• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Whom?

Originally posted by: us3rnotfound
whooooooooooooooooooooooooooooom
Click to expand...

Used in a sentence?

Whom is on the verge of becoming an archaic word. What is on second.
 
One time I was riding an escalator and I tripped - I fell down the stairs for an hour and a half.
 
Originally posted by: shortylickens
Originally posted by: Quintox
One time I was riding an escalator and I tripped - I fell down the stairs for an hour and a half.
Click to expand...
Reply is better than topic.

This thread is now about escalators.
Click to expand...

An escalator can never break: it can only become stairs. You would never see an Escalator Temporarily Out Of Order sign, just Escalator Temporarily Stairs. Sorry for the convenience.
 
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: us3rnotfound
whooooooooooooooooooooooooooooom
Click to expand...

Used in a sentence?

Whom is on the verge of becoming an archaic word. What is on second.
Click to expand...

In addition, any word -- this again applied in principle to every word in the language -- could be negative by adding the affix un-, or could be strengthened by the affix plus-, or, for still greater emphasis doubleplus-. Thus, for example, uncold meant "warm" while pluscold and doublepluscold meant, respectively, "very cold" and "superlatively cold". It was also possible, as in present-day English, to modify the meaning of almost any word by prepositional affixes such as ante-, post-, up-, down-, etc. By such methods it was possible to bring about an enormous diminution of vocabulary. Given, for instance, the word good, there was no need for such a word as bad, since the required meaning was equally well --indeed better-- expressed by ungood. All that was necessary, in any case where two words formed a natural pair of opposites, was to decide which of them to suppress. Dark, for example, could be replaced by Unlight, or light by undark, according to preference.

The second distinguishing mark of Newspeak grammar was its regularity. Subject to a few exceptions which are mentioned below, all inflections followed the same rules. Thus in all verbs the preterite and the past participle were the same and ended in -ed. The preterite of steal was stealed, the preterite of think was thinked, and so on throughout the language, all such forms as swam, gave, brought, spoke, taken, etc., being abolished. All plurals were made by adding -s or -es as the case might be. The plurals of man, ox, life, were mans, oxes, lifes. Comparison of adjectives was invariably made by adding -er, -est (good, gooder, goodest), irregular forms and the more, most formation being suppressed.

The only classes of words that were still allowed to inflect irregularly were the pronouns, the relatives, the demonstrative adjectives, and the auxiliary verbs. All of these followed their ancient usage, except that whom had been scrapped as unnecessary, and the shall, should tenses had been dropped, all their uses being covered by will and would. There were also certain irregularities in word-formation arising out of the need for rapid and easy speech. A word which was difficult to utter, or was liable to be incorrectly heard, was held to be ipso facto a bad word: occasionally therefore, for the sake of euphony, extra letters were inserted into a word or an archaic formation was retained. But this need made itself felt chiefly in connexion with the B vocabulary. Why so great an importance was attached to ease of pronunciation will be made clear later in this essay.

Text
 
one time, some asshat at a basketball game was shouting at the opposing team saying "TO WHO? TO WHO? TO WHO? TO WHO?"

i said "it's to whom" and the people around me laughed. grammar nazi FTMFW
 
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: shortylickens
Originally posted by: Quintox
One time I was riding an escalator and I tripped - I fell down the stairs for an hour and a half.
Click to expand...
Reply is better than topic.

This thread is now about escalators.
Click to expand...

An escalator can never break: it can only become stairs. You would never see an Escalator Temporarily Out Of Order sign, just Escalator Temporarily Stairs. Sorry for the convenience.
Click to expand...

Mitch Hedberg ftw
 
Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
one time, some asshat at a basketball game was shouting at the opposing team saying "TO WHO? TO WHO? TO WHO? TO WHO?"

i said "it's to whom" and the people around me laughed. grammar nazi FTMFW
Click to expand...

In some situations, the phrase: "Laughing with you, not at you" is appropriate.

Such is not the case in your situation.
 
I'm not a fan of the word "whom". Most of the time people who use it sound pretentious. Besides, it's often used incorrectly by people attempting to sound intelligent.
 
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
one time, some asshat at a basketball game was shouting at the opposing team saying "TO WHO? TO WHO? TO WHO? TO WHO?"

i said "it's to whom" and the people around me laughed. grammar nazi FTMFW
Click to expand...

In some situations, the phrase: "Laughing with you, not at you" is appropriate.

Such is not the case in your situation.
Click to expand...

hehe trust me it was the case.

in all seriousness though, i hate people who take sports waaaaaaaaay too seriously. they just end up making themselves look stupid, and make our school look bad *sigh*

but i guess that's what college sports is all about isn't it? cheering your team and being as much of a dick as possible to the other team :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top