Popcorn Posted October 19, 2005 Share Posted October 19, 2005 Oh dear...what a day I'm having! I posted some time ago (in a different thread that I can't find to bring back to life) about a student of mine writing me a letter and using 'text' language. Well, today I have had two of the most appalling grammatical emails from a buyer from one of the top retail stores in the country. (I'm reluctant to name names for obvious reasons) After sending off artwork to her which has taken me two days to complete, this is the comment I received back - which I am to act on...???? Can you change from been tonal thanks and that was literally it Just what is happening to being able to write full, correct (and polite) sentences? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Frugal Posted October 19, 2005 Share Posted October 19, 2005 At least it started with a capital letter ! All is not lost ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popcorn Posted October 19, 2005 Author Share Posted October 19, 2005 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick&Trish Posted October 19, 2005 Share Posted October 19, 2005 Gina, I suppose we should all be grateful she said 'thanks', but I am mystified as to what her message meant! Trish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popcorn Posted October 19, 2005 Author Share Posted October 19, 2005 I think I'm more annoyed that I didn't even get a, 'Dear Gina, I have received your artwork - thankyou' Well, I've done the only thing I can, and passed the buck to the company who pay me to freelance for them. They can sort it out and delegate accordingly, once they've decifered her coded email Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheilaz Posted October 19, 2005 Share Posted October 19, 2005 That's terrible, I would have felt too. Whatever happened to simple courtesy? Did the content make sense to you? Can you change been tonal? I don't think you should, we like you just how you are! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dogmother Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Hmmm, like the one Tesco had about something being 'Everyday' - it's every day for goodness sake! I sometimes get letters jumbled up, but that's beacuse I'm rubbish at typing and try to go too fast! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popcorn Posted October 20, 2005 Author Share Posted October 20, 2005 Dan, I stand corrected. I was so wound up, my fingers were steaming ahead of me. THANK YOU Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cate in NZ Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 My local Asda has big signs advertising Brolleys to borrow in bad weather I can't remember the who and whom rule properly, and don't want to post duff info- so I'll check out in "Eats, Shoots and Leaves", great book for dipping into, especially for people like me who do make the odd grammatical error . If I can find the definitive answer I'll post again later- unless of course someone beats me to it. Sheila's good at her grammar, so maybe she'll be along with the answer soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lesley Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 I can sort out who and whom Dan but I have two little helpers ( ) with me at the moment and brain has gone AWOL Kate may be along soon to help - or I may get back later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Frugal Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 "Who and Whom The number of people who use "whom" and "who" wrongly is appalling. The problem is a difficult one and it is complicated by the importance of tone, or taste. Take the common expression, "Whom are you, anyways?" That is of course, strictly speaking, correct - and yet how formal, how stilted! The usage to be preferred in ordinary speech and writing is "Who are you, anyways?" "Whom" should be used in the nominative case only when a note of dignity or austerity is desired. For example, if a writer is dealing with a meeting of, say, the British Cabinet, it would be better to have the Premier greet a new arrival, such as an under-secretary, with a "Whom are you, anyways?" rather than a "Who are you, anyways?" - always granted that the Premier is sincerely unaware of the man's identity. To address a person one knows by a "Whom are you?" is a mark either of incredible lapse of memory or inexcusable arrogance. "How are you?" is a much kindlier salutation. The Buried Whom, as it is called, forms a special problem. That is where the word occurs deep in a sentence. For a ready example, take the common expression: "He did not know whether he knew her or not because he had not heard whom the other had said she was until too late to see her." The simplest way out of this is to abandon the "whom" altogether and substitute "where" (a reading of the sentence that way will show how much better it is). Unfortunately, it is only in rare cases that "where" can be used in place of "whom." Nothing could be more flagrantly bad, for instance, than to say "Where are you?" in demanding a person's identity. The only conceivable answer is "Here I am," which would give no hint at all as to whom the person was. Thus the conversation, or piece of writing, would, from being built upon a false foundation, fall of its own weight. A common rule for determining whether "who" or "whom" is right is to substitute "she" for "who," and "her" for "whom," and see which sounds the better. Take the sentence, "He met a woman who they said was an actress." Now if "who" is correct then "she" can be used in its place. Let us try it. "He met a woman she they said was an actress." That instantly rings false. It can't be right. Hence the proper usage is "whom." In certain cases grammatical correctness must often be subordinated to a consideration of taste. For instance, suppose that the same person had met a man whom they said was a street cleaner. The word "whom" is too austere to use in connection with a lowly worker, like a street-cleaner, and its use in this form is known as False Administration or Pathetic Fallacy. You might say: "There is, then, no hard and fast rule?" ("was then" would be better, since "then" refers to what is past). You might better say (or have said): "There was then (or is now) no hard and fast rule?" Only this, that it is better to use "whom" when in doubt, and even better to re-word the statement, and leave out all the relative pronouns, except ad, ante, con, in , inter, ob, post, prae, pro, sub, and super. James Thurber: Ladies' and Gentlemen's Guide to Modern English Usage" Best I can do with very little time! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ali-s Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popcorn Posted October 20, 2005 Author Share Posted October 20, 2005 oh, is it all over....can i look now.... Oh, Kate...that was complicated. Can we get back to big knickers please Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Frugal Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Well, Lesley asked for it! I've had a heck of a busy day and she's asking me to explain the "who and whom" rule and I couldn't be bothered! Let someone else do it!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lesley Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 You were just showing off And I was being nice to you by telling everyone you would be able to tell them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Frugal Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 No, I was just showing that I can cut and paste off good old Google ! I did look it up in my English Usage book but it was too complicated!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lesley Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Yes - I did notice that Fowler's Modern English Usage has over three pages of unintelligible gibberish on the matter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheilaz Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Oh, wait for me! I've only just logged on, and I (sadly ) love this discussion! As someone with the albatross of R.P. I'd rather not have my accent, really Dan, but its hard to drop. Two people in the last year have said I should be on the radio, as I have the voice for it. (Notice they didn't say television, they obviously don't think I have the face for that!) Not that one (!) can learn to speak properly by following BBC radio, the grammar isn't always correct, nowadays. Everyday can be either one or 2 words, depending on context. What shall I wear to the party? Oh, just your everyday clothes will be fine. Who or whom, I do know, but will have to think of some examples and post again. Hope you can all wait for that. I know you love my uncomplicated explanations! But Dan, you are correct in not using whom if not sure. To me it grates when it is used incorrectly, but an ommission is acceptable! Oh, the company of fellow pedants. Bliss! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Frugal Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Ummmmmmm.........................no! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheilaz Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Yes, I can, but can you wait a few more minutes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheilaz Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Who or whom, I do know, but will have to think of some examples and post again. Hope you can all wait for that. Don't be impatient, I had to read a really long chapter to Esther! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheilaz Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Well, I've never been taught the rules formally, so this is just my informal interpretation. Some examples do sound archaic, accepted language has changed a lot in a couple of generations, so to speak in the "correct language" of our forefathers can actually sound stilted or pretentious now. So I wouldn't overdo it. But, here we go; Try to avoid ending a sentence with "to" or "with" Who did you go to the party with? xxx With whom did you go to the party? Whose party are you going to? xxx To whose party are you going? Who does this pen belong to xxx To whom does this pen belong? There are tech.language terms for this, but I thought you'd all if I went any further. Another horrible misuse is "myself" instead of "I". Its usually self important, as in... Myself & my business partner decided to open a restaurant. xxxx My business partner & I decided to open a restaurant. Nowadays, I don't use whom every time wot I shud, because then no one will speak to me! It depends to whom I am talking (It depends who I am talking to) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dogmother Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 I love it Sheila, now at last, I understand something, which has baffled me for years. I will try to be correct now! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lesley Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Oh, the company of fellow pedants. Bliss! Did you mean me? When the forum was still small I used to correct other people's spelling I've stopped doing that now .....and then I made a memorable typo which SarahJo will come and repeat ........and I don't type like wot I orta either anymore Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheilaz Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 .... the company of fellow pedants. Now how's that for a great band name? Did you mean me? Yes! But now we're not the only ones to whom this applies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
