Grammar question -we need Wafflycat back!

[User]

 

[zimzum42]

They are from Manchester, so I doubt they got it right...

 

[Andy in Sig]

I think I'd go for "who" (and I'm from Manchester, so just watch yer back young Zimmers) but, in more linguistic terms, it is less straightforward. It all depends on how you view the matter conceptually. It's also amazing how arbitrary the accepted rules of grammar are. Many of the things which are quoted e.g. "don't split infinitives" stem from an eighteenth century attempt to impose some of the rules of Latin onto English, simply because of the daft notion that it was felt that Latin was somehow superior. Now just use common sense: what is going to be superior, something greasy from the Med or something clean, upright and Anglo-Saxon from the more temperate north?

To be slightly less contentious about it, I would recommend a read of The Language Instinct by Steven Pinker, if you are interested in this kind of thing.

 

[zimzum42]

That Pinker book is great, but if you get really into it, remember that his hero worship of Chomsky is only so useful, Chomsky has done many a great thing, but he's by no means definitive!

Interesting what you say about split infinitives, perfectly true of course, but I can't help but do a mental flinch when I see or hear a split infinitive, it just sounds wrong (to me!)

 

[yello]

'Who' (not the band) imho. We're talking about a person not a thing.

Compare with 'maybe, it'll be the cocaine THAT saves me". You wouldn't say 'who' there.

 

[mickle]

"Maybe, you're going to be the one whom saves me"?

Or maybe not.

 

[Rob S]

We are talking about a wonderwall....wonderwalls are impersonal...therefore I reckon 'that' is ok.

 

[Andy in Sig]

That Pinker book is great, but if you get really into it, remember that his hero worship of Chomsky is only so useful, Chomsky has done many a great thing, but he's by no means definitive!

Interesting what you say about split infinitives, perfectly true of course, but I can't help but do a mental flinch when I see or hear a split infinitive, it just sounds wrong (to me!)

It's a question of register though, innit squire? What I mean is that sometimes it amuses me to leave an infinitive unsplit and to not have a prepostion ending a clause. Other times I like to go all Anglo-Saxon and have more rhythm.

Chomsky (as far as I can understand the lad) is indeed not the be all and end all but as far as this topic goes I think the ideas are uncontroversial enough to provide a good working model or at least reasonable hypothesis.

 

[Andy in Sig]

"Maybe, you're going to be the one whom saves me"?

Or maybe not.

Whom can only ever work as dative or accusative, not in the nominative as in your example. (The "m" on the end is the giveaway.)

 

[zimzum42]

Chomsky (as far as I can understand the lad) is indeed not the be all and end all but as far as this topic goes I think the ideas are uncontroversial enough to provide a good working model or at least reasonable hypothesis.

Indeed, but just wanted to sound a word of warning cos Pinker does write in such a way as to suggest there are no alternate theories...

 

[Keith Oates]

Where does this GONNA thing come from!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Andy in Sig]

Scalled elision innit.

 

[Unkraut]

This might be the difference between US and British English. I am supposed to translate German into US English! GRRRRH!

In the absence of a comma, the Americans use that whereas the British use which: The data which you just deleted (us) is The data that you just deleted (them). If there is a comma, then which is use in both English variants: The data, which you just deleted, cannot be retrieved.

 

[zimzum42]

Microsoft insist on putting that as a grammar error in word, even if you have it set to UK English...

grrrrrrrrr

 

[Arch]

I was amused to hear a chap from the BNP on You and Yours earlier, say something was "indicatative" instead of indicative. Oh, the purity of the man, cant even speak English...