Re: Guess whom

From: Ron Hardin (rhhardin_at_mindspring.com)
Date: 10/30/04 

Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 13:47:30 GMT

Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> Ron Hardin wrote:
> >
> > Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > >
> > > Ron Hardin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > WSJ Oct 29 p.A1 tease
> > > >
> > > > Take a Guess Whom the British Really Love Tender
> > > >
> > > > (Elvis is a U.K. marketing hit...)
> > > >
> > > > There's something philosophically wrong with ``whom'' in addition
> > > > to the wretched sound; perhaps they're related though.
> > > >
> > > > What you're supposed to guess is the name of the person whom the British
> > > > really love tender, not the whom himself, nor the British loving him
> > > > himself.
> > > >
> > > > It's short for ``Take a guess who it is whom the British really love
> > > > tender.''
> > >
> > > > On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
> > >
> > > OPerhaps you're not aware that there's an Elvis Presley song, "Love Me
> > > Tender"?
> >
> > I don't see why you think it's objectionable. It's an object complement.
>
> > On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
>
> You've been reading too much SJ?
>
> Where do I say that anything is objectionable, other than your
> unawareness of the source of the "whom" in your example sentence?

I don't see anything that implies my unawareness of it. So I was
inferring you thought I was objecting to ``tender'' rather than
``tenderly.''

I was saying that in addition to the general clunkiness of ``whom'' they
were using a relative as an interrogative after an ellipsis.

Sino-Japanese? Just a guess from context. 

-- 
Ron Hardin
rhhardin@mindspring.com
On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.

Relevant Pages