Quote:
Originally Posted by Califiddler
"Except when it follows a preposition, "whom" is no longer de rigueur in objective case contexts, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, as well as Chomsky, Lasnik, et alia. (Again, not every aspect of English grammar is absolute.)"
In English grammar, the case of a pronoun is determined by its syntax. In the original example, the pronoun was the object of the verb "harass". Therefore the pronoun is in the objective case, which is "whom", not "who".
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony474
Hmm... in that case, non inter alia sum. AFAIC, "whom" should always be used in a direct or indirect objective sense. Pedantic? I?
|
In plain English, what Joel is saying is that the use of "whom" in the objective case is disappearing. The idea that "whom" is a fixed, unchanging rule is based on outmoded notions of "correctness" that date all the way back to the eighteenth century.
These notions are based on the belief that language is of divine origin and is therefore perfect in its beginning, but is always in danger of being corrupted. The prescriptive grammarians of this time thought they could fix what they perceived to be the deplorable state of the English language by establishing a system of inflexible rules.
Modern linguists take a more objective, or "descriptive," approach, which recognizes that language is a living, changing thing, a hodgepodge of different dialects that is in constant flux and subject to a variety of influences including immigration, cultural trends, and new technology. For if language wasn’t constantly changing, why would we need 5,000 footnotes to read a Shakespeare play?
This is interesting:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ide...ungrammatical/