Pedants, pedantry and other language issues.

[Aruntraveller]

A number of threads have recently digressed into discussions around the English language. This has highlighted the differing approaches (should that be different approaches?) that posters take to using our glorious mother tongue.*

Instead of infecting ongoing threads with your gripes, complaints, puns and jokes about this issue bring them here where we can be as pedantic as we like 

This article is interesting and sums up roughly, for what it's worth, my approach to the English language and it's foibles.

https://theconversation.com/what-grammar-pedants-and-fashion-victims-have-in-common-55248

* I realised as soon as I typed this that it might provoke an outburst of what I would term "nationalist language pedantry" - if it does please start another thread if you feel so inclined. And as for the use of the feminine "mother".........

[Nearly Sane]

The only changes I have struggled with is the misuse of the apostrophe because it makes it difficult to understand what is written sometimes, and the loss of the word literally to meaning not literally as there isn't a like for like replacement - you can use actually bit it doesn't seem as clear. As long as the meaning is clear, I have no problem with language changes. And sometimes much the best use of language isn't clear - see James Joyce.

[Outrider]

I am at once and the same time so progressive on the 'language moves and changes' school, but teeth-clenchingly averse to regional accents mispronouncing basic words.

Bath has a long vowel, grass has a long vowel...

O.

[Aruntraveller]

Bath has a long vowel, grass has a long vowel...

Not in Nottingham they don't 

[Harrowby Hall]

Operationally, i know the difference between who and whom but I would have difficulty explaining it in grammatical terms.

One of causes of problems that we have endured over the years has been the influence of the 19th (and early 20th) century belief that the grammar rules of Latin were applicable to all other languages - including English. This caused me much pain at my grammar school which had institutionally established Latin as the most important subject taught in the school.

Of course Latin should be taught and studied (by those who want to study it) but there should be a recognition that Dead Mediterranean Languages are of no greater significance than any other subject. And I am starting a sentence with a conjunction. I wish to boldy split my inifintives. And write my sort of English that you all have to put uo with.

[Steve H]

A number of threads have recently digressed into discussions around the English language.

What's wrong with the well-established "about"? "Around" in this context is a tiresome affectation.

This has highlighted the differing approaches (should that be different approaches?)

Either.

that posters take to using our glorious mother tongue.*

Instead of infecting

"infesting" would be more appropriate

ongoing threads with your gripes, complaints, puns and jokes about this issue

,

bring them here where we can be as pedantic as we like 

This article is interesting

,

and sums up roughly, for what it's worth, my approach to the English language and it's

its

foibles.

https://theconversation.com/what-grammar-pedants-and-fashion-victims-have-in-common-55248

* I realised as soon as I typed this that it might provoke an outburst of what I would term "nationalist language pedantry" - if it does

,

please start another thread

,

if you feel so inclined. And

"...inclined; and..."

as for the use of the feminine "mother".........

[Steve H]

Operationally, i know the difference between who and whom but I would have difficulty explaining it in grammatical terms.

"Who" is the subject; "whom" is the object.

[Roses]

Latin is a dead language
As dead as dead can be
First it killed the Romans
Now it's killing me

That was our mantra when I was at school. The Latin master thought he was the ghost of a prophet, he was absolutely USELESS!

amo, amas, amat, amamus, amatis, amant. is all I recollect from those lessons.

[Harrowby Hall]

"Who" is the subject; "whom" is the object.

It's more complex than that:

He told me to which restaurant he had been and who he had dined with.

He told me which restaurant he had been to and with whom he had dined.

[jeremyp]

It's more complex than that:

He told me to which restaurant he had been and who he had dined with.

He told me which restaurant he had been to and with whom he had dined.

That isn't more complex than the rule states. In your example, who/whom is functioning as the object. You can test it out by using he/him or she/her instead of who/whom.

"with her he had dined".

That's a bit Yoda^*, so you can rearrange the order: "he had dined with her".

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/who-vs-whom-its-not-as-complicated-as-you-might-think/

^*Yes, I repurposed a noun as an adjective. Sue me.

[Harrowby Hall]

Sue me.

Thnk you for the invitation, but with the way the economy seems to be, facing catastrophe, you'll probably need the money for your old age.

[Steve H]

It's more complex than that:

He told me to which restaurant he had been and who he had dined with.

He told me which restaurant he had been to and with whom he had dined.

No, it isn't. the first should also be "whom".
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/who-vs-whom-its-not-as-complicated-as-you-might-think/
I see JP beat me to it with that link.

[Free Willy]

Do they mean me?

[Aruntraveller]

Do they mean me?

It's not always about you 

[Walter]

I was telling someone I used to wear a pedant round my neck
She said don't you mean pendant ?
I said no I murdered the annoying twat , burnt him and put his ashes in a necklace !
👍

[jeremyp]

I was telling someone I used to wear a pedant round my neck
She said don't you mean pendant ?
I said no I murdered the annoying twat , burnt him and put his ashes in a necklace !
👍

You missed a trick there. If you had used a pendant, it would be a pedant in a pendant.