of fixed rules (of ill-defined provenance) that are imposed upon the language. Descriptivism is not (although this fallacious trope will be repeated by peeving prescriptivists until the end of time) that anything goes, that there are no rules. By analogy: descriptivism is analogous to understanding the law of gravity by observing the motion of the planets, and working out the equations that govern their behavior; prescriptivism is reading a holy book of unknown authorship, standing on a mountaintop and and telling the planets how to move.
I’m not sure why you think a descriptivist would ever criticize you for using a prevalent variant form. You might come under fire for a horrendously ugly sentence that is clearly motivated by a desire to conform to a non-existent rule, such as the parody “Up with which I will not put.”
As for the case in point, the who/whom variants appear to be in flux, with varying prevalence in different constructions, and varying perceptions about whether (and in which constructions) “whom” for the objective case is necessarily a marker of greater literacy. It’s not uncommon for an evolving usage to go:
only correct form > better in formal context > archaic
It seems to me that in the construction “to whom” or “with whom”, we’re in the middle stage. Whereas in the construction cited in the OP, “whom” may be on the verge of the archaic stage.
Sometimes words just become archaic and vanish, “thy” and “thou” for example. If you used “thy” in a sentence, it wouldn’t “annoy self-proclaimed linguistic prescriptivists”, it would just mean you don’t speak modern English very well. In the case of “whom”, its use in some constructions may be headed to obsolescence, I don’t know. It’s up to you whether you choose to speak the modern version of the language or a quaint archaic one, but as a “self-proclaimed linguistic descriptivist” that certainly isn’t something that’s likely to annoy me.
No, there is nothing wrong with ending a sentence with a preposition. But the correct form is “whom”, not “who”, if you are a person who still uses “whom”. Personally, I use it when writing, but rarely when speaking.
You are dining with who? You are dining with he? [both wrong*]
You are dining with whom? You are dining with him? [both correct]
*If you have not given up on “whom”. Not that there’s anything wrong with that!
Well, there are sign languages. They are probably not relevant here, but it’s not right to say that all natural languages are spoken (and it perpetuates harmful misunderstandings about sign languages).
I’m not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that “whom” can’t evolve to be the correct (or preferred) objective case in some constructions, but incorrect (or archaic) in others?
Surely not. Descriptivists, as you noted, observe language use to discern linguistic rules. They don’t go around putting idiosyncratic or elaborately formalized language “under fire” for lack of conformity to the current evolutionary state of the rules, even if according to their own personal stylistic aesthetic it seems “horrendously ugly”.
Well, I think a descriptivist would just say something like “you are using an archaic pronoun form”, rather than attaching to it a gratuitously normative inference about linguistic competence.
Yup, thou bettest thine ass it is.
No, you don’t seem annoyed at all.
Turn who/whom into he/him, restructure the question into a statement, and see whether he or him fits. Who = he, whom = him.
I think we need to note that Kimstu’s use of descriptionists is a straw man. I can’t think of any threads here on the Dope where these extremists lurk.
There is certainly a difference between what is required in the most formal written language and what goes in casual usage on message boards. There are many levels in between, as well.
The use of apostrophe’s in plural’s may be noted by descriptivists as common but very few are approving. Actual descriptivists take care to note that a period, maybe short, maybe long, maybe infinite, exists between the first case of a variant and its inclusion in the lexicon of good writers. I doubt there is a descriptivist in the world who allows anything anybody says ever as always and instantly acceptable. Kimstu implies this is true. It ain’t.
:dubious: You mean descriptivists? I don’t think I claimed that all linguistic descriptivists are peevy like that, nor that the Dope is the place to find them. So no, no strawmen here.
No, I don’t imply that at all. What I was criticizing was the exact opposite of that: namely, self-described descriptivists who get peeved about other people choosing to follow traditionally pedantic grammar rules even if they’re not trying to impose them on anybody else. (Hence “prescriptivist in the opposite direction”.)
These are the folks who notice you happening not to split an infinitive, say, or using a predicate nominative, and immediately deliver a little lecture on how those “rules” were artificially imposed by Latin scholars on the natural evolution of English and were maintained as culture and class markers and so on and so forth. And then when you don’t argue with them they get really irritated. What they were hoping was that you would be all appalled and talk about “the importance of learning to speak properly” and “the degeneration of language” so that they could brilliantly eviscerate your silly linguistic prejudices.
And if your impression is that such people don’t actually exist, all I can say is I envy you.
I must admit, I’m with Exapno here. I can’t recall ever seeing such a thing, either, so I was really confused by your initial comment on the matter. Not splitting infinitives is fine. I can’t imagine a descriptivist telling you in a prescriptive manner that one must split infinitives, or something like that, which it seems like you’re trying to say, unless I’m completely misunderstanding you. A descriptivist would say both are fine, and probably further explain the context in which one may be more commonly seen than the other, or explaining that not splitting infinitives was once part of “prestige dialect” formal English, or some such thing.
I agree with you. You notice I’ve been using the term “self-proclaimed descriptivist” for the other kind.
And the point is that it was spoken before it was written–it derived from speech, (as was any form of Chinese). The fact that now it is not spoken is beside the point. In both cases, the written form is an artifice; it’s not a natural human process the way speech is natural, like walking. It is an exercise which must be taught. (And written Latin is not commonly used for communication. It’s almost entirely an academic display.)
I agree that sign language is non-vocal, commonly used language, though the degree to which it is natural–in the same way speech is naturally acquired–is debatable. In large, long-term, ongoing communities of practice, I’m sure it can be.
Gotcha. I’ve never really met someone like that, though I have no doubt they must exist. Most my peers are fairly hard-nosed prescriptivist grammarians, so it’s really only here that I encounter the more prescriptivist-minded linguist types. I tend to be of the “language is fluid” descriptivist type philosophically, but a “follow the style guide” for formal, professional English. Like, for the OP, “whom” is clearly the correct answer if you’re speaking/writing in a dialect that distinguishes subjective/nominative from objective interrogative pronouns (what we might call, I dunno, “schoolbook English” or what some people characterize as “proper English”?) But, as noted, even in formal usage, it appears the distinction is well on its way to being obsolete. I’ll use it from time to time when being self-consciously formal, along with moving the “with” to the front of the sentence as, “With whom are you going to the play?” But that’s an affectation for effect on my part. It’s normally something more like, “Hey! Who ya goin’ to da play wit’?”
If you say so. I still don’t recognize who you are talking about or understand why you needed to bring them up in this thread unless you meant it to be applicable here.
Poor communication. No matter how properly said. 
Yup.
Kimstu, I took your original comment to be railing against descriptivism in general (phrased in a dismissive well-poisoning manner), hence my response. Evidently not, you are saying that there are certain pseudo-descriptivists who do… what, exactly? Can you link to an example?
All I can think of is situations where prescriptivist impetus to conform to a non-existent rule leads to mangled results, either ungrammatical or inelegant. Do you think it’s inappropriate for a linguist to comment on that? For example, with regard to split infinitives, is this the kind of commentary that you object to:
“Economist still chicken: botches sentence rather than split infinitive”
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4680