>>> Sorry to duplicate something I'm sure has been ascertained here already, >>> but I've lost the plot.. Was it established that Umbrella from GA who* >>> Snappy took under his wing broke into The Stables whilst they were away >>> at Christmas, or was that simply Umratic speculation? If not, was he >>> caught and imprisoned after having been fingered (is that the right word >>> for it?) by Alistair?
>>> *I've just spent 15 mins trying to work out whether that should be who >>> or whom. On-line grammar sites not helpful. Correction gratefully >>> received. (F'r'Us strikes again - ouch :-) )
>>That's what comes of being Swiss, I suppose. >>But life is too short to waste that much time on grammar. To save you >>any more pondering, it should be "whom". If you rearrange the sentence >>to include a pronoun, it would be "him" and not "he" (Snappy took *him* >>under his wing), and the "whom" is equivalent to "him".
>That seems wrong to me. It isn't the same as him in the other >sentence. Snappy took him is direct. Umbrella, who snappy took under >his wing, robbed the stables is a subordinate clause. But if you said >snappy took who under his wing? As a question it would still be who >not whom. Er....I can't explain it as well as you but it feels right.
I'm afraid it would still be whom. Snappy is the subject of the verb "took". Ryan, Umbrella, him, or whom, is the object. "who(m) Snappy took under his wing" is a subordinate clause in itself, but subjects and objects don't change.
DavidK wrote: > I ought to know but I've forgotten. Presumably umbrella is going to > notice eventually that Alastair is never available for 7pm supper on > that day.
"Which night" surely? Not "what".
Bloody "Which" magazine has buggered the language. Will provide explanation on request.
--
Chris
I am not young enough to know everything. Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)
>>Jim will be leading such a busy social life of his own, he won't notice. >>I must admit, I'm really glad he's back, though I agree that his story >>line is rubbish.
>I'm having trouble listening to the evneing TA at the moment as other >stuff is happening and seem to miss next afternoon's too. I tried to >get Sunday's on the internet radio this morning and it wasn't there >and streaming is no good on the laptop.
>Downloading a podcast probably won't b either as it is too slow and >I'd have to reboot in linux to hear it and then find it. I could do >it on the living room tv but that is more of a performance as the >wireless keyboard is not well so you can't type stuff.
>Taking the difficulties together with the story line and since I get >the email updates now I'm not too sad about missing two TA in a row.
>That does happen now and then but it's now looking good now for me to >go back to being a regular listener.
>I think it's a plot. Rubbish obnoxious storyline and irritating >characters, mess up the LA on the radio. OK they are not responsible >for the laptop being shite, but two out of three ain't bad.
>>>> Sorry to duplicate something I'm sure has been ascertained here already, >>>> but I've lost the plot.. Was it established that Umbrella from GA who* >>>> Snappy took under his wing broke into The Stables whilst they were away >>>> at Christmas, or was that simply Umratic speculation? If not, was he >>>> caught and imprisoned after having been fingered (is that the right word >>>> for it?) by Alistair?
>>>> *I've just spent 15 mins trying to work out whether that should be who >>>> or whom. On-line grammar sites not helpful. Correction gratefully >>>> received. (F'r'Us strikes again - ouch :-) ) >>> That's what comes of being Swiss, I suppose. >>> But life is too short to waste that much time on grammar. To save you >>> any more pondering, it should be "whom". If you rearrange the sentence >>> to include a pronoun, it would be "him" and not "he" (Snappy took *him* >>> under his wing), and the "whom" is equivalent to "him". >> That seems wrong to me. It isn't the same as him in the other >> sentence. Snappy took him is direct. Umbrella, who snappy took under >> his wing, robbed the stables is a subordinate clause. But if you said >> snappy took who under his wing? As a question it would still be who >> not whom. Er....I can't explain it as well as you but it feels right.
> I'm afraid it would still be whom. Snappy is the subject of the verb > "took". Ryan, Umbrella, him, or whom, is the object. "who(m) Snappy > took under his wing" is a subordinate clause in itself, but subjects > and objects don't change.
That's right. I was trying to keep it simple (because it is, really) but the same applies whether it's an indirect question (as in the first example), a direct question, or just a subordinate clause. "Whom" is equivalent to "him/her" and "who" is equivalent to "he/she". Most of the time, that's the only rule you need.
The thing is that in colloquial speech it's now very common to use "who" in all instances (e.g "Who did Snappy take under his wing?" "Who did you give it to?" and so on. I think it's just a matter of time before this is accepted as "correct" usage.
mower man wrote: > DavidK wrote: >> I ought to know but I've forgotten. Presumably umbrella is going to >> notice eventually that Alastair is never available for 7pm supper on >> that day.
> "Which night" surely? Not "what".
> Bloody "Which" magazine has buggered the language. Will provide > explanation on request.
Isn't the buggery of the language caused by the "Which?" spin-offs - "What Car?" etc? I think it's correct to use "which" when it's one of several known alternatives (e.g. "Which day?" Which model of washing machine?), but "what" when it's more open-ended: "What reason did he give?" "What holidays have you got planned?"
Marjorie wrote: > mower man wrote: >> DavidK wrote: >>> I ought to know but I've forgotten. Presumably umbrella is going to >>> notice eventually that Alastair is never available for 7pm supper on >>> that day.
>> "Which night" surely? Not "what".
>> Bloody "Which" magazine has buggered the language. Will provide >> explanation on request.
> Isn't the buggery of the language caused by the "Which?" spin-offs - > "What Car?" etc?
Yes, precisely - but it was "Which" magazine that had the use of their title banned so that all the others had to use "What".
> I think it's correct to use "which" when it's one of several known > alternatives (e.g. "Which day?" Which model of washing machine?), but > "what" when it's more open-ended: "What reason did he give?" "What > holidays have you got planned?"
Agreed. :-)
--
Chris
I am not young enough to know everything. Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)
mower man wrote: > Marjorie wrote: >> mower man wrote: >>> DavidK wrote: >>>> I ought to know but I've forgotten. Presumably umbrella is going to >>>> notice eventually that Alastair is never available for 7pm supper on >>>> that day.
>>> "Which night" surely? Not "what".
>>> Bloody "Which" magazine has buggered the language. Will provide >>> explanation on request.
>> Isn't the buggery of the language caused by the "Which?" spin-offs - >> "What Car?" etc?
> Yes, precisely - but it was "Which" magazine that had the use of their > title banned so that all the others had to use "What".
Ah ISWYM. But the other magazines weren't exactly very imaginative - if they'd wanted, they could have called themselves "Choosing a Car" or "Best Hi-Fi" or something.
Marjorie <dontusethisaddr...@springequinox.co.uk> writes: > mower man wrote: >> Marjorie wrote: >>> mower man wrote: >>>> DavidK wrote: >>>>> I ought to know but I've forgotten. Presumably umbrella is going >>>>> to notice eventually that Alastair is never available for 7pm >>>>> supper on that day.
>>>> "Which night" surely? Not "what".
>>>> Bloody "Which" magazine has buggered the language. Will provide >>>> explanation on request.
>>> Isn't the buggery of the language caused by the "Which?" spin-offs >>> - >>> "What Car?" etc?
>> Yes, precisely - but it was "Which" magazine that had the use of >> their title banned so that all the others had to use "What".
> Ah ISWYM. But the other magazines weren't exactly very imaginative - > if they'd wanted, they could have called themselves "Choosing a Car" > or "Best Hi-Fi" or something.
>> mower man wrote: >>> Marjorie wrote: >>>> mower man wrote: >>>>> DavidK wrote: >>>>>> I ought to know but I've forgotten. Presumably umbrella is going >>>>>> to notice eventually that Alastair is never available for 7pm >>>>>> supper on that day.
>>>>> "Which night" surely? Not "what".
>>>>> Bloody "Which" magazine has buggered the language. Will provide >>>>> explanation on request.
>>>> Isn't the buggery of the language caused by the "Which?" spin-offs >>>> - >>>> "What Car?" etc?
>>> Yes, precisely - but it was "Which" magazine that had the use of >>> their title banned so that all the others had to use "What".
>> Ah ISWYM. But the other magazines weren't exactly very imaginative - >> if they'd wanted, they could have called themselves "Choosing a Car" >> or "Best Hi-Fi" or something.
>>>the Omrud wrote: >>>> Jo Lonergan wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:19:19 +0200, BrritSki <Brrit...@iname.com> >>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Marjorie wrote: >>>>>>> Gumrat wrote: >>>>>>>> *I've just spent 15 mins trying to work out whether that should be >>>>>>>> who >>>>>>>> or whom. On-line grammar sites not helpful. Correction gratefully >>>>>>>> received. (F'r'Us strikes again - ouch :-) ) >>>>>>> That's what comes of being Swiss, I suppose. >>>>>> Nobody Swiss around here is there ? >>>>> Dunno, has Ralph taken the plunge, perhaps?
>>>> Joined the Swiss Navy?
>>>You may jest, but it exists, there is a Swiss Merchant Navy. Jo can tell >>>you more :-)
> >>>>>> Marjorie wrote: > >>>>>>> Gumrat wrote: > >>>>>>>> *I've just spent 15 mins trying to work out whether that should be > >>>>>>>> who > >>>>>>>> or whom. On-line grammar sites not helpful. Correction gratefully > >>>>>>>> received. (F'r'Us strikes again - ouch :-) ) > >>>>>>> That's what comes of being Swiss, I suppose. > >>>>>> Nobody Swiss around here is there ? > >>>>> Dunno, has Ralph taken the plunge, perhaps?
> >>>> Joined the Swiss Navy?
> >>>You may jest, but it exists, there is a Swiss Merchant Navy. Jo can tell > >>>you more :-)
> > All I know is that it's based in Genoa.
> And 6 of the 600 sailors are Swiss
Basel is a seaport- the Rhine provides free access to the sea.
>Basel is a seaport- the Rhine provides free access to the sea.
>73, doug
Surely only theoretically: I expect Germany and NL in practice monitor what's being carried, and if they feel necessary, raid if they think it's drugs, guns, etcetera. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf ** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously outdated thoughts on PCs. **
Microsoft announced recently that it had lost the source code to MS-DOS (Peter Jackson, PC Magazine December 1998 [p. 29])
>In message <878wj0s79i....@temporary-address.org.uk>, Nick ><3-nos...@temporary-address.org.uk> writes >>Marjorie <dontusethisaddr...@springequinox.co.uk> writes:
>>> mower man wrote: >>>> Marjorie wrote: >>>>> mower man wrote: >>>>>> DavidK wrote: >>>>>>> I ought to know but I've forgotten. Presumably umbrella is going >>>>>>> to notice eventually that Alastair is never available for 7pm >>>>>>> supper on that day.
>>>>>> "Which night" surely? Not "what".
>>>>>> Bloody "Which" magazine has buggered the language. Will provide >>>>>> explanation on request.
>>>>> Isn't the buggery of the language caused by the "Which?" spin-offs >>>>> - >>>>> "What Car?" etc?
>>>> Yes, precisely - but it was "Which" magazine that had the use of >>>> their title banned so that all the others had to use "What".
>>> Ah ISWYM. But the other magazines weren't exactly very imaginative - >>> if they'd wanted, they could have called themselves "Choosing a Car" >>> or "Best Hi-Fi" or something.
>>"What's on in Baker Street", that sort of thing.
>> >>>>>> Marjorie wrote: >> >>>>>>> Gumrat wrote: >> >>>>>>>> *I've just spent 15 mins trying to work out whether that should >> >>>>>>>> be >> >>>>>>>> who >> >>>>>>>> or whom. On-line grammar sites not helpful. Correction >> >>>>>>>> gratefully >> >>>>>>>> received. (F'r'Us strikes again - ouch :-) ) >> >>>>>>> That's what comes of being Swiss, I suppose. >> >>>>>> Nobody Swiss around here is there ? >> >>>>> Dunno, has Ralph taken the plunge, perhaps?
>> >>>> Joined the Swiss Navy?
>> >>>You may jest, but it exists, there is a Swiss Merchant Navy. Jo can >> >>>tell >> >>>you more :-)
>> > All I know is that it's based in Genoa.
>> And 6 of the 600 sailors are Swiss
> Basel is a seaport- the Rhine provides free access to the sea.
I think it would be poperly called an inland port. Most of the traffic goes by barge, although their may be some small (<10,000 ton) sea-going vessels, but I think there are also some Swiss flagged seagoing vessels that never travel up the Rhine.
> >> >>>>>> Marjorie wrote: > >> >>>>>>> Gumrat wrote: > >> >>>>>>>> *I've just spent 15 mins trying to work out whether that should > >> >>>>>>>> be > >> >>>>>>>> who > >> >>>>>>>> or whom. On-line grammar sites not helpful. Correction > >> >>>>>>>> gratefully > >> >>>>>>>> received. (F'r'Us strikes again - ouch :-) ) > >> >>>>>>> That's what comes of being Swiss, I suppose. > >> >>>>>> Nobody Swiss around here is there ? > >> >>>>> Dunno, has Ralph taken the plunge, perhaps?
> >> >>>> Joined the Swiss Navy?
> >> >>>You may jest, but it exists, there is a Swiss Merchant Navy. Jo can > >> >>>tell > >> >>>you more :-)
> >> > All I know is that it's based in Genoa.
> >> And 6 of the 600 sailors are Swiss
> > Basel is a seaport- the Rhine provides free access to the sea.
> I think it would be poperly called an inland port. Most of the traffic goes > by barge, although their may be some small (<10,000 ton) sea-going vessels, > but I think there are also some Swiss flagged seagoing vessels that never > travel up the Rhine.
Barge and sea-going are not opposites. Here, Sacramento and Stockton are seaports, with customs facilities, but there are LOTS of ships that can never go up there. Switzerland can and does receive from and ship to overseas destinations from Basel, with no accountability to EU countries.
>> >> >>>>>> Marjorie wrote: >> >> >>>>>>> Gumrat wrote: >> >> >>>>>>>> *I've just spent 15 mins trying to work out whether that should >> >> >>>>>>>> be >> >> >>>>>>>> who >> >> >>>>>>>> or whom. On-line grammar sites not helpful. Correction >> >> >>>>>>>> gratefully >> >> >>>>>>>> received. (F'r'Us strikes again - ouch :-) ) >> >> >>>>>>> That's what comes of being Swiss, I suppose. >> >> >>>>>> Nobody Swiss around here is there ? >> >> >>>>> Dunno, has Ralph taken the plunge, perhaps?
>> >> >>>> Joined the Swiss Navy?
>> >> >>>You may jest, but it exists, there is a Swiss Merchant Navy. Jo can >> >> >>>tell >> >> >>>you more :-)
>> >> > All I know is that it's based in Genoa.
>> >> And 6 of the 600 sailors are Swiss
>> > Basel is a seaport- the Rhine provides free access to the sea.
>> I think it would be poperly called an inland port. Most of the traffic goes >> by barge, although their may be some small (<10,000 ton) sea-going vessels, >> but I think there are also some Swiss flagged seagoing vessels that never >> travel up the Rhine.
>Barge and sea-going are not opposites. Here, Sacramento and Stockton >are seaports, with customs facilities, but there are LOTS of ships >that can never go up there. Switzerland can and does receive from and >ship to overseas destinations from Basel, with no accountability to EU >countries.
There's a lot of container traffic to the port just inside the border, and barges and small tankers actually come through the centre of town quite frequently, taking, among other cargos, oil up to the refineries on the other side. They have to go through a lock to get up there, which I imagine is the only one between here and the sea OAM?
They make a delicious wake when you're crossing on one of the little current-powered ferries.
>>> >>>>>> Marjorie wrote: >>> >>>>>>> Gumrat wrote: >>> >>>>>>>> *I've just spent 15 mins trying to work out whether that should >>> >>>>>>>> be >>> >>>>>>>> who >>> >>>>>>>> or whom. On-line grammar sites not helpful. Correction >>> >>>>>>>> gratefully >>> >>>>>>>> received. (F'r'Us strikes again - ouch :-) ) >>> >>>>>>> That's what comes of being Swiss, I suppose. >>> >>>>>> Nobody Swiss around here is there ? >>> >>>>> Dunno, has Ralph taken the plunge, perhaps?
>>> >>>> Joined the Swiss Navy?
>>> >>>You may jest, but it exists, there is a Swiss Merchant Navy. Jo can >>> >>>tell >>> >>>you more :-)
>>> > All I know is that it's based in Genoa.
>>> And 6 of the 600 sailors are Swiss
>> Basel is a seaport- the Rhine provides free access to the sea.
>I think it would be poperly called an inland port. Most of the traffic goes >by barge, although their may be some small (<10,000 ton) sea-going vessels, >but I think there are also some Swiss flagged seagoing vessels that never >travel up the Rhine.
It seems to me, watching them go by, that the vast majority of the Rhine cargo vessels are of other nationalities. But Wiki informs me that most of them are container vessels, and their port is a bit downstream of me, so I miss them.
And Wiki also says that Basel is the HQ of the Swiss merchant marine. I always thought it was Genoa (which did seem odd)
In article <f5i955dcj2qt3lb9pvslt4kkfs9cain...@4ax.com>, joloner...@hotmail.com says...
> There's a lot of container traffic to the port just inside the border, and > barges and small tankers actually come through the centre of town quite > frequently, taking, among other cargos, oil up to the refineries on the other > side. They have to go through a lock to get up there, which I imagine is the > only one between here and the sea OAM?
> They make a delicious wake when you're crossing on one of the little > current-powered ferries.
OK Jo, I'll bite.
What is a current powered ferry?
I recall seeing digital clocks which were powered by sticking a couple of electrodes into a piece of fruit, but this sounds like more heavy- duty engineering.
> "A reaction ferry is a cable ferry that uses the reaction of the > current of a river against a fixed tether to propel the vessel > across the river."
Thanks Chris. I've now filled today's quota for new things learnt.
>>>> >>>>>> Marjorie wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> Gumrat wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>> *I've just spent 15 mins trying to work out whether that >>>> >>>>>>>> should >>>> >>>>>>>> be >>>> >>>>>>>> who >>>> >>>>>>>> or whom. On-line grammar sites not helpful. Correction >>>> >>>>>>>> gratefully >>>> >>>>>>>> received. (F'r'Us strikes again - ouch :-) ) >>>> >>>>>>> That's what comes of being Swiss, I suppose. >>>> >>>>>> Nobody Swiss around here is there ? >>>> >>>>> Dunno, has Ralph taken the plunge, perhaps?
>>>> >>>> Joined the Swiss Navy?
>>>> >>>You may jest, but it exists, there is a Swiss Merchant Navy. Jo can >>>> >>>tell >>>> >>>you more :-)
>>>> > All I know is that it's based in Genoa.
>>>> And 6 of the 600 sailors are Swiss
>>> Basel is a seaport- the Rhine provides free access to the sea.
>>I think it would be poperly called an inland port. Most of the traffic >>goes >>by barge, although their may be some small (<10,000 ton) sea-going >>vessels, >>but I think there are also some Swiss flagged seagoing vessels that never >>travel up the Rhine.
> It seems to me, watching them go by, that the vast majority of the Rhine > cargo > vessels are of other nationalities. But Wiki informs me that most of them > are > container vessels, and their port is a bit downstream of me, so I miss > them.
> And Wiki also says that Basel is the HQ of the Swiss merchant marine. I > always > thought it was Genoa (which did seem odd)
It used to be somewhere near your office/bank/library (Aeschengraben?), but that was a long time ago.
|
