|
Fast Moving Turtle posted:What are the rules for who and whom in a compound sentence that has a second verb for which who/m is supposed to be the nominative? For instance: "I tackled George, Bob, John, Isaac, and Samantha, all of who(m) sought to suck on my toes." This is a big thing for me so I'm going to answer it too. "Who" is the nominative, "whom" is the objective (or accusative. Not sure what it's called in English grammar strictly). Only use "whom" if you can replace it with "him/her/them" and still make it make sense. "I tackled George, Bob, John, Isaac, and Samantha. All of they/m sought to suck on my toes." = use "all of whom." "Whom" there is the object of a preposition ("of") while "all" is the subject proper. On the other hand: "I tackled George etc., who all sought to suck on my toes." would be correct because there "who" is the subject and "all" is an adjective. Also, I love the subjunctive and it is beautiful with its "were" and its random past tenses  I do not think "was" is ever proper usage in the subjunctive, but I may just not be thinking of an instance.
|
#
¿
May 27, 2009 02:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 05:29 |
|
|
Brainworm posted:It didn't. Not even a little. I've heard that rationale for learning foreign languages thrown around before, and it always confuses me. Like there was nothing to be gained by learning, say, Spanish or Arabic. It's definitely misleading. I'd say, rather, that learning a foreign language might help you understand English grammar better. An inflected language especially can teach you how to distinguish between who and whom, for example  Mostly though, learning Latin has made me use too many subordinate clauses, so I guess it made me a WORSE writer.So that I'm actually asking something and not just nattering about grammar, hey Brainworm, what are your Top Ten Tips for the Timorous TA? I'll be teaching my own section of Elementary Latin next semester, and any help I can get would be valuable. edit: vvvvvvvv Yes, he should have used "whom." Strictly speaking, the relative clauses should have started with "with whom" but even I am not often that pretentious. Eggplant Wizard fucked around with this message at 00:57 on May 31, 2009 |
|
#
¿
May 31, 2009 00:13
|
|
|
Brainworm posted:Ten, huh. These aren't going to be in any particular order. Thanks for these
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2009 12:45
|
|
|
FoiledAgain posted:2) Noun phrases can take determiners, adjectives do not. What about substantives?  "Bring me your tired, your hungry, your poor..." Bel_Canto posted:Technically, "a lot" is a noun which then takes "of" in a partitive sense. It's a quantity rather than a quantifier. Also this ^^^^^. But bear in mind that it CAN also be an adverb, "We go to the movies a lot." Should there be a breakaway grammar a/t thread?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2009 22:58
|
|
|
FoiledAgain posted:Here. I meant for quick grammar & usage questions, a bit more accessible than that one. Sorry for the derail, Brainworm 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2009 03:50
|
|
|
Want to talk to me about Jane Austen? Disregarding the spate of published fanfiction and odd zombie/vampire mashups that have been done to her recently.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2009 13:34
|
|
|
Okay good, we agree. I can't stand the fanfiction industry that's risen up out of Jane Austen- 'romantic comedy' is exactly right. I saw a PINK WITH SPARKLES edition of Pride and Prejudice. Or, they go the other way, like the recent film adaptations (I'm thinking the 2005 P&P and the masterpiece theater S&S that just came out), which make them into ~high drama~ with lots of rain and brooding looks. Austen is not a Bronte, thank god. The saddest bit is that many readers miss both the delicate romance and the not so delicate (but apparently easy to miss?) satire and just think she's 'boring.' Sure, if you want zombies, Austen is boring... but if you want really carefully drawn characters, even the most minor players, she's excellent. I know most of the books by heart, so I've started watching the secondary characters' development (there is SOME) instead of the primary ones, and it's been pretty interesting. My most recent feelings on Emma are that she's essentially going through the same process as did Mr. Darcy (although she is both MORE class conscious and less repentant). I like to imagine she grows up a bit in the following years, Austen's "ideal marriage" is always one in which each party's character improves the other, or at least one much superior educates the inferior (e.g. Catherine Morgan in Northanger Abbey). Miss Austen was not a feminist as we would have it and should not be read as such. I'm babbling but I love Jane Austen. Thanks for indulging me. 420readPersuasioneveryday.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2009 17:15
|
|
|
There is a grad school thread stickied in E&A that will probably be a good read for you and I think will explain a lot of the basics. It's a good place to ask further questions too (not that Brainworm isn't-- this thread is, as always, engaging and informative )
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2009 05:05
|
|
|
The interesting thing about allusion is how fluid its target objects (= e.g. Nero) are, in cultural terms. YOUR Nero is going to be a very different one from MY Nero, and even if mine (as a classicist) is more grounded in historical fact, yours may actually be more familiar to your audience. So while an inaccuracy on your part might be irritating to a pedant (like me  ), your image of a character is more familiar, thus more intelligible and effective to a general audience than mine would be. See what I'm saying? There's a linguist/Classicist called Greg Nagy at Harvard who does some truly complicated stuff on the concept of mimesis, which he defines as the process of reenactment. Inherent in reenactment is both a target object (in his case bits of mythology, or character types) and a sort of composition stage (mimesis) wherein that target is recomposed, reworked, reunderstood in every performance/instance of allusion. In conclusion, allusion is really goddamn interesting, and I wouldn't fault you for making allusions to things you aren't an expert in. That's what makes culture so rich: it's a shared network of constantly changing and developing targets. fakeedit:  I think I just had a small nerdgasm, thanks
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2010 15:38
|
|
|
Electric Pez posted:How would one go about getting a course of their own design. I know a professor at my school has one, and he could not have been here more than two years. I was wondering if you know anything about the development of English courses. Judging by your thread, you mean as a professor, yes? First you: 1) Complete a BA in English lit or a field related to it 2) Apply to graduate programs in English lit or a related field, hope you get a funded spot 3) Spend 5-7 years (or more) completing coursework, TAing, studying for comprehensive exams, producing articles or conference papers, and finally writing a dissertation. 4) Seek a job. You will probably not get tenure track on the first go, so expect to hop around as an adjunct for a year or more. These days, even that's "if you're lucky." 5) Finally get a tenure track job, where you may or may not have control of which courses you teach initially, depending on the needs of the department. 6) If you are allowed to design your own course, you will have to do so within the guidelines of the university where you work, making sure to achieve certain learning goals. Brainworm can probably tell you more specifically about designing an English course, but that's the basic outline of what you'll have to do to even be in that position.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2010 20:29
|
|
|
chinchilla posted:I can't be arsed to find another source This is your problem. What Brainworm says here is his opinion. His educated, well informed opinion, but certainly not something you should be using to support your argument. I suppose you could call it a "personal communication," but even then you'd want his real name and position.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2010 23:35
|
|
|
Brainworm posted:Of course I've pointed to two books centered on pretentious manbabies, which probably says a lot about me. Either that, or a certain issues of masculinity are approaching a point of cultural crisis. :cough: the Iliad :cough:
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2012 17:53
|
|
|
I had to use the word "performative" in my class yesterday  I do try to avoid that poo poo unless it's seriously useful, though.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2012 14:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 05:29 |
|
|
Food Court Druid posted:"Performative" is a perfectly valid critical term which more or less is what it sounds like. There's no reason to feel bad about using it, especially in a classroom setting. I understand the urge to avoid obscurity, but it's important not to get carried away here. I know I just felt a bit silly using it. I did a day on postcolonial theory too which was a bit  One of my students used "otherization" correctly in a paper though so 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2012 14:48
|
|