Re: "To whom"
| From: | Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Wednesday, January 26, 2005, 1:43 |
|---|
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 11:22:41PM +0000, Chris Bates wrote:
> That's why I strongly
> object to it being dismissed as "Colloquial" or dialect usage in much
> the same way you object to me dismissing whom as an overly posh and
> archaic word only used by royalty and grammar teachers. I admit that was
> an exaggeration, but I was extremely annoyed at the time I wrote it, for
> the same reason it seems that you're annoyed now.
Except that in your case there was no cause. I've said it before; I'll
said it again; "colloquial" IS NOT AN INSULT! It was not in any way,
shape, or form a "dismissal"! It was describing exactly what you are
for some reason calling "standard" English - that is, "English as she is
spoke". Absolutely no disparagement whatsoever is intended by or should
be read into the adjective!
I do not agree that a consensus of native speakers, even a unanimous one, is
the same thing as a "standard". A standard is published. The nice
thing about standards is that there are many to choose from, of course.
-Marcos
Replies