It’s the same idea, we understand exactly what he’s saying, 0 impairment of understanding etc.
There’s no reason for a lot of stuff; why do verbs like have and be require different conjugations when the subject is in the sentence? Why bother pluralizing words when we can usually figure it out from context etc.
Yup, you’re right. This particular word is especially egregious, though. It’s a holdover from Old English, and the fact that it conveys absolutely no extra information when used instead of who shows that.
I personally think English sounds better when spoken well and enjoy doing so. “For Who the Bell Tolls” sounds silly and I think people missing whom tend to sound similarly silly.
Yes, I definitely see the appeal of legacy titles and phrases keeping the original words. It’s like how “To thine own self be true” sounds nicer than “Be true to yourself.” Doesn’t mean I want to use “thine” in everyday speech, though.
After all, that book title is from archaic English: “Send not to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.” It’s telling that that’s the first thing you thought of.
“Of which you thought.” - I also enjoy not ending sentences with prepositions.
Again, I just think it makes everyday language better. Similar to having art on one’s walls, doesn’t improve anything other than aesthetics but that’s enough to make it worthwhile to some.
I also would never use “k” instead of okay in a text but to each their own!
It’s still used in formal speech and writing, but everyday use has been steadily declining. Even as something of a stickler for grammar, I find it rather pointless.
It’s “who child-raped whom.”🙄
I know but the original quote is who killed who, so figured accuracy beats grammar.
Probably deliberate as he has a Yorkshire accent, associated with working-class people.
Absolutely deliberate. Monty Python was mostly Oxford and Cambridge grads who darn well knew how to use whom.
“Whom” is on its way out because there is no loss of understanding whatsoever if you just say “who” instead.
I don’t think dropping a single letter from a word qualifies for this meme.
It’s the same idea, we understand exactly what he’s saying, 0 impairment of understanding etc.
There’s no reason for a lot of stuff; why do verbs like have and be require different conjugations when the subject is in the sentence? Why bother pluralizing words when we can usually figure it out from context etc.
Yup, you’re right. This particular word is especially egregious, though. It’s a holdover from Old English, and the fact that it conveys absolutely no extra information when used instead of who shows that.
To each their own!
I personally think English sounds better when spoken well and enjoy doing so. “For Who the Bell Tolls” sounds silly and I think people missing whom tend to sound similarly silly.
Yes, I definitely see the appeal of legacy titles and phrases keeping the original words. It’s like how “To thine own self be true” sounds nicer than “Be true to yourself.” Doesn’t mean I want to use “thine” in everyday speech, though.
After all, that book title is from archaic English: “Send not to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.” It’s telling that that’s the first thing you thought of.
“Of which you thought.” - I also enjoy not ending sentences with prepositions.
Again, I just think it makes everyday language better. Similar to having art on one’s walls, doesn’t improve anything other than aesthetics but that’s enough to make it worthwhile to some.
I also would never use “k” instead of okay in a text but to each their own!
says whom???
It’s still used in formal speech and writing, but everyday use has been steadily declining. Even as something of a stickler for grammar, I find it rather pointless.
the end of punctuation, proofreading, grammar…it’s the end of everything!!!