One-letter Chrome extension corrects Twitter's grammar

Discuss

45 Responses to “One-letter Chrome extension corrects Twitter's grammar”

  1. meatbee says:

    A pox on all of you, this bothers me tremendously.

    ‘Whom’ is in the objective case. Just mentally replace ‘who/whom’ with ‘he/him’ and read it out to see which is correct.

  2. Donald Petersen says:

    “The adaptable contingent” must not be mistaken for the contingent that simply never bothered to learn any but the most elementary grammatical concepts. If the future of the language resides in those who feel an efficient 9,000-word vocabulary is all anyone should ever need, then I won’t be the last to weep.

    Moar woe, yo.

  3. Palomino says:

    My Rule: “Who of Whom”, “One of Many”.

    Use “them” instead of “him”.

    “Who do you love”?

    I love her. singular
    I love him. singular

    “Whom do you love”?

    I love them. plural

    “Whom” means a selection out of a group and “who” means the best one out of that selection. You can alternate “which” with “whom” and “which one” with “who”.

    Whom do you think will win the House and who do you think will do the best job? “The Republicans will win and Senator Smith will get things done”.

    Which do you think will win the house and which one do you think will do the best job? “The Republicans will win and Senator Smith will get things done”.

    So this app is great. My way: “Who to follow” = “One to follow” and “Whom to follow” = “Which type to follow”. Who of Whom.

    Who = one common thread/interest
    Whom = many common threads/interests
    Who = one friend out of a group.
    Whom= Multiple friends out of a group.

    Some older people still answer the phone either “Who is this”? or “With whom am I speaking”. Asking “who” used to solicit a name and “whom” a company, “Hi, this is Emily from Dr. Conrad’s office”. Who of Whom; Emily of a business. You would properly ask a lobbyist “Who(1) are you and Whom (+1) do you represent?” or “What’s your name and which group do you represent?”

    Who (1) do you think will win the election?
    Whom (1+)do you think will be running for the election?
    RULE: “Who of Whom” or “which one of which”

    “Whom do you love”?
    I love my parents.
    I love my class
    I love my friends

    “Who-of-whom do you love”? “Mick Jagger of the Rolling Stones”!
    1 of +1 who of whom
    which one out of which

  4. eyemyth says:

    “Who to follow” and “Whom to follow” are both sentence fragments. As proper usage depends on context within a sentence, either one is as correct as the other.

  5. Angryjim says:

    But isn’t “I want to know who to follow on twitter” fine? Doesn’t it depend on what part of an imaginary sentence this is a fragment.

    • grimc says:

      At the risk of sounding like even more of a useless pretentious asshole: Respond to the sentence in question.

      I want to know who to follow = Follow he
      I want to know whom to follow = Follow him

  6. jrlogue says:

    “Useless Pretentious Asshole,” “pointless grammar rules,” “bunch of prigs”–wow! Some people really get upset about people they don’t know playfully correcting the grammar of other people they don’t know. They sure put we “grammar nazis” in our place!

    • Godfree says:

      They sure put *us* “grammar Nazis” in our place. FTFY. ;-)

    • hapa says:

      “playfully” –if only it WERZ.

      “they sure put we ‘grammar nazis’ in our place!” –if you choose a glaringly awkward construction for a heading, it reflects badly on you, your priorities, your family, and your cow. how do i know you have a cow? because when i replace what i just wrote with “don’t have a cow, man” it feels correct.

  7. pidg says:

    Whom/whilst/amongst/etc are deprecated. Didn’t you get the memo?

  8. Anonymous says:

    Who to followm?

  9. AccordionIdol says:

    Since we’re adding archaisms, how about a ‘Whom ye shouldst follow’ extension?

  10. Anonymous says:

    Next: an app to make your Apple products “think differently”.

  11. JDavid says:

    Hansel? Hansal?

  12. TooGoodToCheck says:

    this is the sort of pedantry up with which I will not put

  13. ikegently says:

    Actually, it is just fine to end a sentence with a phrasal verb. So you should cheer up.

  14. show me says:

    Actually, to all of you, there are no iron clad rules in English. There are guidelines, but English is not French. French is regulated by Académie française. Many other languages have a regulating body. English does not. It changes with usage. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_language_regulators.

    • timquinn says:

      “Many other languages have a regulating body. English does not. It changes with usage.”

      So you are saying, then, that we should follow the usage of the lowliest moron cuz its whuts happening.

      I think the reality behind your statement is that usage is an ongoing negotiation. Sort of like what is going on right here. most will watch the language roll down the entropy hill to chaos. A few are willing to point out that it will be more fun if we can still use it to speak to each other. The downhill contingent will then accuse the lovers of language of being fascists, expanding their lazy efforts beyond grammar and into the meaning of the words.

  15. tarabl says:

    I feel sick.

  16. Antinous / Moderator says:

    The downhill contingent will then accuse the lovers of language of being fascists

    The adaptable contingent will then accuse the lovers of rigid, fixed, immutable and eventually-unusable language of being fascists.

  17. M says:

    Grammar nazis vs no-grammar nazis.
    Either way, we lose.

  18. timquinn says:

    Here’s the thing, un-grammatical nazis, grammatical rules exist for good reasons. Mostly to eliminate ambiguity and make communication possible in a noisy world. The real irony, it is working for you whether you realize it or not.

  19. Jake0748 says:

    Personally, I still don’t give a s**t about Chrome or Google+. Am I wrong? And if so, why? Thank you.

  20. Anonymous says:

    So all it does is add a grammatical error?

  21. Anonymous says:

    Clearly, a huge win for pointless grammar rules!

  22. show me says:

    So it’s called the Useless Pretentious Asshole extension?

  23. GreenJello says:

    So the grammar nazis now have their own plugin? I’m surprised more stuff hasn’t been added….

  24. hapa says:

    i don’t know why, but suddenly it feels like twitter thinks i should follow a bunch of prigs.

  25. Tau'ma says:

    Do not ask for who the tweet tolls.

  26. grimc says:

    Awesome.

  27. Angryjim says:

    er, uh.. funny, but can it also switch it around. I’d feel more comfortable with “to follow whom”. “who to follow” sounds right to me. Am I wrong, grammar nerds?

    • grimc says:

      This is how I learned it: Take the sentence and make it work with “he” or “him”. If “him” is right, use “whom”.

      Who to follow = Follow he
      Whom to follow = Follow him

      Conversely:

      Who is a grammar nazi = He is a grammar nazi
      Whom is a grammar nazi = Him is a grammar nazi

      • Angryjim says:

        Ah, see I don’t say “him to follow” to often. That’s why that rule wasn’t working for me. The abbreviated sentence thing was throwing me off. Thank you.

Leave a Reply