Re: "To whom"

Christian Thalmann <cinga@...> wrote:
> On another side note, if the dropping of whom should be considered
> the standard just because people do it all the time, then maybe
> "could of" and "definatly" should also be considered the correct
> forms, and everything else be decried as arrogance.
Bah! Spelling ain't grammar.[1]

Grammar, theoretically, describes what people consider ordinary speech--
prescriptivist grammar, from that, describing what people consider
educated or formal speech--but English spelling, in having divorced
itself from English speech, especially as far as unstressed
vowels are concerned, is entirely prescriptive.  IMHO, you don't get
the right to pick and choose your spellings (e.g. things like 'nite');
and being unaware of the standard spelling is just that: being unaware
of the standard spelling.

Now, spelling variations to represent _pronunciation_ variations
is a different matter entirely.  I use adjectival -eh all the time.
But the person who writes "definatly" is *saying* the same thing
as the person who writes "definitely".


	*Muke!

[1] Yes, for some few people "could of" actually involves a real "of",
and writing it that way might be justifiable [albeit not to prescriptivist
grammarians] but IME most people who write 'could of' actually say
"could've".
--
website:     http://frath.net/
LiveJournal: http://kohath.livejournal.com/
deviantArt:  http://kohath.deviantart.com/

FrathWiki, a conlang and conculture wiki:
http://wiki.frath.net/

Reply