Re: "To whom"

>One problem I see in all this brouhaha is that people bandy about the
>word "standard" without a definition.  It SEEMS as though everyone
>thinks his speech is standard.  I suppose it depends on which style
>manual you prefer or which peer you prefer to emulate.
>
>
I have said that perhaps I overreacted a little, and explained why. Read
my message or not, I'm not bothered. *shrugs* However, I have to say
that I'm not taking my own speech as standard: I'm taking what I hear,
not just locally, but on TV, the radio, the way people talk all over the
country I live in (the UK) and for that matter in American shows as
well, and the way books are written by American, British, and other
English authors. Writing tends to be more conservative than speech, and
even in the most formal books I read, I rarely come across "whom". It
may be alive to some speakers, but for the majority it seems to be dead
in favour of the alternate structure which some in the previous
discussed described as "Colloquial", but by any sane definition of
standard based on actual spoken and written usage is the main standard.
Standard English isn't something that you can get from a style book,
it's the usage that the vast majority of people adopt. And in both
written and spoken English, even though they are distinct, it's clear
that the strategy of leaving the preposition in place has become the
standard for most people at the cost of whom. 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.

Reply