Is it more correct?

Marialva   Sun Aug 13, 2006 6:46 pm GMT
Is it allowed to use colloquialisms in an essay or you have to use words like WHOM or SHALL to get a nice grade?

Do English teachers explain when/how to use WHO and WHOM?
Do you agree that WHOM (for an object) is more correct than WHO?
As in WHOM DID YOU MEET?


thanks
Liz   Sun Aug 13, 2006 7:12 pm GMT
<<Do you agree that WHOM (for an object) is more correct than WHO?
As in WHOM DID YOU MEET?>>

Yes, it is - at least in formal speech and writing. But WHO is often used instead of WHOM in everyday (colloquial) speech.

If you write a formal essay, eliminating colloqualisms is highly recommended (i.e. WHOM instead of WHO (not in the nominative case, of course) and SHALL instead of WILL (SHALL is more 'formal' than WILL but WILL is acceptable even in formal speech/writing)). As far as language teachers are concerned, they favour WHOM and SHALL, in spite of the fact that they are slowly fading away in everyday speech. Maybe not everyone will agree with me, but as an EFL teacher-to-be, I advise you to use these forms in your essays / in front of your teachers. (Anyway, I'd rather practise what I preach instead of playing the know-all and making grammatical mistakes quite often... :-) )

I hope I could help you.
zxczxc   Sun Aug 13, 2006 10:54 pm GMT
There's a difference between "shall" and "will" - one is not more formal than the other. Whilst the former is more a statement of intent and with the undertones of a command ("you shall do this"), the latter shows less forthrightness, &c., and is more of a desire.

Anyway, the reason very few people use "whom" any more is because in speech it slows you down, and that's coming across increasingly in writing too.
Guest   Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:26 am GMT
In American English, "shall" is never used except in formal contexts...
Uriel   Mon Aug 14, 2006 3:28 am GMT
We virtually never use "shall", and it's not considered more correct than "will" for us, although I acknowledge what zxczxc is saying about intent. It's just fallen out of use in our dialect. But we do still "get" the difference, even if we don't use it ourselves. (We get the same "command" message across by simply emphasizing "will" -- and giving our listener the hairy eyeball.)

"Whom" is usually only used with words like "to", "for", or "from" -- I would never say "whom did you meet?" That would always be "who did you meet?" for me, and no teacher I've met would count me off for that.
j   Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 am GMT
2Uriel
Coming across your 'giving our listener the hairy eyeball' I looked up the Urban Dictionary to see what the meaning of the expession is (it was there). But what's the etymology? why 'hairy'? Can you explain?
Uriel   Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:57 pm GMT
You probably won't find it in a dictionary. I heard it once as a kid and thought it was funny. It means to frown meaningfully -- to pull your eyebrows down low to the eyeballs -- hence "hairy eyeball".
Rene   Mon Aug 14, 2006 2:56 pm GMT
"We virtually never use shall"

Um... I do, but I'm wierd, so maybe that doesn't signify anything. Besides I read way too much British Literature, so that may be the reason?
j   Mon Aug 14, 2006 4:55 pm GMT
2Uriel
Thank you
Liz   Mon Aug 14, 2006 5:32 pm GMT
<<"Whom" is usually only used with words like "to", "for", or "from" -- I would never say "whom did you meet?" That would always be "who did you meet?" for me, and no teacher I've met would count me off for that.>>

I agree, but some rabidly prescriptivist teachers (and unfortunatly there is plenty of them) really DO. But I think they have no reason to do so.
Pabz   Mon Aug 14, 2006 9:29 pm GMT
About shall and will, I found the below in an online usage guide. This explanation seems correct to me -- I was taught in school that "shall" was the first person form of will (I shall, we shall), but nowadays you mostly just see it used either for emphasis, or in legal documents:

"At one time, shall was used for first-person constructions and will was used for second- and third- person (I shall go; he will go). This distinction has largely passed from vogue, and now will is usually considered correct with all persons (I will go; he will go). However, shall is still used with all persons to emphasize determination, as in the following: Employees shall submit a written reason for all work absences. The use of shall in contracts signifies a legal requirement."
Karen   Mon Aug 14, 2006 9:33 pm GMT
''I agree, but some rabidly prescriptivist teachers (and unfortunatly there is plenty of them) really DO. But I think they have no reason to do so. ''

You can't write the way you talk. Writing has always been more conservative/formal and you should respect this.
Kirk   Mon Aug 14, 2006 11:43 pm GMT
As far as I can tell the rumors of "shall"'s death have been greatly exaggerated. Yes, in normal speech it is not commonly used as much as "will" or "going to/gonna" for most future tense meanings but it is still commonly used in a suggestive senses such as "shall we go then?" It also has been fossilized in certain phrases such as "we shall see."

By the way, the prescriptivist requirement that "shall" only be used with the first person and "will" with the other persons was apparently never based on reality. That "rule" came about somewhat inexplicably in the heyday of unrealistic-for-English prescriptivist rules (along with other favorites such as, "don't end a sentence in a preposition. Why? Because Latin doesn't") in the 1800s. English had long used "shall" for any person, and it's well attested in literature back to Old English (where it actually wasn't a future marker but a modal verb indicating obligation, parallel to its Modern German cousin "sollen").

Interestingly, etymologically related Swedish "skall" (pronounced "ska" and often written that way now) also has been losing ground to "kommer att," which literally means "come/coming to" and is parallel to the now-ubiquitous English future marker "going to/gonna."

As for "whom," it is no longer required for even formal writing by many respected (and generally conservative) style guides, but it still of course is optional. Another interesting comparison to Modern Swedish--the Swedish etymological equivalent "vem," originally the oblique marker parallel to English "whom," has been generalized to include all senses of "who." English is moving towards a one-word system but it happened to settle on the historically nominative one. Compare:

Swedish: "Vem har du sett?"
English: "Who(m) have you seen?"...Early Modern English "Whom hast thou seen?"

Swedish: "Vem dricker varm mjölk?"
English: "Who drinks warm milk?", never *Whom drinks warm milk?

German is conservative in this case in preserving a threeway distinction (nominative, accusative, dative) Modern Swedish and English have lost.

German: "Wer gab wem das Buch?"
Swedish: "Vem gav vem boken?"
English: "Who gave who(m) the book?"

German: "Wen hast du gesehen?"
Swedish: "Vem har du sett?"
English: "Who(m) have you seen?"..early Modern English "Whom hast thou seen?"

In the end, language changes. "Whom" has been on its way out of English for centuries and should not be required even in formal writing. In fact, it's a little surprising it's even stuck around this long.
Lazar   Tue Aug 15, 2006 2:10 am GMT
<<By the way, the prescriptivist requirement that "shall" only be used with the first person and "will" with the other persons was apparently never based on reality. That "rule" came about somewhat inexplicably in the heyday of unrealistic-for-English prescriptivist rules (along with other favorites such as, "don't end a sentence in a preposition. Why? Because Latin doesn't") in the 1800s. English had long used "shall" for any person, and it's well attested in literature back to Old English (where it actually wasn't a future marker but a modal verb indicating obligation, parallel to its Modern German cousin "sollen").>>

Yeah, I've read that according to prescriptivists (historically), "shall" was used for simple statements of future action for the 1st person, and "will" was used for simple statements of future action for the 2nd and 3rd persons. And on the flipside, "will" was supposed to be used for wishes or exhortations for the 1st person, and "shall" was supposed to be used for wishes or exhortations for the 2nd and 3rd persons. This struck me as really weird the first time I read about it - it's pretty much the only time that I've heard of any language using an arrangement with:

Meaning A:
"verb x" for some persons
"verb y" for other persons

Meaning B:
"verb y" for some persons
"verb x" for other persons

Like you, I think it's highly unlikely that such a weird system would have arisen naturally.
Medic   Tue Aug 15, 2006 4:34 pm GMT
-"Whom" has been on its way out of English for centuries and should not be required even in formal writing. -

I don't know. Medical journals always use [accusative] WHOM. And they avoid contractions (it's, they'll)...