| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
JonnyB61
Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Posts: 216
Location: Japan
|
 Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 6:30 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| furiousmilksheikali wrote: |
| By the way, I'm currently reading a book |
In the following quotation the word book should be pronounced to rhyme with juke and the whole thing should be done in a high-pitched shriek.
A book??? (shaking head) No good ever came out of books!
Spoken by Nora Batty, so it must be true!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
DNK
Joined: 22 Jan 2007
Posts: 236
Location: the South
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 10:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Perhaps I haven't explained my position clearly enough, as I think I'm fairly in agreement with you. I'm saying that when read or heard (I'm not sure when one would actually hear "whom", to be honest) there's not much distinction to be made, as it requires no conscious knowledge of the rules regarding "whom" over "who" usage. I could say, "read 'to whom it may concern' as 'to who it may concern.'" Would I be wrong?
Now, I would of course add the caveat that saying or writing "to who it may concern" is improper, and in some exceptional instances will need to be known, but teaching it would really depend on the class and the students' needs. Business classes probably would need it, since grammar is a bit more important in that context, but for an average conversation class I would doubt the utility of it, especially spending significant time in going over the rules and practicing its usage.
Maybe I'm still wrong, though, in your opinion? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sweeney Todd
Joined: 29 Apr 2007
Posts: 71
Location: The Dosshouse Down the Mile End Road
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 4:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
OUP, CUP, Longman and Heinneman all removed 'whom' from their course books and skills books about twenty years ago
UCLES, (Google it!), pointed out that 'whom' is now an anachronism and recommended that teachers discontinue teaching it, and that was over ten years ago.
Of course, words don't just disappear overnight like turning off a light but 'whom' now really only appears in sentences produced by those attempting to display their erudition and no longer has an active role in modern English.
The example: To whom do you want to speak? comes across as tortuously contrived and archaic when compared to the modern: who do you want to speak to?
Along with the rest of the dative case in English, the word 'whom' has had a hearty breakfast and it is condemned to die.
Last edited by Sweeney Todd on Fri May 18, 2007 6:03 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
furiousmilksheikali
Joined: 31 Jul 2006
Posts: 1660
Location: In a coffee shop, splitting a 30,000 yen tab with Sekiguchi.
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 5:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sweeney Todd wrote: |
UCLES, (Google it!), pointed out that 'whom' is now an anachronism and recommended that teachers discontinue teaching it, and that was over ten years ago.
|
Very good of them to do so.
Why did they produce this worksheet then?
http://www.cambridgeesol.org/teach/SfL/Entry_1-3_Writing/Activities%20list/formal_informal_lang_letters_work.htm
Or provide instructions such as these:
| Quote: |
| In the case of the Speaking Tests, examiners undergo a standardisation session each year to ensure that they are assessing performances correctly. During the live test, two examiners are present, each of whom gives an independent assessment of each candidates' performance. Examiners are also monitored on a regular basis by Team Leaders. |
http://www.cambridgeesol.org/about_us/faqs/ms_gen_faqs.htm
In some cases the use of whom seems less like a show of erudition and more like a natural choice of word, as in this example also taken from the UCLES webiste:
| Quote: |
Is it an advantage to know your partner in the Speaking test?
No. Candidates should be encouraged to change partners in class so that they grow accustomed to interacting with a variety of people, some of whom they don't know well. |
I think when appealing to authority it would be useful to do so with an er... authority that doesn't smack of hypocrisy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sweeney Todd
Joined: 29 Apr 2007
Posts: 71
Location: The Dosshouse Down the Mile End Road
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 6:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| furiousmilksheikali wrote: |
| I think when appealing to authority it would be useful to do so with an er... authority that doesn't smack of hypocrisy. |
Point taken, but I have to say that this is not the first example I've seen of UCLES saying one thing and doing another so perhaps I shouldn't have brought them into it.
I'll still give you 10 / 1 that in 50 years 'whom' will have sunk beneath the waves.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JonnyB61
Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Posts: 216
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 6:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sweeney Todd wrote: |
UCLES, (Google it!), pointed out that 'whom' is now an anachronism and recommended that teachers discontinue teaching it, and that was over ten years ago.
|
I read that as well. I think it was in one of the FCE reports in the early 90's.
I wish they'd make their minds up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
furiousmilksheikali
Joined: 31 Jul 2006
Posts: 1660
Location: In a coffee shop, splitting a 30,000 yen tab with Sekiguchi.
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 1:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sweeney Todd wrote: |
| I'll still give you 10 / 1 that in 50 years 'whom' will have sunk beneath the waves. |
Well, I doubt I will be kicking it then. But I disagree with the idea that 'whom' does not have quite natural uses.
One of those times is similar to when someone wants to make a surprising statement. It is a matter of stylistics but you could ask, 'Who discovered Newfoundland?' or 'Newfoundland was discovered by whom?' depending upon the point you were trying to make. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
canuck
Joined: 11 May 2003
Posts: 1921
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 1:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| furiousmilksheikali wrote: |
| One of those times is similar to when someone wants to make a surprising statement. It is a matter of stylistics but you could ask, 'Who discovered Newfoundland?' or 'Newfoundland was discovered by whom?' depending upon the point you were trying to make. |
According to a website on the internet...
| Quote: |
Aboriginal people first discovered Newfoundland thousands of years ago, but in their present day oral tradition there is no individual associated with their discovery of Newfoundland.
The first known European individual associated with the discovery of Newfoundland is the Viking Leif Eiriksson who landed at L'Anse aux Meadows, near St. Anthony on the northern tip of Newfoundland, in the summer of 1000 or 1001 AD. We know this because his discovery is written down in trustworthy sagas that are preserved in European museums, and Viking ruins were found in 1960 at L'Anse aux Meadows where the sagas intimated they would be found. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nomadder
Joined: 15 Feb 2003
Posts: 709
Location: Somewherebetweenhereandthere
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 11:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Canuck, please don't tell me you're from Newfoundland because if so I recommend that you go home for a refresher course, judging by your posts here. Been on a vacation lately?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnosheep
Joined: 01 Mar 2004
Posts: 2068
Location: eslcafe
|
| Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 4:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DNK wrote: |
| I'd say that for all intents and purposes ['who' and 'whom'] are basically the same when read or heard (but just don't write or say "whom" and you should be fine). |
So, obviously, they are not, for all intents [sic] and purposes the same. For if they were we could substitute them at will and a sentence such as "Whom are you?" would make sense, which it doesn't.
| DNK wrote: |
| I consider Hemingway old. Anything before the last twenty years = "old" to me. |
nuf said |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
furiousmilksheikali
Joined: 31 Jul 2006
Posts: 1660
Location: In a coffee shop, splitting a 30,000 yen tab with Sekiguchi.
|
| Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 2:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks Canuck, I think you completely missed the point of my post but that's okay. Judging from your other posts I'd say aren't likely to understand and it was unfair of me to think you would.
But just to keep you out of trouble, who dicovered France, Mercury, ants, air and the Holy handgrenade of Antioch? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sweeney Todd
Joined: 29 Apr 2007
Posts: 71
Location: The Dosshouse Down the Mile End Road
|
| Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| furiousmilksheikali wrote: |
| who dicovered France, Mercury, ants, air and the Holy handgrenade of Antioch? |
Shouldn't that be: France, Mercury, ants, air and the Holy Handgrenade of Antioch were all discovered by whom?
Just a thought. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnosheep
Joined: 01 Mar 2004
Posts: 2068
Location: eslcafe
|
| Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 6:20 pm Post subject: Blissed are the ignorant?... |
|
|
Now don't be silly. Of course it shouldn't. If for no other reason than the simple one that the all in were all discovered by would imply that they were all discovered by the same person, which of course they were not.
In any case you would appear to have missed the main point of furious' post: That Xyz was discovered by whom?, when delivered in a sufficiently smug and rising tone, with appropriate eyebrow lifting and a suppressed smile, expresses one's surprise at one's interlocuters ignorance in a far more satisfying manner than a Who discovered xyz? with or without appropriate facial gestures, ever could. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sweeney Todd
Joined: 29 Apr 2007
Posts: 71
Location: The Dosshouse Down the Mile End Road
|
| Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 11:31 pm Post subject: Re: Blissed are the ignorant?... |
|
|
| stillnosheep wrote: |
Now don't be silly. Of course it shouldn't. If for no other reason than the simple one that the all in were all discovered by would imply that they were all discovered by the same person, which of course they were not.
In any case you would appear to have missed the main point of furious' post: That Xyz was discovered by whom?, when delivered in a sufficiently smug and rising tone, with appropriate eyebrow lifting and a suppressed smile, expresses one's surprise at one's interlocuters ignorance in a far more satisfying manner than a Who discovered xyz? with or without appropriate facial gestures, ever could. |
Don't state the obvious.
I was only having a bit of a lark. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
