Who vs whom Part 2 – grammar suffers a bulletwound in the war-torn battlefield of hurt feelings

As you know, MC Grammar doesn't get upset very often. The only people that I hate are Robert Mugabe and all manufacturers of corn syrup. But lately, there has been something else that has been getting my goat – what is up with people using archaic language in an argument, just because they think that it makes them look smart and scares their opponents?

This leads us to the story of GASP Jeans, a clothes store that became part of an online viral story last month because of emails that were exchanged between a customer, Keara O'Neill, and a customer service-type person, Matthew Chidgey

From Keara O'Neill, the shopper:

 I had the privilege of shopping at your brand new Chapel St store on Saturday 24th September with my three bridesmaids in tow. On the hunt for bridesmaids dresses and a hens dress for myself we walked into the store and were automatically pounced on by a male staff member, I understand that this is protocol for many retail outlets and ours is no different.

The staff member was initially funny and extremely helpful with sizes etc. I chose a bright pink dress to try on but was unable to do the zip up so asked for the size up, when I eventually got the correct size and came out of the change room I was unable to discuss the likes or dislikes of the dress with my bridesmaids as the sales assistant kept saying “you should just get it”, when I told him I would think about it, he pulled me aside and whispered “Is it the price your worried about”. By now I was extremely frustrated, and again told him I’d think about it, I walked back into the change room and closed the door behind me, only to have it pushed open with the sales assistant half standing in my change room, again whispering “I think you should just get it”, when I gave him attitude and said rudely, “I already told you I would think about it”, he then replied, “With your figure I really think you should buy it”.

I’m not sure exactly what he meant by that, but considering the attitude used to deliver such a statement I can only imagine that it was an immature dig in relation to my healthy size 12 frame. I got changed in a hurry and walked right out of the change rooms and out of the store, I could hear the sales assistant yelling out to me, but I just ignored him and continued to leave, assuming my bridesmaids would follow. After waiting down the road for my bridesmaids to come out of the store I was told by one of them that the sales assistant yelled out “Have fun finding something at Supre”, when one of them approached him in regards to his comments, he replied “I knew you girls were a joke the minute you walked in”. When my bridesmaids walked out of the store another two customers walked out with them, they too could not believe the immaturity of the sales assistant.

I have worked in retail for 12 years and have come across an array of customer complaints over the years, none of which come even close to what I encountered on Saturday at your store, I wish I was exaggerating but unfortunately for your company this person actually exists and is working in one of your stores. I am pretty laid back and was quite happy just leaving your store, it was my bridesmaids who felt the need to say something to him…I dread to think how many customers he has not only offended but how many customers have left your store due to the pressure placed on getting the sale, and then to be harassed when that sale hasn’t taken place.

Ring me, don’t ring, not fussed…I’m just one retailer notifying another of an extremely inappropriate sales assistant.

Keara O'Neil

And here's the response by GASP area manager Matthew Chidgey:

Dear Keara O’Neil,

Having now had the privilege of having both version of events, I am now in a position to respond to your complaint.

From the very outset, one thing that you should be mindful of is; Our product offerings are very, very carefully selected, so to ensure that we do not appeal to a broad customer base. This is something which is always at the forefront of our minds when undertaking buying duties.

The reason for this is to ensure that we only carry products which appeal to a very fashion forward consumer. This by default means that the customer whom is acclimatised to buying from “clothing for the masses” type retailers, is almost frightened by our range, sometimes we have found that this type of customer, almost finds our dresses funny, and on occasion noted comments such as 'it looks like a dead flamingo'. When we receive comments like this, we like to give ourselves and our buyers, a big pat on the back, because we know we are doing our job right, and modus operandi is being upheld.

Our range is worn by A list celebrities to the likes of Kim Kardashian, Selena Gomez and Katy Perry to name only a few. Now, as one might appreciate, the style counsel for these types of celebrities are not ones to pick “run of the mill” type clothing, and they do so on the basis to ensure that the styles are cutting edge, and only worn by a select few. Similarly these items are priced such that they remain inaccessible to the undesirable.

Insofar as our employee goes; Similar to our product offerings, our employees are selected with a similar approach. Chris whom served you is a qualified stylist whom has a sixth sense for fashion, and Chris’s only problem is that he is too good at what he does, and as I am sure you are aware, people whom are talented, generally do not tolerate having their time wasted, which is the reason you were provoked to leave the store.

Whilst I concede that you work for chain retailer, unfortunately that does not make us like for like. It is probably fair to assume, a lot of what I have said in this email, either doesn’t make sense to you, or you totally disagree with it all, which is what I would expect (unless of course I have you totally wrong – which I doubt).

Let me guess, you would never, ever hire Chris in the course of your duty, would you? This is the very reason, why your comment “from one retailer to another” is so disproportionate, it’s almost as though we are in a totally different industries. Chris is a retail superstar, who possess unparalleled ability, and I am sorry you feel upset by him, but he knew you were not going to buy anything before you even left your house.

So if you would like to do us any favours, please do not waste our retail staff’s time, because as you have already seen, they will not tolerate it. I am sure there are plenty of shops that appease your taste, so I respectfully ask that you side step our store during future window shopping expeditions.

Thank you for your enquiry.

The best part of this email is the sign off, 'thank you for your inquiry' That's the sting the tail of this already very poisonous and aggressive scorpion's tale.

Let's have a look at Mr Chidgey's use of the pronoun, 'whom'.

...the customer whom is acclimatised to buying from “clothing for the masses” type retailers, is almost frightened by our range...

Chris whom served you is a qualified stylist whom has a sixth sense for fashion...

...people whom are talented, generally do not tolerate having their time wasted...

Matthew Chidgey! Why are you so fashion forward, and yet so grammar stationary! Why can't it be both! Why can't your sixth sense for fashion also come with a first sense for grammar correctness? You wordlessly promise so much with your fine, coiffed hair, your sharp, micro-fibre suit, but beyond your gilded exterior you are full of not just archaic language, but also plainly incorrect grammar.

As we have learnt before, traditionally who was used to refer to refer to the subject of a sentence or clause. For example:

I know it was you who stepped on my fish

Whom was used when referring to the object of a clause. For example:

To whom were you speaking just then?

However, the use of whom is now mostly archaic. This means that it has fallen out of use so much that it's no longer the right way to say something, and in most cases where you would have said 'whom' fifty years ago, it is now correct to say 'who'.

The only time you really need to use 'whom' when it comes after a preposition in more formal language. For example,

To whom it may concern

In all other situations, you can use 'who'.

So, unfortunately for Matthew Chidgey, he has let himself – and us – down on two fronts. He has used whom even though it is archaic, and in the places where he has used it, he's not even using it to refer to the object of a sentence. WTF, Matthew Chidgey!

Matthew Chidgey, please try to be like fisherman Julian Chidgey, who has taken life by the horns and caught this huge fish.

Dr Whom and the attack of the archaic language

Try to get your head around this: scientists believe that there was a time when neanderthals and modern humans existed at the same time. Here's a picture comparing a modern human and a neanderthal.

But the neanderthals ended up dying out for some reason. We can't be sure what happened to them (although some evidence suggests that we ate them) but what we can be sure of is that the period of co-existence must have been a pretty crazy time for neanderthals and modern humans alike. They probably spent their whole day just staring at each other, thinking 'wow, you're sort of like me, but at the same time, you're not' Maybe modern humans just ended up eating the neanderthals just to deal with the craziness of the situation.

But what you don't even realise, grammar brothers and sisters, is that we are living in just as crazy a time right now, with the co-existence of the words who and whom.

As you might know, some of us have the idea that 'whom' is the more correct version of who. This is not true. Whom and who have different functions, and back in their glorious heyday they lived side by side, two versions of the same species.

Traditionally, whom was used if you were referring to the object of a sentence, for example:

He is the one to whom I owe my life.

If you are referring to the subject of a dependant or a ('subordinate') clause then you would use 'who'

He's just a great guy who cares about safety around the home.

But stop right there. Before you log off your computer and run out into the streets, throwing out 'whom' in everything you say without a care for who can hear you, let me explain something. For a long time, the use of 'whom' has been getting used less and less, making it archaic. This means that it has fallen out of use so much that it's no longer the right way to say something, and in most cases where you would have said 'whom' fifty years ago, it is now correct to say 'who'.

You might respond to this in horror, you might say, 'but just because people don't know how to use grammar properly doesn't mean that we should just lay down and die like dogs'. But the thing is, language changes all the time. In old English, spoken 1000 years ago, the word for 'who' was 'hwa'. Imagine how pissed off people back then must have been when all those uneducated punks, with their ridiculously long trendy cloth shoes, started saying who instead? If microsoft word had existed back then, it would have immediately flagged who as a misspelling, but after people had been saying it for a few years, everyone just gave up and started saying who instead.

And the same goes for whom. In 1989, the Oxford English Dictionary printed for the first time that whom was 'no longer current in natural colloquial speech', and they were right. In most cases, who is now used. You can still use whom in the traditional way, but if you do, you will no longer be speaking what is known as 'plain' English or 'colloquial' English. You'll be speaking using archaic words out of context, and that's just as incorrect as using the wrong grammar or the wrong tense, so what's the point of that?

There is, however, one use of whom that is still alive and kicking is when it comes after a preposition in more formal language. For example:

To whom it may concern

To whom have you been speaking?

With whom will we be coming to the meeting?

Of course, in these cases, you could always say something like 'who have you been speaking with?' or 'who will we be coming to the meeting with?' and it would be just as correct. That's the beauty of language – there's more than one way of doing things.

So what did happen to our neanderthal brothers and sisters? Well, there's not a lot of scientific evidence to back me up, but I like to think that neanderthals and modern humans put aside their differences and their animal skins and just got freaky with each other, leading their DNA to be incorporated into ours.  But there are other dreamers like me – enjoy this montage from the movie 'Clan of the Cave Bear', where an early modern human is adopted and lives with neanderthals.

Indecent Preposition

Alright. Again, MC Grammar hasn't exactly hit the mark with this week's post title. I am all too aware that it doesn't really work, since the movie I am cleverly pop-culture referencing is actually 'Indecent Proposal', not 'Indecent Proposition.' It would never have been called 'Indecent Proposition', because that doesn't have the same zing to it. Being MC Grammar and only achieving lukewarm wordplay is like throwing stones when you live in a glass house and wear a glass house-robe. Because of this failure, I hurl myself on my four-poster bed in frustration. But we have to try to keep a perspective, and focus on the reason we're all here: to learn about prepositions.

So what is a preposition? Well, a preposition links words to other words in a sentence, like 'with', 'under' 'without' 'on', and 'from'.

A preposition 'locates' an object For example,

The book is on the table

I am beneath the tree.

She held the book during class

I want to be on you

In each sentence, the preposition locates the object in time or space.

A prepositional verb 'introduces' nouns, and explains just what the hell they are doing. For example;

The boy climbed a tree.

There was rejoicing throughout the land

Each time, the preposition has 'introduced' the noun and linked the two nouns in the sentence together.

Put simply, a preposition explains what shit is doing in a sentence together. If a preposition was a person, it would be that person at a party who knows everyone, so when you walk in and exclaim 'Hey - I didn't know they knew each other!', preposition is all like 'oh yeah, didn't you know? They live in same apartment block', or 'oh yeah, they used to go to the same yoga class' or 'oh yeah, they've only just met, but they're really going for it, huh?'

Now, here is the tricky part. Some people think that prepositions should never go at the end of a sentence. They think that, for example, instead of saying 'who do you live with', you should say 'with whom do you live?'

The problem with trying to stick to this rule is that you end up talking like Yoda. When Winston Churchill was knocked for ending a sentence with a preposition, he answered 'This is the sort of thing up with which I will not put!' Snap, Winston.

MC Grammar reckons that the only time you shouldn't end a sentence with a preposition is when it's unnecessary. For example,

I've got the money that I'll be paying you with.

Here 'with' is extra – you didn't need it. You could have just said 'I've got the money that I'll be paying you'. This is the only time that the prepositional rule should be used.

The main reason that some people still stick to this rule is because of that jerk that I hate, Latin. That's right, Latin's back, telling English what to do, calling it fat and short-sheeting its bed in the middle of winter. In Latin, prepositions tend to get attached to the object that they are 'introducing.' For example, The Latin word for 'wine' is 'Vinium' But in the saying 'In Vino Veritas' (In wine there is truth) 'Vino' shows that it's the wine that is the subject of the saying. This means that prepositions can never be found at the end of sentences in Latin, and as a result, in English we are never meant to do it either.

Not only is this stupid, but really impractical. Some more demure grammar peeps will try to not to rock the boat by suggesting that instead of saying

Who do you want to speak to?

You should say

To whom do you want to speak?

Why? If the whole point of grammar is to communicate with each other, and a person is already doing that just fine, like in the first sentence above, why complicate things? The good news is that grammar brothers and sisters have been calling bullshit on this rule for over a hundred years - in 1902, Harvard Professor Adam Sherman Hill pointed out that it was a bit crap, and then in 1918, James C. Fernald really went for the jugular in 'A Senseless Tradition', claiming that 'there was never any sense in the rule, and people go on using the prohibited idiom every day.'

Snap, James C. Fernald. You're right. It might have been OK, back in the day when 'whom' was not an out-dated form of language, but these days it's just silly, and trying to defend it is like trying to say that fat-dripping is a good thing to put on your toast instead of butter - just because they used to do it doesn't make it right or good. In fact, it explains a lot of health problems that old people have now.

When all is said and done, the rule around prepositions is one that we don't need to worry about, but it's still good to know what exactly a preposition is. You can throw it into conversation at any time, impressing people with your highly-tuned grammar skills. And in the rare cases where it's helpful to know when you've overdosed on prepositions, it could make all the difference.

Let's finish up on this humorous 'Grammar Wizard' cartoon from the Perry Bible Fellowship, that pretty much sums up the whole situation. And ask yourself; do you really want a world where this might happen?  

Please form an orderly queue for your good-grammar vaccination

MC Grammar recently received a series of vaccinations, and now feels ready to take on the world. Rabies, Hepatitis A and B can't hurt me, neither can Malaria, Diphtheria, Typhoid or Yellow Fever. It's a good feeling. Sorry all you anti-immunisation lobbyists, I'm immunised up to my eyeballs and I love it.

Some fun times were had over the last few weeks, as I regularly rocked up to my local surgery and chatted cheerfully away to my nurse, as she cleverly lulled my muscles into relaxed state, before jabbing a total of 9 needles into me. But an interesting point was raised during the many afternoons I spent there: are you immune to, or immune from, a disease?

Before we go further, this might be a good moment to brush up on our understanding of prepositions. A preposition is a 'linking' word, such as to, from, over, or during. What they link is nouns, phrases or pronouns to the sentence. They're like the MC that introduce the main act. For example,

The book is beside the table.

That said, what's the story with being immune to, or immune from? Well brothers and sisters, it's a complicated story, because it depends what you're talking about. If you are talking about being protected from an 'undesirable circumstance' such as getting criminally prosecuted, or heavily taxed, then you are immune from. For example, you can be 'immune from arrest', or 'immune from criticism.'

However, when you're talking about something you're not susceptible or responsive to, you use immune to. For example 'I am immune to Polio.'

This is a tricky mother. The Oxford English Dictionary gives lots of examples of 'immune to' and 'immune from' that don't follow the pattern above. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary uses the 'immune to' phrasing to include anything a person might be resistant to, for example, 'he was immune to all pleas.' It's one of those things that if you think about it too hard, you can fry your brain and alienate yourself from your loved ones.

MC Grammar thinks that if you just surf the preposition wave, this one sort of sorts itself out. When you think about it, it makes sense that you're immune 'from' something that you're trying to get away from, or would rather not happen, and you're immune 'to' something that you have personally arranged will never happen. Take MC Grammar and Rabies, for example, I will never meet my end by frothing at the mouth – I've seen to that.

'To' and 'Too'

This is MC Grammar's sister, Mashaylah.

As you can see, Mashaylah is a pretty awesome. As you can see, Mashaylah has her priorities in order – she’s got lust for life, excellent coordination skills, and a bitchin wardrobe. If you saw Mashaylah on the street, you’d find yourself nodding your head and saying ‘scene’ before you even realised you were saying it, or what it meant.

But there's one thing Mashaylah doesn't have - an astute understanding of how to and too work.

Some people might judge Mashaylah for this, but not me. The truth is, more than just the impeccably dressed have this problem. It's a common situation, and it's time to clear it up.

Let's go to the Grammar dancefloor!

Here's the basic rundown:

Too – an excess amount, or meaning 'also.'

To – everything that isn't the above.

Example: There are too many examples to mention.

So too has two meanings. It means either also and besides, like I want one too, and it also means an excess amount of something, like too much or too many bananas.

To is a preposition, this just means it's a function word. It's like the person that everyone always dumps on at work, thinking they do shit-all around the place and imitating their laughter when they're not around, and then, when they finally leave you suddenly realise all the indoor-plants are dying and there's no recycled paper cut into neat squares for note-taking, because while they were being under-appreaciated by you and your workmates, they were the glue that held everything together, and you never even noticed.

A function word combines with a noun or a pronoun, and tells you where, or when, how or why. Some examples are

The job was suited to her abilities.

We went to the city.

Their faces were pressed to the windows.

They toasted to evil.

She referred to the dictionary.

In some cases it can also be used as an adverb. An adverb is a word that limits or 'describes' another word, like she paints well ('well' is the adverb), or he's funky fresh (funky is the adverb)

An example of to being used as an adverb is the patient came to, as in the patient woke up or regained conciousness.

MC Grammar thinks that the best way to remember anything is to remember it through song. Whenever you get confused, just remember The Temptations song 'Ain't Too Proud To Beg'. It's all there in the title, taking your hand and dancing you through a grammatically correct life.