• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

He seems like a smart guy, but JFC, what a dick!

Bark louder, little dog.

The truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand.

There are consequences to being an arrogant, sullen prick.

I would try pessimism, but it probably wouldn’t work.

When you’re in more danger from the IDF than from Russian shelling, that’s really bad.

’Where will you hide, Roberts, the laws all being flat?’

Come on, media. you have one job. start doing it.

if you can’t see it, then you are useless in the fight to stop it.

It is not hopeless, and we are not helpless.

Republicans: slavery is when you own me. freedom is when I own you.

Their freedom requires your slavery.

American history and black history cannot be separated.

There is no compromise when it comes to body autonomy. You either have it or you do not.

Do we throw up our hands or do we roll up our sleeves? (hint, door #2)

Insiders who complain to politico: please report to the white house office of shut the fuck up.

A democracy can’t function when people can’t distinguish facts from lies.

Relentless negativity is not a sign that you are more realistic.

Books are my comfort food!

Peak wingnut was a lie.

Dear elected officials: Trump is temporary, dishonor is forever.

You are either for trump or for democracy. Pick one.

“When somebody takes the time to draw up a playbook, they’re gonna use it.”

Innocent people do not delay justice.

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Gastritis broke my dictionary

Gastritis broke my dictionary

by DougJ|  July 11, 20169:16 am| 133 Comments

This post is in: Our Failed Media Experiment

FacebookTweetEmail

Bloomberg and the Atlantic should feel very proud (via via):

Good article. But attention WaPo headline writer: “Whom” is not the formal version of “Who”. https://t.co/GFMwZIGNAk

— (((Megan McArdle))) (@asymmetricinfo) July 9, 2016

@ehaglund Adding “ever” to the end does not change this; if you wouldn’t use “Whom”, you should not use “whomever"

— (((Megan McArdle))) (@asymmetricinfo) July 9, 2016

@sonyaellenmann @ehaglund It’s grammatically correct, but really archaic and weird.

— (((Megan McArdle))) (@asymmetricinfo) July 9, 2016

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « That went well
Next Post: All Cattle and No Hat »

Reader Interactions

133Comments

  1. 1.

    Major Major Major Major

    July 11, 2016 at 9:27 am

    To me this just looks like a human being’s Twitter feed.

  2. 2.

    Wag

    July 11, 2016 at 9:27 am

    McMegan left the Atlanic years ago.

  3. 3.

    msb

    July 11, 2016 at 9:28 am

    So correct usage “looks archaic and weird”. Right.

  4. 4.

    Ian

    July 11, 2016 at 9:29 am

    Why does Mcbargle go by the name asymetricinfo? Why would you be proud of having skewed data?

  5. 5.

    MattF

    July 11, 2016 at 9:30 am

    Now, don’t tell me that the post title is a subtle reference to a song. I won’t believe it.

  6. 6.

    Brachiator

    July 11, 2016 at 9:31 am

    So, let’s see. It’s grammaticality correct and McMegan is stupid. Just another day.

    She will be stubbornly wrong about something else tomorrow.

  7. 7.

    Pogonip

    July 11, 2016 at 9:34 am

    ” I am the way, the truth, and the life, and whomsoever believes in me shall never die.”

    McArgle: “‘Whomsoever’? Crucify him!”

  8. 8.

    The Red Pen

    July 11, 2016 at 9:36 am

    Grammatically correct, but collectively nonsense.

  9. 9.

    pat

    July 11, 2016 at 9:36 am

    First of all, “Whomever you already disliked” is not a complete sentence. It refers back to “Who is to blame.”
    That’s all I got….

  10. 10.

    Major Major Major Major

    July 11, 2016 at 9:38 am

    @msb: But it is both archaic and weird. Weird as in unusual to the point of turning her head (which is itself a modern usage of the term–there’s nothing paranormal going on here), and archaic as in archaic. Just because it’s “correct” doesn’t make it neither archaic nor weird.

    @Pogonip: Yeah, the KJB isn’t archaic or weird-sounding at all.

    Look, I get that we’re trying to point and laugh, but if this is her greatest sin lately, I mean, come on.

  11. 11.

    David Fud

    July 11, 2016 at 9:38 am

    @Ian: It seems likely to me that she is implying that she has a lot of info and everyone else not much, sort of like the asymetric warfare conducted by “terrorists” against occupying armies or by the US army against a 3rd world army (i.e., vs. Saddam’s Iraqi army) where force is replaced with info.

    She apparently has the info and we don’t. Or, she means that we all have the info and she has the power, but is ignorant. Not exactly an apt use of the idea of asymmetry.

  12. 12.

    MomSense

    July 11, 2016 at 9:38 am

    As with all things McArdle, best taken with a grain of pink Himalayan salt.

  13. 13.

    sigaba

    July 11, 2016 at 9:41 am

    @David Fud: it’s just a term from economics, describing two actors one of WHOM has more information than the other. When economic actors have the same information, it’s supposed to result in a Pareto optimal outcome.

  14. 14.

    Major Major Major Major

    July 11, 2016 at 9:41 am

    @David Fud: Asymmetric information is a concept in economics. It’s when one party to a transaction knows more. I think it used to be the name of her blog?

    It’s from the school of thought that naming your blog after something economics-y sounding makes you cool. Like say ‘Zero Hedge’.

    She used to blog as “Jane Galt”.

  15. 15.

    Brachiator

    July 11, 2016 at 9:41 am

    @David Fud:

    She apparently has the info and we don’t.

    Or she knows a lot of nothing.

  16. 16.

    boatboy_srq

    July 11, 2016 at 9:42 am

    I bet her doesn’t understand how to use subject/object forms of pronouns, either.

    /snark

  17. 17.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    July 11, 2016 at 9:42 am

    McMegan is is going to retire from punditing and open a gastropub featuring only saltine crackers flavored with weird and archaic salts.

  18. 18.

    sigaba

    July 11, 2016 at 9:42 am

    @Major Major Major Major: It’s not archaic in the slightest. English pronouns have an accusative and nominative case

  19. 19.

    raven

    July 11, 2016 at 9:45 am

    Nerd fight!!!!

  20. 20.

    Major Major Major Major

    July 11, 2016 at 9:45 am

    @sigaba: For now. But they aren’t particularly useful. They’ll go away. We used to have thirteen kinds of inflected verb, you know. Now we’re down to one, plus archaic exceptions like run/ran. Things change.

    Hope that information has holpen you.

  21. 21.

    sigaba

    July 11, 2016 at 9:46 am

    @Major Major Major Major: they do. But saying something will change tomorrow, is not the same as saying it is incorrect today.

  22. 22.

    germy

    July 11, 2016 at 9:46 am

    LGM provided a Megan translation:

    “X ≠ X.”
    “No, X = X.”
    “Here is proof that X ≠ X.”
    “That proof is incorrect.”
    …
    “I did not say X ≠ X, but it is weird that X = X.”

  23. 23.

    sigaba

    July 11, 2016 at 9:47 am

    Also say what you will, but English verb formation remains a dumpster fire.

  24. 24.

    nonynony

    July 11, 2016 at 9:49 am

    @Major Major Major Major:

    Look, I get that we’re trying to point and laugh, but if this is her greatest sin lately, I mean, come on.

    If you’re going to be a prescriptivist asshole to the point that you’re calling out professional headline writers on your Twitter feed then you better goddamn be correct about your prescriptivism.

    McArdle is the worst kind of prescriptivist. She thinks she knows all of the rules about how grammar should work, calls people out in public about them, doesn’t bother to check her facts and is almost always wrong when she does it.

    I have little tolerance for prescriptivist public shaming anyway – but if you’re going to do it you better goddamn be right when you do it.

  25. 25.

    Major Major Major Major

    July 11, 2016 at 9:51 am

    @sigaba: Ah, but you’ve moved the goalposts back to where they were before she moved them in the first place. You and I were discussing ‘archaic/weird’, not ‘correct’.

    See how easy that mistake is to make?

    Like I said, this just reads like the a Twitter exchange between human beings. She’s not a language blogger, cut her some (a little) slack.

  26. 26.

    Brachiator

    July 11, 2016 at 9:52 am

    This just in from the Guardian and other UK news sources.

    Andrea Leadsom has withdrawn from the race to be leader of the Conservative party, leaving Theresa May apparently uncontested for the job of next prime minister.

    The dramatic development came in a statement issued by Leadsom, the energy minister, shortly after midday. She admitted that she has been left “shattered” by the contest in which she has faced an outpouring of anger following her comments about motherhood.

    The energy minister was shaken by the scale of the response to a newspaper interview in which she suggested that the fact she was a mother meant she had a larger stake in society than her opponent, Theresa May.

    The fallout from the BREXIT vote keeps knocking ’em down.

  27. 27.

    Another Holocene Human

    July 11, 2016 at 9:52 am

    Saw this the other day at LGM and still perplexed as to why McMeghan even started this fight.

    The “m” in whom is mostly being lost due to phonetic reasons, not grammar reasons (although, yes, confusion of nominative and accusative seems quite common with poorly educated suburban folks so … we’re getting there), so why pick a fight with “whomever” where that elided “m” will drop right back in, sort of like a shield and “an” honor, with the elided “n”.

    Oh, right, because know it all Jane Galt doesn’t even realize that.

  28. 28.

    MattF

    July 11, 2016 at 9:53 am

    @Brachiator: It’s like musical chairs– and the music has stopped.

  29. 29.

    Another Holocene Human

    July 11, 2016 at 9:54 am

    @Brachiator: That flap is fascinating from over here. Shades of that shit tornado Joss Whedon kicked up when he implied that a woman who’s been sterilized is a monster. #lolwhedon.

  30. 30.

    Major Major Major Major

    July 11, 2016 at 9:55 am

    @nonynony: I’ll agree that this exchange makes her look like an asshole and possibly a high school student who’s in Latin (or perhaps Debate) Club but isn’t very good at it.

  31. 31.

    MrSnrub

    July 11, 2016 at 9:55 am

    I had to look up the rules for Who/Whom, which I’ve never really known, and found this.

    The Oatmeal: Who vs Whom

    Good stuff.

  32. 32.

    Another Holocene Human

    July 11, 2016 at 9:56 am

    @Major Major Major Major: Wait, she named her blog assymetric information and then she provided a case study by playing Correcty Fairy in public?

  33. 33.

    Another Holocene Human

    July 11, 2016 at 9:57 am

    @Wag: Left it a smoking ruin moldering in the ashes of its previous reputation, you mean?

  34. 34.

    gogol's wife

    July 11, 2016 at 9:58 am

    @Brachiator:

    Sorry, McArdle is right. It’s the subject of a verb, not the object of “dislike.”

  35. 35.

    Another Holocene Human

    July 11, 2016 at 9:58 am

    @MrSnrub: who/whom is just they/them, but harder to pronounce, so it turns into who/who/whom depending on what words are gently cradling that funky lip pursing action.

  36. 36.

    gogol's wife

    July 11, 2016 at 10:00 am

    The pronoun is standing in for “Who’s to blame?” So it should be “Whoever,” not “whomever.”

    The biggest grammatical problem I see in current media is using “whom” where it should be “who.” Usually it’s when a parenthetical is involved. “Al Gore is the man whom many think should have been president in 2000.” Wrong.

  37. 37.

    Major Major Major Major

    July 11, 2016 at 10:01 am

    @Another Holocene Human: Heh indeedy.

  38. 38.

    p.a.

    July 11, 2016 at 10:01 am

    no No NO. whomsoever

  39. 39.

    Major Major Major Major

    July 11, 2016 at 10:01 am

    @Another Holocene Human: I thought Sully did that, she was just along for the ride.

  40. 40.

    gogol's wife

    July 11, 2016 at 10:01 am

    @gogol’s wife:

    Which is not to say it would be an elegant construction even if “whomever” were replaced by “whoever.”

    The great R. L. Trask says, best to just use “who” if you don’t know the difference.

  41. 41.

    Another Holocene Human

    July 11, 2016 at 10:02 am

    On the Oatmeal, “to whom”, “with whom” are iambs. So they fit a certain rhythm in English that is pleasing. The whom without a particle antecedent is trochaic. (Think Hiawatha.) All that stress put on the initial “whom” is just a pain in the ass to say so we turn it into a stressed “who”. Think about how annoying it is just to pronounce “Whom did you call in here?” versus “Who did you call in here?” Hoooooom. Ugh. Make it stop.

  42. 42.

    Another Holocene Human

    July 11, 2016 at 10:03 am

    @gogol’s wife: “to who” “with who” is not iambic, more of a strophee, which is annoying to say, which is why that M sound has hung around while getting dropped from the naked object case who/whom.

  43. 43.

    Doug!

    July 11, 2016 at 10:04 am

    @nonynony:

    If you’re going to be a prescriptivist asshole to the point that you’re calling out professional headline writers on your Twitter feed then you better goddamn be correct about your prescriptivism.

    Yes, exactly.

  44. 44.

    Another Holocene Human

    July 11, 2016 at 10:05 am

    Betcha didn’t realize how deep this who/whom conspiracy goes. At least it’s not one of those schoolmarm created betismes like “Your gift was so meaningful to Christopher and I.” RAGE

  45. 45.

    Mothra

    July 11, 2016 at 10:05 am

    After last week a grammar diversion is great.

    I felt so hopeless and frustrated last night. You forget how many clueless people you know until you see “learn to comply with the police” memes show up in your Facebook feed. CASTILE COMPLIED. That’s what BLM is trying to tell you! Compliance does not fix the problem!

  46. 46.

    Another Holocene Human

    July 11, 2016 at 10:07 am

    Using an object case like “me” in the subject has some precedent in the French language, which did influence English at various times. French uses “moi” rather than “je” when not immediately followed by a verb, almost exactly like colloquial English. Huh, I wonder where that came from, what an absolutely astounding coincidence. Who gives a fig that it’s “bad” Latin?

  47. 47.

    Another Holocene Human

    July 11, 2016 at 10:07 am

    @Mothra: Facebook sux.

  48. 48.

    schrodinger's cat

    July 11, 2016 at 10:10 am

    Heh DougJ, I am in your neck of the woods right now!

  49. 49.

    Major Major Major Major

    July 11, 2016 at 10:10 am

    @Mothra: If black people’s bodies would just comply with the bullets and let them in so they didn’t have to use force, there would be a lot less damage.

  50. 50.

    jeffreyw

    July 11, 2016 at 10:11 am

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: Her pantry will stock these.

  51. 51.

    Botsplainer, Neoliberal Corporatist Shill

    July 11, 2016 at 10:12 am

    I flipped over to regular radio this morning, first time in a long time, just to listen to Bob and Tom.

    I heard a commercial – first time ever – inviting high school graduates who are interested in college but not the expense to come to the IBEW hall to see about entering the program. The ad I heard highlighted $15 an hour opening pay and advancing to $30 an hour pay with benefits and retirement.

    I thought it was awesome – shows the benefits of membership in a union of people working in skilled trades. We need a lot more of this!

  52. 52.

    p.a.

    July 11, 2016 at 10:13 am

    Safire, grammar nazi, like Scalia, nazi nazi, still dead. Imposing Latin language nomenclature on English, possible the most promiscuous language there is (Amerenglish at least), is another evil result of DWM dominance.

  53. 53.

    sigaba

    July 11, 2016 at 10:14 am

    @gogol’s wife: “Whomever” is the direct object, “You” is the subject.

    @germy: McArdle has a lot of these little episodes where she’ll try to correct someone, or quote some fact, then be absolutely wrong on the facts, and then come back with some variation of the underlying principle is right. The only thing I can come up with is she just doesn’t take her writing very seriously. That she would prefer her underlying principle to evidence is of course understandable, libertarians despise evidence and believe economics is just a branch of ethics.

  54. 54.

    Major Major Major Major

    July 11, 2016 at 10:16 am

    @p.a.: German has an accusative. This isn’t a Latin issue.

  55. 55.

    p.a.

    July 11, 2016 at 10:16 am

    @Botsplainer, Neoliberal Corporatist Shill: I remember in the ’60’s the AFL-CIO had a Sunday morning news & information show on one of the big 3 (IIRC, or maybe it was shown locally at whatever station would take the money). Right before/after the Lutherans’ Davey and Goliath.

  56. 56.

    Major Major Major Major

    July 11, 2016 at 10:17 am

    @p.a.: German has an accusative, and a dative and genitive too. Not a Latin issue.

  57. 57.

    gogol's wife

    July 11, 2016 at 10:17 am

    Probably wr@sigaba:

    The headline asks “Who’s to blame for Dallas?” To answer the question, you are replacing the subject of that clause, “who is to blame” — the answer is “whoever,” serving as the stand-in for the subject of “is.”

  58. 58.

    BC in Illinois

    July 11, 2016 at 10:18 am

    @Pogonip:

    and whomsoever believes in me

    I’m sure you were joking, but archaic correctness leads to point out that my 1611 King James Version has the translation:

    Jesus saith vnto him, I am the Way, the Trueth, and the Life : no man commeth vnto the Father but by me.

    (Just roll with the v’s and the u’s.)

    That was John 14:6. You combined it with John 11:25-26:

    I am the resurrection, and the life … And whosoeuer liueth and beleeueth in mee, shall neuer die.

    [For going archaic, nothing beats the first edition 1611 King James Translation with the original spelling.]

    The point is, for the 1611 translation committee, “whosoever” was fine in the nominative. In the accusative (as Judas said):

    Whomsoever I shall kiss, the same is he.

    Do with it as thou willst

  59. 59.

    gogol's wife

    July 11, 2016 at 10:19 am

    @Another Holocene Human:

    You’re probably right that “whom” has survived for reasons of euphony. I’m ready to see it go, given how often it’s used inappropriately.

  60. 60.

    gogol's wife

    July 11, 2016 at 10:21 am

    @BC in Illinois:

    The problem with the stupid headline is that the whole thing is ungrammatical. It should be something like, “Who’s to blame for Dallas? Whoever’s not your friend” or something like that, to avoid switching horses in the middle of the stream. The parallelism is bad.

  61. 61.

    Brachiator

    July 11, 2016 at 10:22 am

    @gogol’s wife:

    Sorry, McArdle is right. It’s the subject of a verb, not the object of “dislike.”

    McArdle is right, even though she admitted that she was wrong? And shifted the argument to what was weird and archaic?

    Nope, not buying it.

  62. 62.

    gogol's wife

    July 11, 2016 at 10:23 am

    @Brachiator:

    She got confused by the pushback. She was right to start with. See my comments #61, 64.

  63. 63.

    Mike J

    July 11, 2016 at 10:23 am

    Who’s on first, and also to blame for Dallas.

  64. 64.

    Another Holocene Human

    July 11, 2016 at 10:24 am

    @Botsplainer, Neoliberal Corporatist Shill: Yes, definitely. Where in the country is IBEW running this ad because my local IBEW needs to do this, everyone agrees, but they haven’t done anything but talk so far.

  65. 65.

    sigaba

    July 11, 2016 at 10:24 am

    @gogol’s wife: Right and if it was written that way it would be correct. But he used a verb in the second sentence, so You is the subject.

    Sorry I have a degree in Russian so whenever anyone says anything it’s almost like I can taste the noun cases. Russian has six cases, but it’s still pretty under control compared to Finnish.

  66. 66.

    Major Major Major Major

    July 11, 2016 at 10:25 am

    @Brachiator: She managed to be wrong about being wrong?

  67. 67.

    gogol's wife

    July 11, 2016 at 10:26 am

    @sigaba:

    See comment #64. The parallelism of the clauses should have been preserved, but at any rate, I would say that the primary function of the second pronoun is to stand in for “who” in the initial clause, as the subject of “is to blame.”

    I’m fluent in Russian too. Not relevant.

  68. 68.

    Another Holocene Human

    July 11, 2016 at 10:26 am

    @gogol’s wife: I think she was confused before the pushback or she could have articulated that. She heard something “off” but fingered the wrong problem.

    But with “math is hard” Meghan, expecting incisive, logical thinking is a bridge too far. Now, let me tell you about that urban Negro….

  69. 69.

    Rommie

    July 11, 2016 at 10:26 am

    @David Fud: “She apparently has the info and we don’t”

    That’s the Republican belief system in a nutshell. I really, really do try to keep an open mind, but all too often I get Anthrax and Tire Rims from across the fence. I’m watching it happen to a friend, who I *know* is not the Common Clay of the Midwest, but is feasting on a A+TR diet on his FB feed because of Dallas. SMH

    As far as the OP – Yes, if you are going to declare yourself the arbiter of All Things Correct, don’t make an error lest you end up like Nomad in Star Trek. FAULTY!

  70. 70.

    gogol's wife

    July 11, 2016 at 10:26 am

    @Major Major Major Major:

    Yes, she did. She should have stood her ground.

  71. 71.

    Another Holocene Human

    July 11, 2016 at 10:28 am

    @BC in Illinois: Hey, smarty pants, is it true that the Bible was deliberately translated into archaic-for-the-time English to make it seem weightier and more impressive/intimidating?

    I heard this claimed on British TV, just wondering if this is a consensus view.

  72. 72.

    Major Major Major Major

    July 11, 2016 at 10:28 am

    @sigaba: Ooh, somebody brought a Finno-Ugric to an Indo-European fight. Everybody duck!

  73. 73.

    gogol's wife

    July 11, 2016 at 10:28 am

    @Another Holocene Human:

    Yeah, I find it weird to be defending Megan. But “who/whom” is a pet peeve of mine. I’m much happier to see “to who” than to see “the man whom we think will be the next chairman.”

  74. 74.

    Another Holocene Human

    July 11, 2016 at 10:29 am

    @gogol’s wife: Pretty sure she did stand her (shaky) ground. She thought it sounded weird. She was confused as to why.

  75. 75.

    sigaba

    July 11, 2016 at 10:30 am

    @gogol’s wife:

    I would say that the primary function of the second pronoun is to stand in for “who” in the initial clause,

    So there aren’t two clauses here. There are two sentences, each bearing one clause. They can’t preserve the parallelism because there is none: one sentence is SVO, with a present-tense to infinitive verb form, and the second is OSV, with the verb in second-person past.

  76. 76.

    Brachiator

    July 11, 2016 at 10:30 am

    @srv:

    Liberals are not thrilled

    It’s their job not to be thrilled.

    And Sullivan probably feels as though happy days are here again.

  77. 77.

    chopper

    July 11, 2016 at 10:31 am

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    I hear her blender makes a flawless bechamel. flawless.

  78. 78.

    Another Holocene Human

    July 11, 2016 at 10:31 am

    @gogol’s wife: That seems to be a sentence where the thought and the grammar are all mixed up because “the man” is clearly the “object” of our thoughts, so it’s weird to recast him as the subject just because it’s some sort of (dependent? subordinate?) clause. That confusion would exist even if the pronoun were different.

  79. 79.

    Major Major Major Major

    July 11, 2016 at 10:32 am

    @Another Holocene Human: If so, that would give ammunition to the “archaic and weird” crowd.

  80. 80.

    Gin & Tonic

    July 11, 2016 at 10:35 am

    @p.a.: Safire was at least interesting, as opposed to Megan.

  81. 81.

    Brachiator

    July 11, 2016 at 10:36 am

    @Another Holocene Human:

    I heard this claimed on British TV, just wondering if this is a consensus view.

    Yes, this is true. A good chunk of the King James version imports the text of the Tyndale Bible, from 1524-1530.

  82. 82.

    germy

    July 11, 2016 at 10:37 am

    @sigaba:

    McArdle has a lot of these little episodes where she’ll try to correct someone, or quote some fact, then be absolutely wrong on the facts, and then come back with some variation of the underlying principle is right.

    Is it a gentler form of gaslighting?

  83. 83.

    germy

    July 11, 2016 at 10:38 am

    Megan McArdle is a Koch-trained conservative activist working as a business journalist and pundit. She earned her MBA from the University of Chicago, received journalism training at the Kochs’ flagship libertarian think-tank, the Institute for Humane Studies, and has used her position at The Atlantic and, most recently, Newsweek/Daily Beast, to run cover for and promote Koch interests and the Republican Party agenda. In early 2009, a GOP outfit backed by the Kochs hailed McArdle for her “leadership role in … re-branding the Republican party.” McArdle continues to conceal the extent of her deeply conflicted relationships with the Koch influence-peddling machine.

    For shame

  84. 84.

    Major Major Major Major

    July 11, 2016 at 10:38 am

    @Another Holocene Human: A predicate nominative is nothing especially unusual.

  85. 85.

    Brachiator

    July 11, 2016 at 10:39 am

    @Major Major Major Major:

    She managed to be wrong about being wrong?

    Which, I suppose, is mathematically correct.

  86. 86.

    Major Major Major Major

    July 11, 2016 at 10:41 am

    @germy: A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.

  87. 87.

    germy

    July 11, 2016 at 10:41 am

    @Brachiator: Sullivan had a brief cameo in Batman V Superman. I believe he spoke in favor of Lex Luthor.

  88. 88.

    boatboy_srq

    July 11, 2016 at 10:41 am

    @Brachiator: The Tyndale was only 70-80 years old at the time. Taking that as “archaic” or “quaint” is a bit like reading Hemingway and Fitzgerald today and thinking they’re Middle English.

  89. 89.

    Brachiator

    July 11, 2016 at 10:43 am

    @Mike J:

    . Who’s on first

    You got a guy in left field?

    Yeah. Whomever.

  90. 90.

    BC in Illinois

    July 11, 2016 at 10:44 am

    @gogol’s wife:

    The parallelism is bad.

    Yours is the best analysis in the thread.

    “Who is to blame?” HE is. Nominative.
    “Who do you blame?” HIM. Accusative.

    The first sentence asks a question that should be answered in the nominative.
    The second sentence answers with a construction that requires the accusative.

    You could however (and here I would credit Rita Mae Brown) consider that the words “to blame” contain a hidden passive. That someone is “to blame” means that someone [me or you or someone else] actively blames someone.

    So . . . “Who’s to blame?” “Him!”. . . meaning “I blame him.”

    Or it could be . . . “Who’s to blame?” He is.” . . . meaning that “he is in the state of being to blame.

    Sentence one takes one construction; sentence two takes the other.

    You are correct. The parallelism is bad.

  91. 91.

    Major Major Major Major

    July 11, 2016 at 10:45 am

    @Brachiator:

    Bureaucrat #1.0: “Bureaucrat Conrad, you are technically correct… the best kind of correct.“

  92. 92.

    different-church-lady

    July 11, 2016 at 10:48 am

    @Wag: That’s why they should feel proud.

  93. 93.

    gogol's wife

    July 11, 2016 at 10:51 am

    @Another Holocene Human:

    No, the “we think” is parenthetical to the main sentence.

  94. 94.

    RSA

    July 11, 2016 at 10:53 am

    In my head, I combine the two parts into Whoever you already disliked is to blame for Dallas.

    And while that sounds right to me, now I’m not even sure. Any grammar mavens (a phrase I always associate with William Safire) want to chip in on the correctness of my sentence?

  95. 95.

    Brachiator

    July 11, 2016 at 10:54 am

    @boatboy_srq:

    According to some scholars, Tyndale “was writing at the beginning of the Early Modern English period.” Lot of change within a short span of time.

    On the other hand, Tyndale introduced a number of new words into English.

  96. 96.

    jeffreyw

    July 11, 2016 at 10:55 am

    I’ll be happy when “whom” is dead and buried, but using “they” as a generic singular pronoun? Over my cooling corpse!

  97. 97.

    Amir Khalid

    July 11, 2016 at 10:57 am

    I’d consider both “whomever” and “whoever” acceptable.in the second sentence of the headline. I wouldn’t make a fuss about preferring one or the other. I think “whomever” is strictly the correct form, and that’s the word I’d choose in that sentence; but “whoever” is also well-established, in keeping wth the gradual fading of “whom” from the language in favour of “who”.

  98. 98.

    Major Major Major Major

    July 11, 2016 at 10:59 am

    @boatboy_srq: @Brachiator: Also keep in mind the written word was not a perfect representation of the language as used, back then.

  99. 99.

    different-church-lady

    July 11, 2016 at 10:59 am

    WHOM… THE HELL… CARES?

  100. 100.

    BC in Illinois

    July 11, 2016 at 11:02 am

    @Another Holocene Human:

    It may be overstating it to say that they were deliberately archaizing. They already had a Tyndale Bible of the 1530s to use as a model, but they did their own work (stealing from Tyndale as they wished). At the time, archaizing would have been to kept the Latin Vulgate (and there are traces of that as well). But the verb forms we find archaic [I abide, thou abidest, he abideth] were just the verb forms of the day (see Mallory) but they were passing away.

    For analogies, look at William Shakespeare’s contemporary English: “Wherefore art thou Romeo?” “Shall I compare thee . . . Thou art more lovely.” Thee and thou were not archaic forms; they were not special forms to address Divinity; they were singular forms to use for friends, lovers, and family. [ . . . or to address inferiors. When the translators addressed their Superior, King James, they called him “You.” ]

    ETA: Or what Brachiator said. English was changing. They were themselves part of the change. Mallory to Tyndale to KJV / Shakespeare is a lot of change.

  101. 101.

    Botsplainer, Neoliberal Corporatist Shill

    July 11, 2016 at 11:06 am

    @Another Holocene Human:

    It’s being run here in the People’s Democratic Soc!alist Kenyan Shariah Republic of Louisville. IBEW Local 369, as I recall. It was VERY well done, targeted at the perfect demographic.

  102. 102.

    jacy

    July 11, 2016 at 11:07 am

    @Major Major Major Major:

    McMegan is someone to whom any kind of slack should never be cut.

    The problem is telling someone that something is wrong because it is “archaic and weird” instead of actually being wrong is a hallmark of a bossy know-it-all who doesn’t bother to actually know it all. Or know much of anything, for that matter.

  103. 103.

    JanieM

    July 11, 2016 at 11:13 am

    @RSA:

    In my head, I combine the two parts into Whoever you already disliked is to blame for Dallas.

    And while that sounds right to me, now I’m not even sure. Any grammar mavens (a phrase I always associate with William Safire) want to chip in on the correctness of my sentence?

    It’s nicer to imagine myself as a grammar maven than as a grammar Nazi, so I’ll chip in.

    I agree that your sentence sounds right, but I don’t think it is. It sounds right because “Whoever … is to blame” sounds right. If it were only that, “Whoever” would be the subject of “is” and would be the right form.

    But in the sentence as you constructed it, the entire clause “Whomever you already disliked” is the subject of “is” – and who[m]ever needs to be in the case that’s the right one for its place within the clause.

    This is interesting because contrary to the notion that “whom/ever” is disappearing from the language, which is what I would have expected and assumed (and seen) as of a few years ago, I’m now seeing “whom/ever” all over the place where it should be “who/ever.” I could find a couple of dozen examples right from BJ comments just within the last few months that I’ve been reading relatively faithfully. (And every time I have to sit on my hands and grit my teeth to keep from complaining. :-)) I know that comments are off the cuff and unedited, but I think that’s all the more telling: when people don’t stop to think about it, they use the more formal/correct-sounding form, and that’s “whom.” We all have a vague idea that we get who/whom wrong a lot by using who where we should use whom, so we overcorrect and use whom where we should use whom.

    Interestingly, it’s precisely in this kind of construction that I see the opposite (of RSA’s example) a lot: where “who” is the correct case for the subject of a clause, and the clause itself is the direct object. Direct object makes people think “whom” — so they get it wrong that way….as in something like this:

    “I’ll give the prize to whomever goes first” should be “…whoever goes first,” because whoever is the subject of the clause, which is itself the object of “to.”

    (I am old enough to have been taught this stuff. I realize that there are two or three generations of school children behind me who weren’t.)

    (I gave up on putting quotation marks everywhere. Any halfway competent copy editor would have a field day. But it is a blog comment….)

    @Amir Khalid: I agree. When I edit (which I do a lot), I leave whom as who and whomever as whoever depending on context.

    @different-church-lady: I do. :-) (Or should I say “Me do”?)

    As for the original McArdle trigger for this thread, people correcting other people can be madly annoying, and I’ve learned the hard way to do it with care, or not at all. But condescendingly and sanctimoniously correcting people when you’re wrong is in a whole other category of assholishness.

    ETA: I’d rather be called a maven than an Nazi, but I do have mixed feelings about associating myself with William Safire….. Now for some caffeine to start the day properly.

  104. 104.

    Major Major Major Major

    July 11, 2016 at 11:13 am

    @jacy: I agree that it indicates a major personality flaw–the whole “let’s just walk this back until I’m right” thing–but it’s not uncommon, especially in natural conversations, and doubly so on Twitter.

    It’s a Twitter exchange. This isn’t a papal encyclical.

  105. 105.

    RSA

    July 11, 2016 at 11:16 am

    @JanieM: Thanks for your analysis!

    But in the sentence as you constructed it, the entire clause “Whomever you already disliked” is the subject of “is” – and who[m]ever needs to be in the case that’s the right one for its place within the clause.

    This was exactly my point of confusion. It’s an unusual feeling for me not to be able to trust my ear on correctness.

  106. 106.

    Major Major Major Major

    July 11, 2016 at 11:17 am

    @JanieM:

    “I’ll give the prize to whomever goes first” should be “…whoever goes first,” because whoever is the subject of the clause, which is itself the object of “to.”

    ‘Whoever’ is the indirect object. We don’t have a dative, so it defaults back to the nominative ‘who’. Or does that take whom? I can’t remember. But it’s the indirect object.

  107. 107.

    Brachiator

    July 11, 2016 at 11:23 am

    @Major Major Major Major:

    Also keep in mind the written word was not a perfect representation of the language as used, back then.

    Very true. But printing also shaped language. Writers began thinking more about how words should be spelled, and what the words meant. But even with the trend towards standardized spelling, accents and regional dialects were still maintained.

  108. 108.

    JanieM

    July 11, 2016 at 11:30 am

    @Major Major Major Major: “Whoever” is not the indirect object. The whole clause “whoever goes first” is the direct object, and “whoever” is the subject of that clause, thus nominative. What might be dative in another language doesn’t “default” to the nominative in any analysis I’ve ever seen.

  109. 109.

    cmorenc

    July 11, 2016 at 11:33 am

    Whomever is on first, what’s on second….I don’t know.

  110. 110.

    Major Major Major Major

    July 11, 2016 at 11:33 am

    @JanieM: Ah, you’re right. The entire noun phrase is the indirect object.

    As for whether it should be whoever or whomever as a result, the Google says both, and I’m a descriptivist ?

  111. 111.

    JanieM

    July 11, 2016 at 11:37 am

    “The whole clause ‘whoever goes first’ is the direct object” — s/b “indirect object” — as MMMM deciphered.

    I’m a hybrid of de- and pre-. I do a lot of editing in contexts where the writing shouldn’t sound amateurish, and I have enough OCD tendencies to want things to be “correct” and tidy. But I’ve also studied enough linguistics, and I love language enough, to marvel at language as a living, changing thing.

    In my personal life I’m militantly de-. But that’s a whole nother story. ;-)

  112. 112.

    JanieM

    July 11, 2016 at 11:45 am

    @jeffreyw:

    I’ll be happy when “whom” is dead and buried, but using “they” as a generic singular pronoun? Over my cooling corpse!

    I’m starting a collection of grammar and usage preferences. My sister’s corpse will be cooling before she ever considers using “invite” for “invitation.” That doesn’t bother me at all, but her use, which seems to be completely standard in the business world now, of “the below report” drives me out of my freakin’ mind.

    Also, why does everyone have to “utilize” everything these days? What ever happened to the perfectly nice little word “use”? Why can’t we just “help” someone, instead of always having to “assist” them?

    Harrumph. I can’t wait to retire and be done with business-ese forever.

  113. 113.

    eyelessgame

    July 11, 2016 at 11:45 am

    Okay, folks. Truth bomb coming. Gogol’s Wife is only sort of wrong. Let’s first remove all the elision (and the ‘ever’ stylism). Write the complete sentence answer, formally, with both definite and indefinite pronouns.

    He who is to blame for Dallas is him whom you already disliked.

    Remember your Grammar Nazi lessons back in grade school, where you hated “answer with a complete sentence” because it meant you had to restate the question as part of the answer? Yeah, it’s like that.

    Now put the “-ever” back in and take out the definite pronouns:

    Whoever is to blame for Dallas is whomever you already disliked.

    So if you’re going to elide part of that answer to produce a sentence fragment, you would be just as incorrect (sentence fragments are not proper grammar) to remove the second through eighth words as you would to remove the first through seventh.

    Consider “Who is to blame?” “He is. People dislike him.”
    Restate:
    “Who is to blame?” “He is. Him, whom people dislike.”

    You could shorten that – “Who is to blame?” “He is.” That’s kinda what gogol’s wife is trying to do.

    But it’s awkward grammar, because the *real real* correct grammar is not to put the same person into the object of the answer who is being used in the subject. That’s what passive voice is for.

    “Who is to blame?” “Whoever is already disliked by people.”

    But you don’t use passive voice in a headline. Did I say awkward? Yeah. Well. Sentence fragments. Good device. Will use more.

  114. 114.

    Jennifer

    July 11, 2016 at 11:47 am

    @Major Major Major Major: Actually, I think you are right here. From what I can tell, the correct usage is complicated by our tendency to drop relative pronouns and leave them implied. Therefore, the “complete” sentence would be “I’ll give the prize to whomever [who] goes first,” where “whomever” is the object and “[who] goes first” is modifying the object. However, nobody actually writes/says the “who” anymore because it looks and sounds too weird.

    Regarding Cilizza’s headline, McMeghan is actually right, but she is an asshat who was ready to call out but unprepared to defend it. And it doesn’t matter anyway because English is a delightful dumpster fire of a language.

  115. 115.

    p.a.

    July 11, 2016 at 12:12 pm

    re: KJV Bible, God’s Secretaries gets good reviews.

  116. 116.

    Peter

    July 11, 2016 at 12:17 pm

    @Another Holocene Human: That was such an unforced error on Whedon’s part. It’s not hard to see what he actually meant by it, but…geeze, man, phrasing!

  117. 117.

    Origuy

    July 11, 2016 at 12:22 pm

    Linguist now think that English lost its case system between the Conquest and Chaucer, as it became creolized with Danish. While the elites were talking and writing in French and Latin, the common people were a mix of English and Danish speakers. Very similar in vocabulary, they communicated by simplifying the grammar. No one was writing things down in this new language, so we don’t know how it evolved. Scots took a similar path, but had fewer Normans and Saxons and more Celts and Angles.

  118. 118.

    Bruce Webb

    July 11, 2016 at 12:33 pm

    @gogol’s wife: “The pronoun is standing in for “Who’s to blame?” So it should be “Whoever,” not “whomever.”

    Sorry no. Answer the question “Who’s to blame?” Correct answers are “Him” “Her” “Me” “Them” Accusatives. Incorrect answers are “He” “She” “I” “They”. Because the question as phrased assumes the object of ‘blame’. Now it turns out that equally good answers are “He is to blame” “She is to blame” “I am to blame” and “They are to blame”. Because you can see the question as being a reflexive, something made more explicit in romance languages. “Je me brosse mes dents” (if they are in your head) “Je brosse mes dents” (if they are dentures in your hand).

    This is why we call her McMegan McAddled, her brain isn’t fried to a crisp. On the other hand she doesn’t keep its yolk and egg white perfectly separated.

  119. 119.

    Bruce Webb

    July 11, 2016 at 12:39 pm

    Okay correct French usage is “je me brosse les dents” as opposed to “je brosse mes dents”. Bad Bruce. As pointed out above if you have to be a tight ass prescriptivist at least get it right. Or be prepared to correct and apologize.

    I for one am sorry.

  120. 120.

    Another Holocene Human

    July 11, 2016 at 12:47 pm

    @Major Major Major Major: Okay, now you’ve done it. That can’t possibly be right. Indirect objects take accusative case in English.

  121. 121.

    Another Holocene Human

    July 11, 2016 at 12:50 pm

    @Peter: I know! And it’s personal because I missed that movie in theaters because my wife was dithering over whether to see it — because of that very scene. Dumb stupid splosions movies by definition should be seen on big screen rather than an home. I am an unhappy customer now. Try harder, Whedon, yeesh.

  122. 122.

    Betsy

    July 11, 2016 at 1:03 pm

    @Major Major Major Major: I heard the construction “has holpen” in ordinary vernacular speech just a few years ago. What a treat.

    But then, I pronounce the “h” in “which.”

  123. 123.

    EBT

    July 11, 2016 at 1:18 pm

    Gotta say. Underwhelmed by whining over word form usage.

  124. 124.

    Elliott

    July 11, 2016 at 1:33 pm

    Actually, I think she’s right. The headline does not ask “Who to Blame?” in which case, it would have read “Whom to blame for Dallas Shooting? Whomever you dislike.” It asked “Who is to Blame?” so the answer would have the party to blame as the subject, not the object. Who is to blame? Whoever you dislike is to blame. Whom shall we blame? We shall blame whomever we dislike.

  125. 125.

    gogol's wife

    July 11, 2016 at 2:01 pm

    @Elliott:

    Exactly.

  126. 126.

    Grumpy Code Monkey

    July 11, 2016 at 2:37 pm

    Could be worse. Could be German.

    Suddenly, the following quotes come to mind:

    French is what happens when Latin meets German.

    A dog is “der Hund”; a woman is “die Frau”; a horse is “das Pferd”; now you put that dog in the genitive case, and is he the same dog he was before? No, sir; he is “des Hundes”; put him in the dative case and what is he? Why, he is “dem Hund.” Now you snatch him into the accusative case and how is it with him? Why, he is “den Hunden.” But suppose he happens to be twins and you have to pluralize him- what then? Why, they’ll swat that twin dog around through the 4 cases until he’ll think he’s an entire international dog-show all in is own person. I don’t like dogs, but I wouldn’t treat a dog like that- I wouldn’t even treat a borrowed dog that way. Well, it’s just the same with a cat. They start her in at the nominative singular in good health and fair to look upon, and they sweat her through all the 4 cases and the 16 the’s and when she limps out through the accusative plural you wouldn’t recognize her for the same being. Yes, sir, once the German language gets hold of a cat, it’s goodbye cat. That’s about the amount of it.

    Just saying, it could be worse. It could be a lot worse…

  127. 127.

    Pogonip

    July 11, 2016 at 2:48 pm

    @BC in Illinois: I am properly chastened.

    (I haven’t seen a King James in YEARS; we have my grandfather’s Masonic King James but the print is too small for my aging eyes. I myself use a Douay descendant on Kindle and then we have a student’s heavily footnoted and annotated Douay descendant, useful for questions like “Why does it warn about the sins of the fathers being visited on the children?” and “What in the world was Ezekiel smoking, and can I get some?”)

  128. 128.

    Ian

    July 11, 2016 at 3:14 pm

    @chopper:
    Wouldn’t a blender overwhip a bechamel sauce? Your cream would get destroyed well before the cheese was soft enough to mix in proprerly.

  129. 129.

    Bob2

    July 11, 2016 at 3:35 pm

    @Ian:
    https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-03-12/your-kitchen-needs-a-1-400-thermomix

  130. 130.

    Msb

    July 11, 2016 at 3:47 pm

    Thanks to all for the refreshing grammar debate. I’m with JanieM, BC and sigaba.
    “God’s secretaries” is excellent, as is a play on the subject called “Written on the heart” by David Edgar, in which Tyndale says: ” For we write not a dead law with ink and parchment but a living law, which only love and mercy understand. And he that has not that written on his heart, shall never understand it; no, though all the Angels were to teach him.”

  131. 131.

    hugely

    July 11, 2016 at 5:22 pm

    @Jennifer:

    English is a delightful dumpster fire of a language

    QFT!

  132. 132.

    hugely

    July 11, 2016 at 5:24 pm

    @Betsy: just like cool wHip…

  133. 133.

    sm*t cl*de

    July 11, 2016 at 5:34 pm

    There is much more Meganism in the whole conversation. She goes on to accuse people of lying if they claim to remain grammatically correct in cases where she doesn’t:

    Have you ever in your life said “Whom do you like?” No, don’t tell me you have, because I don’t believe you.

    Not realising that she is addressing a pedant German.

    Then we have the equally-assertive

    Whom has a set of received uses at this point; “Whomever you dislike” is not among them.

    Also :

    Whom is a dying word; holdover usage in prepositional phrases and for nuts like me who say “Whom should I say is calling?”

    — a glorious specimen of preeningly more-pedantic-than-thou hyper-correction which contradicts the unimpeachable authority of Leonard Cohen lyrics. Again, she deleted it (because “pretending it never happened” is easier than “admitting error”), but it is recorded as a LGM comment.
    How is she going to learn and grow from failures if she denies their very existence?

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Image by MomSense (5/10.25)

Recent Comments

  • schrodingers_cat on PSA: What To Say To ICE Agents (May 20, 2025 @ 10:25pm)
  • Tasha on Open Thread: Bad Weather Forecasting (May 20, 2025 @ 10:23pm)
  • Ohio Mom on Tuesday Night Open Thread (May 20, 2025 @ 10:21pm)
  • Math Guy on Tuesday Night Open Thread (May 20, 2025 @ 10:19pm)
  • gratuitous on Tuesday Night Open Thread (May 20, 2025 @ 10:19pm)

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
War in Ukraine
Donate to Razom for Ukraine

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Meetups

Upcoming Ohio Meetup May 17
5/11 Post about the May 17 Ohio Meetup

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Hands Off! – Denver, San Diego & Austin

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!