Newsgroup: it.cultura.linguistica.inglese
Titolo: about which

"Is this the person about which you were speaking about last night?"
Why "about which" and not "about who"?
Kiuhnm

 Why "about which" and not "about who"?
Non direi né 'about which', né 'about who'. (E non mai due volte 'about'.)
Is this the person about whom you were speaking last night? (formale)
o
Is this the person who you were speaking about last night? (informale)

 Is this the person who you were speaking about last night? (informale)
Togliendo anche "who" andrebbe bene comunque(in ambito informale) o sbaglio?
Is this the person you were speaking about last night?

 Is this the person who you were speaking about last night? (informale)
I though "whom" was disappearing even in formal contexts in favour of "who".
Kiuhnm

"Kiuhnm" <kiuhnm03_NO@SPAM_yahoo.it> wrote in message 
news:fdl9q7$b9u$1...@aioe.org...

Not quite so simple : it's true that the formal option is less frequently 
used , but that doesn't mean you'd ever use 'about who' ; putting 'about' 
before the relative pronoun is in itself formal , and you always find 'about 
whom' ; the informal option is the other structure as given by Tony .
Mike 

 structure as given by Tony .
I thought there were various degrees of formality.
Kiuhnm


Sě, si puň dirlo pure.

 "who".
I still use it and I expect the same from any educated person in a
professional context.

Tony the Ice Man wrote:

And what about
"Whom did you capture today?"
or
"One person whom I often see is that friend of mine we were talking 
about yesterday".
Kiuhnm



If you're asking about my personal usage, I use 'whom' in formal
writtencommunications even when it functions as a direct object. In
conversation and informal written communications I use 'who' when it
functions as a direct object unless I am talking to someone who knows the
distinction, in which case I use 'whom'. I always use 'whom' when it
functions as an indirect object with a preposition.
I haven't consciously decided to adhere to the rules I've just described and 
I'm sure there are exceptions to them in practice. My writing and speech 
have just evolved into those patterns based on my interactions with others. 
My tendency is to express a style of communication that puts the person at 
ease and fosters good comprehension, without compromising the language. 
Forse è simile a qualcosa a cui gli italiani pensano: dare del tu, o no.

"Kiuhnm" <kiuhnm03_NO@SPAM_yahoo.it> wrote in message
news:fdo42k$eot$1...@aioe.org...

It is much more common to hear or read "who" rather than "whom" in these
examples, in all contexts. However, after prepositions, "whom" is always
used. Linguists have invented "link grammars" and "connector" rules, in an
effort to explain why "whom" is losing popularity.
"The man who I think John hit died".
"Who did John hit?".
"Who do you think John hit?"
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cmp-lg/pdf/9508/9508004v1.pdf
A google search of reputable sources such as the BBC or the NY Times, etc.
for "who(m) (do)(did) you" shows the preponderance of who.
Joe from Massachusetts

 effort to explain why "whom" is losing popularity.
?
I don't see how a model that have so many shortcomings (many legal 
sentences are not accepted by it) can be used to explain what happens in 
our minds.
I believe that our mind works through examples, not rules. That's why 
every time we are asked for an explanation, we begin to recollect all 
the pertinent examples we can think of and try to devise (not deduce) 
the rules. Of course, we note many regularities and patterns, but 
exceptions lie almost everywhere.
After all we can't have everything. Natural languages are flexible but 
ambiguous, while non-natural languages are non-ambiguous but too rigid.
Kiuhnm

"Kiuhnm" <kiuhnm03_NO@SPAM_yahoo.it> wrote in message
news:fdqgv8$o5b$1...@aioe.org...

Linguists' works, such as those of Chomsky, in the areas of transformational
and generative grammar show that there are general rules which apply to all
human languages, so I wouldn't minimize the existence of rules, even though
we may not be aware of what rules we are unconsciously following when we use
language.
Joe from Massachusetts

 language.
My point is that our comprehension of natural languages and the 
mechanism which lies behind them is ridiculous. Many of the results of 
Chomsky has been successfully applied to programming languages, but 
natural languages are much more complex and irregular. Many things are 
arbitrary and depend on history. The paper ('91) you mentioned in your 
previous post proposes a grammar that is equipotent to a context free 
grammar (CFG). There are even programming languages that cannot be 
described through CFGs and natural languages are more complex and much 
more irregular. After all, natural languages are heavily based on 
context so it's not surprising at all that we can't describe them 
through CFGs.
What I'm saying is that you can't explain something as subtle as the 
preference between who and whom with a model that hardly manages to 
grasp the simpler part of a language. Well, you can do it, but the 
response will be totally unreliable.
Kiuhnm