How to cheat in exams using mobile phones and calculators

John Porcella wrote:
> "Robert Low" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>John Porcella wrote:
>>> Low wrote
>>>>If you're going to be pedantic, that's "Whom do you teach?" :-)
>>>Methinks not!
>>And why does it seem to you not to be the case?
> On further reflection, I am not so sure! It just does not seem entirely
> right, though I could not tell you why I feel this.

Just because it's unfamiliar. It's technically correct Standard
English, but Standard English uses fairly artificial rules for
the who/whom and I/me distinctions.

---

› See More: How to cheat in exams using mobile phones and calculators

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 09:43:56 +0000, Robert Low <[email protected]>
wrote:

>John Porcella wrote:
>> "Robert Low" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>John Porcella wrote:
>>>> Low wrote
>>>>>If you're going to be pedantic, that's "Whom do you teach?" :-)
>>>>Methinks not!
>>>And why does it seem to you not to be the case?
>> On further reflection, I am not so sure! It just does not seem entirely
>> right, though I could not tell you why I feel this.
>
>Just because it's unfamiliar. It's technically correct Standard
>English, but Standard English uses fairly artificial rules for
>the who/whom and I/me distinctions.


This from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

<http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/whom>

Main Entry: whom

Pronunciation: 'hüm, üm

Function: pronoun, objective case of WHO

Etymology: Middle English, from Old English hwAm, dative of hwA who
-- used as an interrogative or relative; used as object of a verb or a
preceding preposition <to know for whom the bell tolls -- John Donne>
or less frequently as the object of a following preposition <the man
whom you wrote to> though now often considered stilted especially as
an interrogative and especially in oral use -- occasionally used as
predicate nominative with a copulative verb or as subject of a verb
especially in the vicinity of a preposition or a verb of which it
might mistakenly be considered the object <whom say ye that I am --
Matthew 16:15 (Authorized Version)> <people... whom you never thought
would sympathize -- Shea Murphy>

usage:

Observers of the language have been predicting the demise of whom from
about 1870 down to the present day <one of the pronoun cases is
visibly disappearing--the objective case whom -- R. G. White (1870)>
<whom is dying out in England, where "Whom did you see?" sounds
affected -- Anthony Burgess (1980)>. Our evidence shows that no
one--English or not--should expect whom to disappear momentarily; it
shows every indication of persisting quite a while yet. Actual usage
of who and whom--accurately described at the entries in this
dictionary--does not appear to be markedly different from the usage of
Shakespeare's time. But the 18th century grammarians, propounding
rules and analogies, rejecting other rules and analogies, and usually
justifying both with appeals to Latin or Greek, have intervened
between us and Shakespeare. It seems clear that the grammarians' rules
have had little effect on the traditional uses. One thing they have
accomplished is to encourage hypercorrect uses of whom <whom shall I
say is calling?>. Another is that they have made some people unsure of
themselves <said he was asked to step down, although it is not known
exactly who or whom asked him -- Redding (Conn.) Pilot>.

But I'll go by a trusted source -- blues lyrics ...

"Tell me baby, who do you love?"

quasi

On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 22:56:36 UTC, "John Porcella"
<[email protected]> wrote:

: Which would mean that I should go around asking "Whom are you?" rather than
: "Who are you?" After all, it is a question asking about identity!

Sir perhaps needs to check what case the verb "to be" takes.

Ian


--

"Ian Johnston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-k4WjldLCcHR9@localhost...
> On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 22:56:36 UTC, "John Porcella"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> : Which would mean that I should go around asking "Whom are you?" rather
than
> : "Who are you?" After all, it is a question asking about identity!
>
> Sir perhaps needs to check what case the verb "to be" takes.

Case? In English?


--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

John Porcella did write:

> Ian Johnston wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 22:56:36 UTC, "John Porcella"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Which would mean that I should go around asking "Whom are you?"
>>> rather than "Who are you?" After all, it is a question asking about
>>> identity!
>>
>> Sir perhaps needs to check what case the verb "to be" takes.
>
> Case? In English?

Me agree.

--
BdeV

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 09:25:11 UTC, Robert de Vincy <[email protected]>
wrote:

: John Porcella did write:
:
: > Ian Johnston wrote:
: >
: >> On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 22:56:36 UTC, "John Porcella"
: >> <[email protected]> wrote:
: >>
: >>> Which would mean that I should go around asking "Whom are you?"
: >>> rather than "Who are you?" After all, it is a question asking about
: >>> identity!
: >>
: >> Sir perhaps needs to check what case the verb "to be" takes.
: >
: > Case? In English?
:
: Me agree.

That's telling he.

Ian

On 31 Dec 2005 09:58:15 GMT, "Ian Johnston"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 09:25:11 UTC, Robert de Vincy <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>: John Porcella did write:
>:
>: > Ian Johnston wrote:
>: >
>: >> On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 22:56:36 UTC, "John Porcella"
>: >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>: >>
>: >>> Which would mean that I should go around asking "Whom are you?"
>: >>> rather than "Who are you?" After all, it is a question asking about
>: >>> identity!
>: >>
>: >> Sir perhaps needs to check what case the verb "to be" takes.
>: >
>: > Case? In English?
>:
>: Me agree.
>
>That's telling he.
>
That's telling who?

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 10:34:10 UTC, quasi <[email protected]> wrote:

: On 31 Dec 2005 09:58:15 GMT, "Ian Johnston"
: <[email protected]> wrote:
:
: >On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 09:25:11 UTC, Robert de Vincy <[email protected]>
: >wrote:
: >
: >: John Porcella did write:
: >:
: >: > Ian Johnston wrote:
: >: >
: >: >> On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 22:56:36 UTC, "John Porcella"
: >: >> <[email protected]> wrote:
: >: >>
: >: >>> Which would mean that I should go around asking "Whom are you?"
: >: >>> rather than "Who are you?" After all, it is a question asking about
: >: >>> identity!
: >: >>
: >: >> Sir perhaps needs to check what case the verb "to be" takes.
: >: >
: >: > Case? In English?
: >:
: >: Me agree.
: >
: >That's telling he.
: >
: That's telling who?

It's him who me tell.

Ian

On 31 Dec 2005 10:49:28 GMT, "Ian Johnston"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 10:34:10 UTC, quasi <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>: On 31 Dec 2005 09:58:15 GMT, "Ian Johnston"
>: <[email protected]> wrote:
>:
>: >On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 09:25:11 UTC, Robert de Vincy <[email protected]>
>: >wrote:
>: >
>: >: John Porcella did write:
>: >:
>: >: > Ian Johnston wrote:
>: >: >
>: >: >> On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 22:56:36 UTC, "John Porcella"
>: >: >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>: >: >>
>: >: >>> Which would mean that I should go around asking "Whom are you?"
>: >: >>> rather than "Who are you?" After all, it is a question asking about
>: >: >>> identity!
>: >: >>
>: >: >> Sir perhaps needs to check what case the verb "to be" takes.
>: >: >
>: >: > Case? In English?
>: >:
>: >: Me agree.
>: >
>: >That's telling he.
>: >
>: That's telling who?
>
>It's him who me tell.

Ah, so it's for he the tell is told.

| quasi wrote:
|> Ian Johnston wrote:
|>: quasi wrote:
|>:> Ian Johnston wrote:
|>:>: Robert de Vincy wrote:
|>:>:> John Porcella wrote:
|>:>:>> Ian Johnston wrote:
|>:>:>>> John Porcella wrote:
|>:>:>>> Which would mean that I should go around asking "Whom are you?"
|>:>:>>> rather than "Who are you?" After all, it is a question asking about
|>:>:>>> identity!
|>:>:>> Sir perhaps needs to check what case the verb "to be" takes.
|>:>:> Case? In English?
|>:>: Me agree.
|>:>That's telling he.
|>: That's telling who?
|>It's him who me tell.
| Ah, so it's for he the tell is told.

You guys crack me up.