Re: "To whom"

On 26 Jan 2005, at 12.43 pm, Mark J. Reed wrote:

> 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!
Anything can be an insult, regardless of the intention. You cannot say
something 'IS NOT AN INSULT'; the closest you can get is 'WAS NOT
INTENDED AS AN INSULT'. I once referred to a Southerner as a
'Yank'---but I quickly learnt such things Aren't Done.* Insults often
depend on features that cannot easily be transcribed in writing (even
with smilies) so many things that aren't intended as insults are taken
as them.

* I insist it's no more insulting than calling a Kiwi a Kiwi, though,
even if they're from the South Island...

> 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.
Who publishes the English Standard though? (you seem to have your
preferred source that says "'who are you giving it to' is
non-standard", but my preferred source says (paraphrased) "avoid
'whom', if you don't use it no-one will bat an eyelid, but if you do
and get it wrong, people will notice the mistake"). So according to
that 'whom' *isn't* a part of Standard English. The same source also
considers <recognize> to be a misspelling (unless a quote of writing).
Obviously this idea of 'published standards' needs some revision. (This
is going by my memory of the Australian government's _Style Guide_ for
authors, editors and printers.)

If published standards disagree on which of "who are you giving it to"
and "to whom are you giving it" should be used, what is a man to write?
For the English-speaking person is born under the domination of the
moon, which is never steadfast but ever wavering: Waxing one season but
waning and decreasing the next. Certainly it is hard to please everyone
because of the diversity and change of language.

I see nothing wrong with defacto standards myself, and I would object
if someone suggested that I didn't speak Standard English because I
didn't use 'whom'. (I would not object if they pointed out I speak of
chooks (whole or living chicken), treat 'farther' as a misspelling of
'father', and think "having a punt" means "to give it a shot"; these
are all departures from the Standard.)

--
Tristan.

Reply