Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2020 May 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Language desk
< May 22 << Apr | May | Jun >> Current desk >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.


May 23[edit]

Who or whom?[edit]

Which word, who or whom, is correct in this sentence? Those whom Katzmann finds satisfactory will advance to the following episode. Or: Those who Katzmann finds satisfactory will advance to the following episode. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both are fine. Life is short, the planet may be doomed, your English is good; don't spend your time worrying about the "correctness" of your English. Though you might use "whom" more if you want to get laid. -- Hoary (talk) 05:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary: I wouldn't say that I am "worried" about such matters. I came to this page, since the "language experts" are here ... and would likely know the best answer. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph A. Spadaro, the real-world use of whom is a (minor) encyclopedic matter, one that you can find written up within The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. It's a (necessarily) large and expensive book, but you seem to have a lot of questions about English, so it wouldn't be an unreasonable purchase. Questions about the "correctness" of who versus whom in the speech or writing of adult users of English as a first language appeal to fictional "rules" propounded by that odd kind of "pedant" who refuses to educate himself. (Male pronoun deliberate, as the vast majority are male.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary: I don't follow what you are saying. Are you saying that there are no "rules" to correctly be applied, to distinguish who versus whom? It's just a "free-for-all" and anyone can select either word, willy-nilly? With no regard to "rules", that are -- in your words -- fictional and don't exist? Is that your contention? Please clarify. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph A. Spadaro, English is indeed subject to many rules. The great majority, you hardly if ever think about, if you are a normal user of English as a first language (as you seem to be), and are neither trying to assist a second language learner nor observing a first language learner. English also has a number of "rules" (some involving who/whom) that are of great concern to "language experts". Some are rooted in actual rules; some are based on no more than whim.
Luckily, this is related to phenomena of natural language and not of mere whim. Well, here you go: "whom Katzmann finds satisfactory" is an integrated relative clause: "Katzmann finds ____ satisfactory" is a complex transitive clause, and the blank within that is for the object of "finds".
Where English clearly distinguishes between nominative and accusative forms (as it does for him versus he), you use the accusative form: "Katzmann finds him/*he satisfactory." Now, since whom is accusative, one might expect that whom would be the appropriate form of who/whom/whose. And indeed one finds examples. Here's one:
Those whom depression struck hardest as well as much of the general public and major Protestant churches, shored up their civic consciousness about currency and banking reform, regulation of business in the public interest, and labor relations. (source)
Where many "language experts" (by which I do not mean linguists) go wrong is to look for single "correct" options and to assume that who must be nominative. But the use of whom in accusative contexts has been declining for decades; the form who has been taking over (and the sky has not fallen).
If you'd just drop the matter of "correctness", your question would be interesting. And here's why. It's a commonplace that the use of whom hasn't been declining uniformly: there are some kinds of context where it seems fairly secure. One I can think of offhand is the complement of fronted prepositions: "To whom did she complain?" is still, I think, likelier than "To who did she complain?" This seems to be another. Indeed, I struggle to find an example with who in the wild, but here's one:
In a world where we are constantly connected, its [sic] those with the best people skills who win the day. Those who build the right relationships. Those who truly understand and connect with their colleagues, their customers, their partners. Those who others like, respect and trust. (source: yearbook.managers.org.uk/book/the-art-of-people/, now deleted, and not at Wayback)
That quote is in somewhat bullshitty management-speak, and the rules of orthography prescribe an apostrophe; but neither objection affects its (to me) idiomaticity. I conclude that either whom or who would be acceptable in your context. -- Hoary (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whom is correct in traditional usage. You'd say "Katzman finds me (objective case) satisfactory," not "Katzman finds I satisfactory." Deor (talk) 05:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Deor: Thanks. That's what I thought. Wasn't sure, though. In (quickly) trying to "parse" the sentence, I was somehow coming up with he will advance to the following episode, and not him will advance to the following episode. Which contradicted Katzmann finds he / him satisfactory. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One needs to recognize that the sentence contains two clauses. The relative clause "whom Katzman finds necessary" is what one has to parse to determine the case of who/whom. The independent clause "Those will advance to the following episode" is a completely separate matter. (In your sentence, it's also acceptable to omit the relative pronoun and go with "Those Katzman finds necessary will advance to the following episode".) Deor (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. Thanks. I had parsed it both quickly ... and incorrectly. Thank you! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WHAAOE: see Who (pronoun). Bazza (talk) 08:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bazza 7: Yes, we have an article on the pronoun "who". But, that wasn't my question. My question was -- in essence -- which form of the pronoun "who" is correct for that specific sentence. I wasn't sure if it was the objective case or the "other" case ... which, I believe, is called either subjective case or nominative case, but I am not sure. Interesting article, though ... it does have a ton of information. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The two cases you're referring to are the accusative and the nominative. (They're appropriate for languages as different as English and Japanese. They're not appropriate for ergative languages.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that, in the English language, they are referred to as "subjective" and "objective". I know that, in Latin, there are accusative and nominative cases. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they also have these names. But these names are unnecessarily confusing. For example, in "I asked him to leave", "him" is the subject of "to leave" but yet in the "objective" case. -- Hoary (talk) 21:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought that whom was a vestigial dative rather than an accusative, but I'm just an internet idiot so whatever. 2601:648:8202:96B0:3567:50D5:8BFF:4588 (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Run-on sentence in Jasper Rine article[edit]

There is a long and unwieldy sentence in the Jasper Rine article. It states:

In 2005, Rine earned the name "professorpwnage" after a video (not original) was posted online depicting Rine speaking before a class, explaining that his laptop had been stolen and warning the thief, supposedly among the group of students, that there was extremely sensitive data on the laptop from various sources, which since it was stored on the laptop when it was stolen, could result in the thief serving time in federal prison.

I was wondering if some language expert, here, could go in and improve that? It's an article with no traffic, so I assumed that posting my request on its Talk Page would be futile. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not horrible. But assuming you're a native English speaker, you could give it a shot yourself. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is horrible. Probably one of the worst sentences I have ever read in my life ... even if it is (possibly) grammatically correct. To read/understand it involves mental gymnastics ... which defeats the point of communicating the events. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had no problem understanding it. Maybe you need to take your brain to the mental gym for a refresher. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talk • contribs) 20:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then how did it score a Flesch–Kincaid readability tests score of (literally) "zero" for "Reading Ease"? Perhaps the experts in linguistics (or whatever) -- such as Flesch and Kincaid -- have no idea what they are talking about ... but some random Wikipedia editors know better?  :) That tends to be the case on the Internet.  :) Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't vouch for the state of their mental gyms. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let us know when you come up with a mathematical formula that supersedes or improves upon the current "ubiquitous" one, by Flesch and Kincaid. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's no substitute for comprehension. You're welcome. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrote pending arrival of expert. Jmar67 (talk) 22:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's long and unwieldy, but it's not a run-on sentence. That is two or more sentences that are just abutted up against each other without any linking conjunctions or pronouns. Such as "I have a Siamese cat his name is Figaro". That is actually two sentences: "I have a Siamese cat." and "His name is Figaro". To join them into a single grammatical sentence, you'd need an "and" after cat, or change "his" to "whose". A sentence that is grammatically correct can still be almost impossibly long and pretty much useless for standard purposes. That doesn't make it a run-on sentence. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not everyone agrees with that definition. See sense 2 here. --76.71.5.208 (talk) 03:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. I was referring to definition #2 -- not definition #1 -- at that link. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence may be long, but IMO not overly so. Also, it does not suffer from lack of order or coherence.  --Lambiam 11:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When I posted my original request, I was not "overly concerned" with a correct adjectival description of the sentence (e.g., long, unwieldy, run-on, lacking order, lacking coherence, etc.). I was basically saying that "it's a terrible sentence and could be written much better". The original sentence was trying to "pack in" too many facts, into a single sentence. It left it up to the reader to perform mental gymnastics, to try to follow the story and sequence, and to see "what exactly happened". That burden defeats the purpose of effective communication. Also, see my comments below about the "readability" of the sentence. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Someone should update our article, then. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 08:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just did so. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence can of course be cut up: "In 2005, a video was posted online. It depicted Rine speaking before a class. In the video, Rine explained that his laptop had been stolen. ..." This cut-up style gives the impression the author has run out of breath.  --Lambiam 11:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It may -- or may not -- give the "impression" of being out of breath. But, it would also be more "readable". See my analysis/comments below. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sentences could be made less choppy than Lambiam's example, but still more readable than the original: "In 2005, a video of Rine speaking before a class was posted online. In the video, Rine explained that a laptop containing extremely sensitive data had been stolen from him and that possession of the data could lead to the thief serving time in federal prison.” --Khajidha (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)|[reply]
See also Longest English sentence which highlights the prize-winning 2016 Irish novel Solar Bones; the whole book consists of a single sentence of about 78,300 words. Alansplodge (talk) 12:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Though, looking at that novel, it seems to me more like a novel of zero sentences; certainly it has nothing in the way of usual sentence delineating punctuation, but it also does not present as a single sentence, with subordinate clauses and things like that. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 04:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Readability of the sentence[edit]

Out of curiosity -- as to whether or not this was a horrible or a bad sentence -- I did a Microsoft Word Readability Statistics check. So, essentially, I was originally complaining that the sentence was "unreadable", I guess. Here is the Microsoft Word analysis below (with my comments added in, parenthetically).

Readability Statistics

  • Counts
    • Words: 72
    • Characters: 363
    • Paragraphs: 1
    • Sentences: 1
  • Averages
    • Sentences per Paragraph: 1.0
    • Words per Sentence: 72.0
    • Characters per Word: 4.8
  • Readability

To me, this is the very definition of an "unreadable sentence". And -- at 72 words -- a "long sentence". Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of curiosity, and by way of comparison, could you please run the same analysis on the infamous opening sentence of Paul Clifford? --76.71.5.208 (talk) 17:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes ... here goes:

It was a dark and stormy night; the rain fell in torrents—except at occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of wind which swept up the streets (for it is in London that our scene lies), rattling along the housetops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of the lamps that struggled against the darkness.

Readability Statistics

Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph A. Spadaro, these "readability" indices are a waste of time. The sentence you quoted at the very start burbles on rather soporifically. It's not one that I'd ever write, but I find it easy to understand. If it bothered me as much as it seems to bother you, I'd fix it. -- Hoary (talk) 23:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary: (1.) I will let Bill Gates and the Microsoft people -- and the linguistic experts Flesch and Kincaid -- know that some random editor on Wikipedia thinks that their readability statistics are a "waste of time". I am quite sure they will value that constructive input. (2.) As I said in a comment above ... If it's "so easy" to understand ... Then how did it score a Flesch–Kincaid readability tests score of (literally) "zero" for "Reading Ease"? Perhaps the experts in linguistics (or whatever) -- such as Flesch and Kincaid -- have no idea what they are talking about ... but some random Wikipedia editors know better?  :) That tends to be the case on the Internet.  :) (3.) Who said that it "bothered me"? I suspected it was wrong and asked people at -- oh, dear! -- the Language Reference Desk to take a look. Call the FBI on me. LOL. (4.) It doesn't "bother me". But, it seems to "bother you" that I made a grammatical/linguistic request. What's that all about?  :) You do know that this is Wikipedia ... and you do know that this is a Reference Desk for Language ... yes?  :) Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the proof is in the pudding. One editor did go and change it. And yet another offered an alternative change. Both, I presume, based on the premise that it needed changing. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am indeed no more than a random editor on Wikipedia. Well spotted. Now, were Flesch and Kincaid experts in linguistics? (If they were experts in something else, how would this expertise be a factor?) ¶ You're concerned about the "correct" versus the not-correct; the "right" versus the "wrong": for you, in a context such as this (unlike, say, arithmetic), what do these terms mean? (If you're asking for people's preferences, I don't see how this is an encyclopedic matter.) -- Hoary (talk) 04:29, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is a correct and an incorrect way to use "who" versus "whom" (and other words, also). I am pretty sure of that. Otherwise, as I posted in a different section above, there are no rules and anyone can state anything, willy-nilly. So, yes, it's an encyclopedic matter. Whether or not it is "important" to you (or to me) is irrelevant. If a Wiipedia article stated: Him is the President of the USA. ... I am pretty sure that it would be edited to He is the President of the USA. (Just as an example.) So, yes, there are correct and incorrect words to be used in an encyclopedia. And this is the exact place to inquire about it (this Wikipedia Reference Desk for Language). As for Flesch and Kincaid, I am sure you know how to reach their links and read their biographies. I assume they have some expertise in "linguistics" and "readability indices", yes ... particularly given that an "ubiquitous" index is named for them. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And Joseph A. Spadaro, I recommend "More Flesch-Kincaid grade-level nonsense", by Mark Liberman (who is an expert in linguistics), and other debunking squibs linked therefrom. -- Hoary (talk) 05:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One guy writes a 3-paragraph opinion piece. That should "override" the relevant article that has 16 or so references? Are you suggesting that we delete that article? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The "one guy" is a linguist who knows his stuff. Because he's writing in Language Log, he's particularly irreverent. But really, no reverence is warranted. No, I'm not suggesting that we delete articles about Flesch, Kincaid, or their metrics. Wikipedia covers the wrong-headed (when the wrong-headed meets notability criteria, there are reliable sources available, etc etc): it has articles on "neurolinguistic programming", EST, psychoanalysis, The Elements of Style, birtherism, and (although I haven't looked) I suppose that it has material about crackpot notions of Covid-19. Rightly so. -- Hoary (talk) 23:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a sentence that gets comparable F–K numbers:
I like it when my grandmother makes macaroni and cheese, because it is yummy, so I eat one serving and I eat another serving and another serving, and I go on and on eating until I get a really really big tummy and a terrible belly ache, and then I am sorry that I ate so much, but it is too late, and I promise to myself that I will never eat so much again, but the next time my grandmother makes macaroni and cheese, I will have forgotten all about the promise I made to myself.
Clearly, one needs college-graduate level reading skills to decipher this.  --Lambiam 09:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What's your point? That the index is "imperfect"? Not sure that anyone claimed it was "100% absolutely perfect under any and all circumstances". Of course, you can always find "extreme" cases at either end of a spectrum. When you come up with a better formula, that gains ubiquity, let us know ... so that we can write a Wikipedia article about it. And we can also delete the Flesch–Kincaid article on Wikipedia. And we can persuade Microsoft / Bill Gates to use this new, improved index. Everyone on the Internet is an "expert" in everything. What a coincidence. Statistically improbable, I am guessing. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And, by the way, that is a lousy sentence ... the one about the macaroni and cheese. Not hard to understand, no ... but still a lousy sentence. It's not gonna displace Shakespeare any time soon. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a well-written sentence. Definitely a run-on. But it's funny and interesting, because it reflects the way kids talk. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would be great to have a lousiness test for prose, but the Flesch–Kincaid tests were not designed for that purpose. They are supposed to indicate readability of text passages. My point is that you cannot use them to prove that a sentence is unreadable, like you appear to believe can be done for the sentence about professorpwnage, apparently with the aim of establishing that there is something wrong with the judgement of those who stated they did not find that sentence unreadable.  --Lambiam 20:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's called "stream of consciousness". And it's not difficult to understand, even though I don't have a post-graduate degree. But I have studied the wit and wisdom of Casey Stengel and that probably helps. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2020_May_23&oldid=959865904"