Re: "To whom"

On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 08:54:00PM +1100, Tristan McLeay wrote:
> 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'.
An excellent point.  I sit corrected.  At this point, I no longer even
recall to whom (:)) Chris was replying when he sent his original rant.
If it was in fact I, then the latter is certainly the case.

Let me clarify my position, since it seems to have gotten lost in the
muck: I don't care whether or not anyone uses "whom".  I consider it an
optional feature.  The only, and I repeat only, thing I found the least
bit offensive in Chris's rant were the insults directed at those who
*do* use it.

That's it, and that's all.  This thread has gone on far too long, and
I'm done.  I'm going to address Tristan's points; anyone wishing to
discuss this matter further may reply to me in private.


> Who publishes the English Standard though?
Well, that was sort of my point - there isn't one.  It is precisely for
that reason that it is misleading to refer to such a thing as "standard
English".  There are, however, several competing "standards" to choose
from (or "from which to choose") which describe the grapholect I have
been calling "formal written English".

> 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?

Whichever said man feels is appropriate!  Either is "correct" according
to some standard.  So go either way.   Just don't go around insulting
the people who choose differently.


> I see nothing wrong with defacto standards myself,
Nor do I.  But de facto standards are by nature descriptive, not
prescriptive.  So to say "practically nobody uses 'whom', therefore its
use is non-Standard English" is to take the defacto standardization
process too ar.

-Marcos

Reply