Re: Fool's-object ``whom''

From: Paul J Kriha (paul.nospam.kriha_at_paradise.net.nz)
Date: 09/28/04 

Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 01:44:45 +1200

Ron Hardin <rhhardin@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:41595D7A.EFD@mindspring.com...
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >
> > Ron Hardin wrote:
> > >
> > > Dennis Prager today knows the rules
> > >
> > > It seemed to me that if my well-being were
> > > endangered by such winds inside a modern high-rise
> > > hotel, Donald Trump may wish to rethink whom he
> > > employs as architects and engineers.
> > >
> > > when in fact the actual rule (by sound, or - say - the modern rule)
> > > requires ``who.''
> > >
> > > http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20040928.shtml
> > >
> > > The reason for the modern requirement is that it keeps ``whom'' from
> > > tentatively parsing as the object of ``rethink.''
> > >
> > > The modern effect of Prager's version is that of complete tone-deafness.
> > > The old rules no longer save you.
> >
> > > On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
> >
> > You must be that educationally deficient character Herman Rubin is
> > bitching about.
> >
> > "Whom" is prescriptively correct in that sentence: "he employs him" -->
> > "whom he employs".
>
> Why can't a prescriptive rule be incorrect?

You need a prescriptivist do declare it so.
PJK

> Ron Hardin