I think “whom” is a stupid word.  When i say it, over and over (whom whom whom whomwhomwhom), it starts to sound dumb really quickly.  Looks dumb too.

I almost never hear people use it.  When people do try, they fumble and become uncertain.  They stop and ask, “Wait, is it who or whom?”  Like I know.  Heck, like I care.

The point is, in colloquial conversation, nobody should be saying “whom.”

But until formal writing catches on, it’s probably a good idea to know the rules of “whom” vs “who.”

www.learn-english-today.com had a very concise website, with nicely laid out info on the matter–although, I was vaguly offended by the name of the website.  I’m not quite sure why, but I felt like I should be.

The main main main thing I learned was that I should use “who” in place of “she/he/they” and “whom” in place of “her/him/them.”

The other examples on the website seemed obvious/outdated and therefore not worth remembering.

Grammar Monster seemed pretty cool.  The website had some real life examples.  That’s not to say the other site didn’t, but these seemed more common, more . . . real.

I especially liked their tip: Don’t get it? Use who.

Yeah.  I’ll probably stick to that last idea.

I really like the ABC TV show ‘Can we help’? Obviously other people do too, because other TV networks have ripped off some of the segments on the show and turned them into new programs, for example the ‘Lost and found’ segment where they track down long lost relatives and friends became ‘Find my family’ on Network Seven. One of the regular panelists on the show is linguist Kate Burridge, the Chair of Linguistics at Monash University, who was one of the lecturers in the Masters of Applied Linguistics program that I completed last year. I love how she talks about words and language.

One concept I particularly liked in a paper she wrote about language change called ‘Linguistic Purism: The Tug-of-Love between Standard and Nonstandard’ was the idea of ‘linguistic weeds’. What makes a weed a weed and not a plant? Most definitions come down to them being ‘plants growing where we do not want them’, aside from other criteria such as whether they are noxious or extremely fast-growing. Similarly, linguistic purists often take great exception to new or morphing words being used ‘in the wrong place’, demanding to know which word or usage is right or wrong, or even whether something is a ‘real word’ or not. Some examples of changing usage in English that rub people up the wrong way include:

• He never did it.
• What you doing?
• That’s so much more better than…
• ‘Bought’ as past tense of ‘bring’ (as well as ‘buy’)
• ‘Me’ instead of ‘I’ – “David and me were late”

These could be considered ‘weeds’ in our language, at least in Australia in 2009. As Kate Burridge writes:

They are structural features of the language whose virtues have yet to be realized. They are the pronunciations we don’t want, the constructions that are out of place, the words we create but we hate. Like weedy plants they are entirely location and time specific. One speaker’s noxious weed can be another’s garden ornamental. Whether they are in gardens or in languages, weeds are totally centred around human value judgements.

Linguistic weeds today can become cherished garden contributors tomorrow… What many see as slipshod pronunciations, sloppy grammar, irritating coinages and new-fangled meanings are what provide the basis for real change. Some of them will drop by the wayside, it is true. Some will remain as variation. But there will be others that catch on, are used more and more and eventually become established.

Whether we like it or not, English is changing. It always has and always will. In this context arguments about which usage is right or wrong are futile. In many cases, there is no one correct expression, but a range of possible options. Just relax and go with the flow.

Language Log is discussing what the rules are for how we form the comparative and superlative of adjectives, or, I should say, which adjectives use the inflectional -er and -est, and which use the periphrastic “more”. Grammar books do explain this, and so do various internet sites, although some of the latter have rather dubious explanations. But Professor Zwicky is more interested in those adjectives where there is a dispute. A typical example is “tired”. I find it unremarkable to use the word “tireder”, but many people complain that it’s wrong, and many people who use it worry that they’re making a mistake.

My point of view is that, no matter what the idiomatic form is (and, clearly, people learning English need to learn idiomatic English), no-one should be criticised for making a comparative or superlative “mistake”. After all, it’s not as if the hearer or reader does not understand the meaning of “more nice” or “beautifuller”.

What about “more nicer”? Well, I baulk a little at it, just as I do at double negatives, but it’s common enough in slang parlance, and, again, it’s not at all ambiguous.

In response to Prof. Zwicky’s request, I’ve googled a few disputed inflectionals, as follows:

closeder
- You have a mind that is closeder than anything I can recall
- By the way, closeder is not a word
http://bit.ly/84QqyN

Non-native speakers discuss whether it’s possible to say “fuller”: http://bit.ly/4mTpD1

Moderner Warfare – Is moderner even a real word
http://midnightmultiplayer.blogspot.com/2008/05/call-of-duty-5-moderner-warfare.html

moderner…(woah, moderner is a word? Ok, spellchecker, if you say so..
http://bit.ly/8BMSDI

Many thanks to Brill for providing me with a copy of Stéphanie J Bakker’s The Noun Phrase in Ancient Greek: A Functional Analysis of the Order and Articulation of NP Constituents in Herodotus (ASCP 15; Leiden: Brill, 2009).

I actually received it a couple weeks ago, but I’ve been too busy to post lately. I’m about half way through the book thus far and have thoroughly enjoyed it. The first half of the book is a discussion of word order within the noun phrase and the second half deals with the function of the Greek article within the noun phrase. Part II is particularly excellent and unmatched in the literature on Ancient Greek. You can expect a full two or three part review probably toward the end of December or early January.

Wow, this is a great book.

As someone who has a highly vested interest in syntax databases, I’m excited to hear David Lang say that Syntax databases will be coming to the next version of Accordance.

I will be giving a presentation at BibleTech: 2010 on the very subject of Syntax databases currently titled “Greek Syntax Databases: Retrospect & Prospects” in which I’ll examine, compare and critique the two currently available syntax databases: Opentext.org & Cascadia Syntax Graphs and then also (hopefully) present some of my own work on representing Greek syntax. Currently the abstract isn’t yet up, but this is a good summary. I’ve been hoping to do something like this for some time, so I’m looking forward to the conference. Much of my presentation has been brewing for at least 14 months, though very little has showed up here on my blog.

I definitely look forward to seeing what Accordance has to offer when they release their next version and may very well consider looking into getting it if I like what I see.

…and I’m always willing to do a review copy…

Some of you still find it a bit difficult to distinguish betweeen for and since. You may want to practise a little. Try these activities:

1. Activity one.
2. Activity two. (click a or b)
3. Activity three.

Aquí te dejamos algunos enlaces a webs donde puedes practicar los tiempos verbales básicos:

- Ejercicios para distinguir “presente simple” y “presente continuo“.

a) Haz click aquí.          b) Algunos más. Aquí.        c) Los últimos. Aquí.

- Ejercicios para distinguir “pasado  simple” y “pasado continuo“.

a) Haz click aquí.          b) Algunos más. Aquí.      c) Los últimos. Aquí.

- Practicar los verbos irregulares. Haz click aquí.   Al terminar puedes ver este vídeo, escuchar la pronunciación y adivinar el significado.

ESLFlow.com is a fantastic resource for printable teacher handouts and lesson ideas. There are hundreds of topics with links to very useful worksheets. It is an invaluable site for ESL teachers.

Myenglishimages.com is a site with handouts on ESL topics. What sets this site apart are the images on the printable worksheets. Images are always useful to language learners and this site takes that into account .

www.myenglishimages.com

www.eslflow.com

With so many English Learning Sites out there, it’s important not to waste your time filtering out scam and advertising sites that care more about earning a dollar than helping students become fluent. The following sites have received the highest ratings from ESL students. They are all free. They are all high quality. Most importantly, they are all highly effective in helping students become fluent English speakers.

Starfall

This site is used in primary schools throughout the United States. It is an excellent tool for developing a solid foundation of the English phonic and phoneme rules that are essential for a fluent English speaker.

Englishspeak

Englishspeak.com has two features that students love. First, it provides audio for thousands of words, phrases and conversations in English. This is a powerful tool for punctuation improvement. Secondly, this site has the ability to translate its content into Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese, Indonesian, Bengali, German, French and many more.

USALearns

This site is very comprehensive. It has beginning, Intermediate and high intermediate levels. Students can register for free and keep track of progress as they complete each unit.  Many topics are covered and by the completion of the course a student will be reasonably comfortable with English communications on essential topics.

ELLLO This site has taken the place of Yappr.com for students that want to listen, watch and read at the same time. Since Yappr.com began charging for use of its site (an unforgivable sin and dimwitted business plan) it is essentially non-existent in ESL schools. ELLO.com has swept in to take its place with videos and audio for ESL students to learn and enjoy at the same time.

Manythings.org

This is the original ESL site. Its been around for over 10 years and was created by an English teacher for Japanese students. It is not fancy. It looks like an old school HTML and flash website from days gone by, but this site has it all. Explore and you will find something useful, guaranteed.

People who say “I am wanting” instead of “I want” make me crazy.   Other versions include “I am needing” and “I am hoping”.

Why do they do this?  Why do I hear this with increasing frequency?  Why?!

And why do so many people in Saskatchewan say “I seen” instead of “I saw”?

I am currently at the house I grew up in for the Thanksgiving holiday (or as I like to call it, Carb-icide 2009).  The house is in dire need of a clean out before Oprah features it on her next hoarders-themed episode.  Much is destined for trash or Goodwill.  I am not home often, so I’ve taken some time to fill one or two boxes with all of the childhood mementos, books, and stuffed animals I want saved.   After coming across shoebox after shoebox of old photos, I realized much of the contents might not be worth holding on to.  At the bottom of a box, I found all of the letters from my long-time high school boyfriend.

Inspired by the blog Shmitten Kitten, I’d like to highlight some of my own “bonerkillers,” made only too painfully obvious from opening these boxes and shoving aside my Amy Grant and Debbie Gibson cassette tape cases.

Bad spelling and confused homonyms: How could I have ever thought I “belonged” with someone who spelled “until”  “untill”?   Or used the word “passionately”—let alone spelled it “passionetly”?  Definietely? Getcha?  Thang?  Nuthing? Tuff?    Oh long-ago ex-boyfriend, how could you think I would ever be “just chillin’ doin’ [my] thang”?  My “thang” is to be annoyed by learning you didn’t know the difference between “your” and “you’re.”  How my precious adolescence could have been different if I realized sooner that you “had gots to go.”

Corny professions of affection are far worse.  They are sweet, endearing and funny when used occasionally, because you know it will make me laugh.  Bust a smile if not a gut.  But scratched on college-rule notepaper and stuffed in an envelope addressed to “Luscious Lisa”?   I’m hiding in my room, years between these letters and me, right now, door closed and face flushed red with embarrassment, because I must now face that I was once the kind of person who not only dated someone who did this, but I think I actually enjoyed it.

Echoing what I hear many of my female friends say, I do not like to be placed on a pedestal.  It’s awkward.  It doesn’t make me feel good, it makes me feel weird.    Seriously, long-time-ago-ex-boyfriend, did “the anticipation of [my] presence give you chills sometimes?”  Really? “Every moment with [me] is beyond incredible?”  “Something deep inside of [you] is fueled by [my] love?”  Yuck.

Only a year or so ago, I found these letters but did not attempt to read them. I called a friend, asking if she thought I should save them or trash them.  She recommended I save them, and while they go in the trash today, I am so glad I did save them. Thank you Eliza!  I never would have believed this trip down my own memory lane without proof.  It proved to be a discovery of great entertainment, despite the shame reliving the past made me feel.

The name of a chain of hairdressers in Milan, which means “Beautiful Hair”. (It could be rendered ”Fair Hair”, although the word fair when applied to hair means light or blond(e).)

Capelli in Italian literally means ‘hairs’, which is logical since you don’t usually have one hair on your head (unless you are Charlie Brown). Also, the uncountable English noun hair is strange: why should hair be uncountable when it is patently not an indivisible, continuous substance like chocolate or water.

Punning shop names are not that common in Italy, although in the UK  a whole stratum of the sub-culture is given over to them. My favourite punning British hairdresser’s name is Scissors Palace in London.

Note:

Capello (with one ‘p’) means a hair.

Cappello (with two ‘p’s) means a hat.

Cappella (with two ‘p’s and a final ‘a’ means a chapel (as in a cappella – singing without accompanying instruments – a practice which started in church, presumably.)

If the Australian cricket player Greg Chappell and England football manager Fabio Capello appeared together they could be introduced as “Mr Cappella” and “Mr (one) Hair”.

Rachel Lois Clapham and Alex Eisenberg documented today’s 10 Performances event with a live feed they updated throughout the day. By the time my performance What To Do begins they’re halfway down their third page. I love their occasional attempts to type out variations on everything I was saying. You can read what they’ve written here.

The text of What To Do is available to download as a pdf from the 10 Performances website, but I’m not sure I recommend you read it: the effect of reading the text on a page or a screen is very different from the effect of the performance itself. I’d like to think about creating a version of What To Do that can exist only as text, but until that happens I think Alex and Rachel’s live account is a closer document.

And here’s my own document of another performance, scribbled in my notebook in the dark. Theron Schmidt’s This text bears false witness reminded me very happily of some phrases from John Barth’s Lost in the Funhouse, which I wrote about here and here earlier this year. (click for a larger image)

(“Hello is like a safety pin” is just a note to myself, about a poster Anton and I are working on.)

A misplaced modifier is a word, phrase, or clause that does not point clearly to the word or words it is intended to modify.

e.g. Excessive muscle spasms are a growing problem in today’s society which can stem from genetic factors.

Correct version:  Muscle spasms, which can stem from genetic factors, are a growing problem in today’s society.

Modified from:

Finnbogason, J., & Valleau, A. (2002). A Canadian writer’s pocket guide (2nd ed.). —–>Scarborough, ON: Thomson Nelson. (p. 70).

A misplaced modifier is a word, phrase, or clause that does not point clearly to the word or words it is intended to modify.

e.g. Excessive muscle spasms are a growing problem in today’s society

which can stem from physical exertion factors

Correct version: Muscle spasms, which can stem from physical exertion factors, are a growing problem in today’s society.

Modified from:

Finnbogason, J., & Valleau, A. (2002). A Canadian writer’s pocket guide (2nd ed.). —–>Scarborough, ON: Thomson Nelson. (p. 70).

I love the English language. I adore how flexible it is, what a staggeringly large vocabulary we have and how relatively easy it is to get right.

There are three things I detest about it though, and all of them are to do with language users rather than the tongue itself.

1. They’re, there and their. It isn’t hard – honestly it’s not. They’re refers to an abbreviation of they are, denoted by the apostrophe. There refers to a place, best remembered by noting the word here thinly veiled within its spelling. Their refers to people and is best recalled by the letter I – a personal pronoun – connecting the word with humans.

2. To, too and two. Again – easy.  To, is the most commonly used of the three and as such is the quickest to write. Too, meaning also or as well etc. can be remembered by its additional o - there as well as the first o. Two is the version that isn’t one of the others and naturally, refers to the number.

These are the things  you should know from when you learn to write – just because some things sounds the same when they’re pronounced, it doesn’t mean that they’re the same words. Bear and Bare sound the same, afterall, but you wouldn’t go confusing a gigantic, hairy creature with a penchant for pic-i-nic baskets with being naked, would you?

My biggest hatred of something in the English language, though,  is as follows.

3. Might of. No. Just no.

There is no excuse for writing might of instead of might have, or the more commonly used might’ve. I wish people would just look at what they’re typing into their facebook status bars and think, “Actually, in this context ‘might of’ doesn’t make any sense.” If these morons would just ask themselves, “Whose might am I referring to here? The might of what?” I would be far happier. As it is though, I feel like I’m surrounded by idiots.

Please, for the sake of thousands of years of a beautiful language, use your brain.

If not for English, then for those of us who actually care about it not being butchered by complete morons.

Spotted on the front page of the online Telegraph newspaper today:

“Mass cover-up of sexual abuse by Catholic preists”

Preists? That should, of course, be ‘priests’. This glaring error opens a very tricky can of spelling worms. The old rule, ‘i before e except after c’, does, of course, apply in the case of ‘priests’. But what about words like ‘weird’ (appropriately enough), which drive a coach and horses through the rule, as do these:

Neighbour

Weigh

Sleigh

Leisure

Height

Neither

Seize

Protein

Caffeine

AskOxford, the Oxford Dictionaries site, says it is usually safe to follow the ‘i before e’ rule, but also explains the exceptions:

http://www.askoxford.com/betterwriting/classicerrors/spellingtips/ibeforee?view=uk

Unfortunately, some spellings evade the rules and just have to be memorised.