WWTBAM Bored

kayrharris wrote:must not be available for whomever types the graphic that is displayed on our screen for news stories. (There has to be a technical term for that, but I don't what it is.)

I think it's "product of the modern U.S. education system", where self-esteem takes precedence over getting the correct answer.

dimmzy wrote:

I think it's "product of the modern U.S. education system", where self-esteem takes precedence over getting the correct answer.

In your comment, shouldn't the end quote be OUTSIDE the comma?

--dimmzy, who's looking forward to a rousing comma debate

gsabc wrote:

dimmzy wrote:

I think it's "product of the modern U.S. education system", where self-esteem takes precedence over getting the correct answer.

In your comment, shouldn't the end quote be OUTSIDE the comma?

--dimmzy, who's looking forward to a rousing comma debate

I've never been able to figure that one out. Where DOES the punctuation go in an embedded quotation?

Ritterskoop wrote:I'm told young people don't learn spelling because the word processing programs do it for them.

Poorly.

TheCalvinator24 wrote:

gsabc wrote:

dimmzy wrote: In your comment, shouldn't the end quote be OUTSIDE the comma?

--dimmzy, who's looking forward to a rousing comma debate

I've never been able to figure that one out. Where DOES the punctuation go in an embedded quotation?

That depends on where you are. In America, we put commas and periods inside the quotation marks. In Britain, they go outside. I agree with the logic of the British system, but I think the American system is better aesthetically.

silvercamaro wrote:

Ritterskoop wrote:I'm told young people don't learn spelling because the word processing programs do it for them.

Poorly.

A letter to the editor in today's NY Times states that students don't need to learn facts because they can Google. She thinks the time is better spent making sure the kids learn "critical thinking skills." The kicker is that the letter was written by a teacher of gifted students.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/opini ... rbert.html

I have two major problems with this. First, critical thinking skills may not do much good when the thinker has no information on which to use them, because of laziness in looking up those facts; inability to distinguish good information(i.e. "true" facts) from bad data; or loss of power and/or internet access. Second, perhaps I could accept this approach more easily if applied to students of low intelligence, whose mental capacity to retain facts might be limited. To make such a claim on behalf of "gifted" students is absurd.

I would be outraged if this teacher came anywhere close to my children.

Bob Juch wrote:[There are many people who can name the wives of Henry VII and how they were disposed of, but how many of those know whose daughter Catherine of Aragon was or the relationship between the two wives who were beheaded?

Ritterskoop wrote:I'm told young people don't learn spelling because the word processing programs do it for them.

Poorly.

PlacentiaSoccerMom wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:[There are many people who can name the wives of Henry VII and how they were disposed of, but how many of those know whose daughter Catherine of Aragon was or the relationship between the two wives who were beheaded?

Henry VII had one wife, Elizabeth of York.

Henry VIII had six wives.

Catherine of Aragon's daughter was Mary I.

Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard were first cousins. Anne's mother was Catherine's father's sister.

kayrharris wrote: The graphic on screen while they were on this story had "parents PAYED the ransom". I know a lot of people who say they are just bad spellers, but this is a one syllable, four letter word!!!

Bob Juch wrote:

PlacentiaSoccerMom wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:[There are many people who can name the wives of Henry VII and how they were disposed of, but how many of those know whose daughter Catherine of Aragon was or the relationship between the two wives who were beheaded?

Henry VII had one wife, Elizabeth of York.

Henry VIII had six wives.

Catherine of Aragon's daughter was Mary I.

Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard were first cousins. Anne's mother was Catherine's father's sister.

I obviously meant to say "Henry VIII", just as you meant to say who Catherine of Aragon's parents were, not who her daughter was.

TheConfessor wrote:

kayrharris wrote: The graphic on screen while they were on this story had "parents PAYED the ransom". I know a lot of people who say they are just bad spellers, but this is a one syllable, four letter word!!!

Actually, "PAYED" is a perfectly good word. It just doesn't happen to be the word that was intended in the sentence above. Whoever wrote it might have had spell check, which found nothing wrong with the word "payed." In fact, I have spell check and it thinks payed is just fine. It's a nautical term, referring to letting out rope.

Spell check can be a helpful tool, but it doesn't replace a good education.

If you're also interested in grammar check, the word in the first sentence of your post should be "whoever," not "whomever." It's the subject of a clause, so "whoever" would be the correct word to use in this case.

TheConfessor wrote:
If you're also interested in grammar check, the word in the first sentence of your post should be "whoever," not "whomever." It's the subject of a clause, so "whoever" would be the correct word to use in this case.

silvercamaro wrote:

TheConfessor wrote:
If you're also interested in grammar check, the word in the first sentence of your post should be "whoever," not "whomever." It's the subject of a clause, so "whoever" would be the correct word to use in this case.

I disagree. "Whomever" (and the clause that follows) is the object of the preposition "for."

I will accept Hermillion as the proper authority to settle this dispute, and if I am in error, I will extend a sincere apology.

silvercamaro wrote:

TheConfessor wrote:
If you're also interested in grammar check, the word in the first sentence of your post should be "whoever," not "whomever." It's the subject of a clause, so "whoever" would be the correct word to use in this case.

I disagree. "Whomever" (and the clause that follows) is the object of the preposition "for."

I will accept Hermillion as the proper authority to settle this dispute, and if I am in error, I will extend a sincere apology.

Pronoun case in subordinate clause

Who, whom, whoever, whomever. In deciding which case of who you should use in a clause, remember this important rule: The case of the pronoun is governed by the role it plays in its own clause, not by its relation to the rest of the sentence. Choosing the right case of pronoun can be especially confusing because the pronoun may appear to have more than one function. Look at the following sentence.

*

They gave the money to whoever presented the winning ticket.

At first, you may be tempted to think whomever rather than whoever should be the pronoun here, on the assumption that it is the object of the preposition to. But in fact the entire clause, not whoever, is the object of the preposition. Refer to the basic rule: The case should be based on the pronoun's role within its own clause. In this clause, whoever is the subject of the verb presented. (A good way to determine the right pronoun case is to forget everything but the clause itself: whoever presented the winning ticket, yes; whomever presented the winning ticket, no.)

The following two sentences show more dramatically how you must focus on the clause rather than the complete sentence in choosing the right pronoun case.

*

We asked whomever we saw for a reaction to the play.
*

We asked whoever called us to call back later.

In each sentence the clause is the direct object of asked. But in the first sentence, whomever is correct because within its clause it is the object of saw, while in the second sentence, whoever is correct because it is the subject of called.