Pedants' Paradise

[vinteuil]

I couldn't really object to "gotten" which is the historical past participle which the British still use in the derivatives "forgotten" and "begotten" and the fossilised form "ill-gotten".

There again, I still remember a quote from Shakespeare's Antony and Cleo, umpteen years after learning it for A Level, in which Enobarbus sarcastically observes:
"That truth should be silent I had almost forgot".

... and the line which shd sear itself in to the mind of any hearer - Albany, who has forgotten the important info re Cordelia -


KENT I am come
To bid my king and master aye good night:
Is he not here?

ALBANY Great thing of us forgot!
Speak, Edmund, where's the king? and where's Cordelia?   


[ King Lear, V iii 275-279 ]

.

[Serial_Apologist]

Fall = autumn?; "I loaned her some money"?; normalcy?; "zee" (for zed)?; gotten?

Also used by some Scottish-born people, evidently. Some....

[french frank]

... and the line which shd sear itself in to the mind of any hearer

I see no reason why gunpowder treason should ever be forgot.

[french frank]

Meanwhile it looks as if lead/led will be the next bastion to fall to analogy; but why not read/red, I wonder, rather than lead/lead?

[kernelbogey]

who/whom

She switched labels, to BMG, whom she said treated her like a “legacy artist”. Guardian 14.1.19

This is the second time recently I've come across this construction in the last few days. Gramatically, it's surely incorrect - proved by taking she said out of the sentence.

But (as I say increasingly frequently to my pedantic part) it's comprehensible so what does it matter?

Views?

[Pabmusic]

who/whom

She switched labels, to BMG, whom she said treated her like a “legacy artist”. Guardian 14.1.19

This is the second time recently I've come across this construction in the last few days. Gramatically, it's surely incorrect - proved by taking she said out of the sentence.

But (as I say increasingly frequently to my pedantic part) it's comprehensible so what does it matter?

Views?

It's definitely incorrect (if you restructed the text you wouldn't say "him treated her like...").

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

It's definitely incorrect (if you restructed the text you wouldn't say "him treated her like...").

[Mal]

who/whom

She switched labels, to BMG, whom she said treated her like a “legacy artist”. Guardian 14.1.19

This is the second time recently I've come across this construction in the last few days. Gramatically, it's surely incorrect - proved by taking she said out of the sentence.

Views?

It's comprehensible and didn't seem wrong when I first read it. Taking out the "she said" makes "whom" seem immediately wrong. But "who" or "whom" don't grate, on me, when "she said" is left in. My knowledge of grammar is awful, though, and tolerance quite high :) But might it be possible that leaving "she said" in allows for the use of "whom". Maybe I should try and learn some grammar, so here's a quote from grammarly.com:

"Whom should be used to refer to the object of a verb or preposition. When in doubt, try this simple trick: If you can replace the word with “he”' or “'she,” use who. If you can replace it with “him” or “her,” use whom. Who should be used to refer to the subject of a sentence."

Can BMG be a "who" are "whom" when it's not a "he" or a "she"? Using "it" seems strange, but repeating "BMG" seems awkward. I read the following lengthy blog post, which suggests you can use plural "they" or singular "it" depending on circumstance:

https://www.businesswritingblog.com/business_writing/2015/10/should-a-company-be-it-or-we-.html

I think we can extend grammarlys example for the "they" case, though being pedantic one would wish confirmation of this. So, I think we can replace "BMG" with “they”, but not "them", and therefore must use who.

But "whom" still doesn't make me upset, no intuitive pedant me, I'm a lost clause :)

[french frank]

who/whom

She switched labels, to BMG, whom she said treated her like a “legacy artist”. Guardian 14.1.19

This is the second time recently I've come across this construction in the last few days. Gramatically, it's surely incorrect - proved by taking she said out of the sentence.

But (as I say increasingly frequently to my pedantic part) it's comprehensible so what does it matter?

Views?

My view is that it would have been better to have included commas (or even parenthesis) as that would surely(!!??) have made the mistake impossible to make in the first place: 'who(m), she said, treated her…

Does it matter? What does matter? It might indicate poor powers of analysis, though for most people that hardly matters anyway.

[Mal]

Anyway, thanks for pointing me to the Guardian they are relaying Andy Murray's "last match" live. Long match, looks like a five setter, ouch!

[gurnemanz]

It's comprehensible and didn't seem wrong when I first read it.

I assume that is why the writer who correctly used "whom she met" earlier in the text, got it wrong. On the surface it appears right, along the lines: If "whom she met" is correct then "whom she said " must also be.
Not quite the same, but years ago I read Chomsky and remember him illustrating deep structure and surface structure using the pair of phrases, "eager to please" and "easy to please". On the surface their structure appears identical but at a deeper syntactic level the first is active and the second is passive.

[kernelbogey]

Does it matter? What does matter?

I wouldn't have written that, even with the commas. But 'should' I be complaining about others writing thus?

I think it's pedantic teaching about who/whom, I/me that has led folks to overcorrect themselves into a mistake. An educated friend regularly makes sentences like 'It was a gift to Susan and I'; and another says 'Jane and me would love to see you....' I bite my tongue in their presences.

Me seems now to be so widely used in the subject position that I think the 'correct' usage to be irretrievable.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

If you can replace the word with “he”' or “'she,” use who. If you can replace it with “him” or “her,” use whom. Who should be used to refer to the subject of a sentence."

Can BMG be a "who" are "whom" when it's not a "he" or a "she"?

If you add "they" to the "he" and "she" examples, and "them" to the "him" and "her", it might make things clearer.

"Who treated her badly?" "They did". (Or "he did" or "she did")
"By whom was she badly treated?" "By them" (or "by her" or by him").

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

An educated friend regularly makes sentences like 'It was a gift to Susan and I'; and another says 'Jane and me would love to see you....' I bite my tongue in their presences.

There was a Head of English (I kid thee not) at a Grammar School (ditto) who always said things like "speak to Mrs Smith or I if you're interested" in Assemblies.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I assume that is why the writer who correctly used "whom she met" earlier in the text, got it wrong. On the surface it appears right, along the lines: If "whom she met" is correct then "whom she said " must also be.

Not in this particular context - "whom she met" ("she met him/them") is correct - the verb is "met" and is done with here ("she met him outside the pub"). With "whom she said", the verb isn't complete - we're still waiting for what they had done ("had treated her badly" is the focus of this sentence, not what the woman had said had happened). "They (she said) had treated her badly" - "who (she said) had treated her badly".


("whom she said" would work in a context such as "The Officers of the FBI, for whom she said she had nothing but contempt, treated her badly")