Pedants' Paradise

[Serial_Apologist]

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")

I think that's right. If the original sentance had said, "... whom she attacked by saying...", this would have been an enactment by herself on him, whereas in fact he is in a passive, indirect relationship to whatever she is claiming, so, only being in indirect relationship to the stater, cannot be in the accusative.

[Serial_Apologist]

An interesting one came up in a radio interview yesterday which pricked my ears up: the use of the word "unlikeable" in speaking of certain persons. Surely it is not possible to "unlike" somebody? "Dislike" would be correct - some people being "dislikeable". "Unlike" is used to define dissimilarity as opposed to similarity.

[french frank]

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

IOW, you can meet someone (i.e. direct object), you cannot say someone as this requires a proposition - indirect object. In that context the relative would be 'to whom'.

But does it matter? If you think it matters, it matters to you (and possibly to others). If you don't think it matters, it doesn't matter to you (but it may matter to others, which may or may not have direct repercussions for you).

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

But does it matter? If you think it matters, it matters to you (and possibly to others). If you don't think it matters, it doesn't matter to you (but it may matter to others, which may or may not have direct repercussions for you).

At over four thousand posts on this eight-year-old Thread "for people who enjoy being pedantic", I think it's a trifle late in the day to start concerning ourselves with whether or not any of it "matters"!

[subcontrabass]

An interesting one came up in a radio interview yesterday which pricked my ears up: the use of the word "unlikeable" in speaking of certain persons. Surely it is not possible to "unlike" somebody? "Dislike" would be correct - some people being "dislikeable". "Unlike" is used to define dissimilarity as opposed to similarity.

To me they have very different meanings. "unlikeable" is someone who cannot be liked, i.e. it derives from "likeable". "dislikeable" is someone who can be disliked, i.e. it derives from "dislike".

[french frank]

An interesting one came up in a radio interview yesterday which pricked my ears up: the use of the word "unlikeable" in speaking of certain persons. Surely it is not possible to "unlike" somebody? "Dislike" would be correct - some people being "dislikeable". "Unlike" is used to define dissimilarity as opposed to similarity.

Difference between use of prefix with adjective or with verb? Likeable/unlikeable; like/dislike. No, not that: agreeable/disagreeable; agree/disagree. Wont and usage, I suppose. Do/undo; doable/not doable …

Interesting point S_A.

Also: Wot sbc said, cf doable/not doable; doable/undoable.

[Serial_Apologist]

At over four thousand posts on this eight-year-old Thread "for people who enjoy being pedantic", I think it's a trifle late in the day to start concerning ourselves with whether or not any of it "matters"!

Objectively speaking, nothing "matters" - things can only matter TO someone, or some people.

[Serial_Apologist]

Difference between use of prefix with adjective or with verb? Likeable/unlikeable; like/dislike. No, not that: agreeable/disagreeable; agree/disagree. Wont and usage, I suppose. Do/undo; doable/not doable …

Interesting point S_A.

Also: Wot sbc said, cf doable/not doable; doable/undoable.

Aargh! - horrible! Practicable is the word I'd always use.

(Now I can see the opening up of another Pandora's Box of a another bugbear: practical/IMpractical being used rather than wot I was taught, namely practical/UNpractical, or practicable/IMpracticable.)

[kernelbogey]

At over four thousand posts on this eight-year-old Thread "for people who enjoy being pedantic", I think it's a trifle late in the day to start concerning ourselves with whether or not any of it "matters"!

I'm thinking along the lines of 'Does this matter enough to me that I should write to the Guardian to suggest that their subs are not doing their job?' And 'How could I say to my friends that when they regularly make those errors [see my previous post 4160] their language jars?'.

Pedantry expressed in the wider world can appear as a sense of superiority: the relative anonymity of this Forum is a slightly different matter.

[oddoneout]

But does it matter? If you think it matters, it matters to you (and possibly to others). If you don't think it matters, it doesn't matter to you (but it may matter to others, which may or may not have direct repercussions for you).

The question of whether such things matter falls into two broad categories for me. One is where something can be better phrased(more elegant, fewer words etc) and the other, more important, is where the actual meaning of what is written or spoken is changed by incorrect construction. As language changes some of the latter category become common usage and so for those who care about such things move into the former category. The use of 'either' instead of 'each' is one such that irritates me, not least because sometimes the 'accepted current' usage can lead to confusion - does 'two chairs either side of the fireplace' mean two chairs which can be on the lefthand or righthand side, two chairs each side(ie four in total) or one chair each side? Modern usage will be the latter, but by the same token could also be the second if 'either' and 'each' are taken as interchangeable.

[french frank]

And in today's news (BBC website):

'Disability hate crime: Katie Price backed
over online abuse by MPs'

[Serial_Apologist]

And in today's news (BBC website):

'Disability hate crime: Katie Price backed
over online abuse by MPs'

Reminds me of my own childhood request at the breakfast table: "Mummy, please can I watch Daddy go through the window?"

[french frank]

And in today's news (BBC website):

'Disability hate crime: Katie Price backed
over online abuse by MPs'

Never let such things pass - and don't say the BBC never listens, but curiously they've altered the headline on the front page, but not on the story

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Never let such things pass - and don't say the BBC never listens, but curiously they've altered the headline on the front page, but not on the story

Well - they have to keep something for The News Quiz

[subcontrabass]

Never let such things pass - and don't say the BBC never listens, but curiously they've altered the headline on the front page, but not on the story

They have now.