Language desk
< July 3	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 5 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 4

Regrettedest

In the translation of Les Miserables by Isabel F. Hapgood, which preserves the French tu-vous distinction by translating "tu" as "thou", Valjean says "Thou regrettedest not having taken her to the convent!"

Now, this translation is not the best, and I'm almost certain "regrettedest" is not a real word (it doesn't appear on a Google book search anywhere outside this book). Is this a valid sentence, or is it wrong? Smurrayinchester 21:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a simple regular past form. The last 'e' would not have been pronouced, so it would have been said as if written 'regrettedst', which makes it seem less odd when actually heard. See Thou#Conjugation

If you do a Google book search for "didst regret" - which throws up a number of results - it would seem that the use of did + infinitive was a strategy in the 18th and early 19th Centuries, when thou forms still had some currency in literary language, to avoid what does sound very ugly to modern ears. And by modern, I mean post-Middle English. A comparably formed but more common verb - to set - only throws up results in Wycliffe's Bible and a few Middle English texts for "settedest" [1], but many many results for "didst set" [2]. "Thou didst regret not having taken her to the convent" would seem a more likely translation. (Unless the "not" is intended to qualify "regret" rather than "having taken", which is ambiguous in the translation as it stands. This ambiguity too is cleared up by using "didst regret" - or "didst not regret" if that is the intended sense). Valiantis (talk) 21:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many of who and many of whom

Resolved

Hi there, just writing a bit and I came across this particular situation. The dependent clause in question went something like this:

:the challenge will be in empowering clinicians, many of whom have used traditional methods for years and decades, to learn and adopt new technologies in common practice.

I have currently circumvented this obstacle by removing 'many of', but feel that it could be included with either who or whom. What would be the correct way to limit the number of clinicians to only many of them in the sentence? If there are any other grammatical errors in either the text or even this post, feel free to point them out. Thanks a bunch, Sazea (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Using "whom" would be correct because it is the object governed by the preposition "of". "Whom" is for objective uses and "who" is for subjective uses. In this case the subject is "many" even though it is modified by "of whom" and thereby "whom" is closer to the main verb, "are". Apart from watching the capitalisation at the start of the sentence, I don't see any other issues with it. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you pay any attention to the traditional rules at all, then it's always "whom" after a preposition. In fact, some people never use "whom" except after a preposition: "To whom are you speaking?" etc... AnonMoos (talk) 23:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, many of those people who only know that 'whom' is used after prepositions are also notoriously the sources of abominations such as "To whom are you speaking to"! 152.97.171.80 (talk) 05:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The sentence you have quoted was perfectly correct and "of who" is unacceptable. The preposition "of" governs the object form of the pronoun: "of him, of them, of whom"; not "of he, of they, of who". I'd suggest you return to the original verbiage, since it follows logically in the overall structure, while removing "of whom" leads to an abrupt, unlettered style. μηδείς (talk) 23:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with all above. Not sure what the point of "years and decades" is. Is it that some clinicians have used traditional methods for years but some others for even longer, decades? If so, I'd change "and" to "or". But you can probably get away with just "decades", because making an extreme comparison seems to be the purpose of this whole part of the sentence; adding "years and" just waters the point down. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 23:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, yes: and > or. μηδείς (talk) 23:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your responses. Atethnekos, I intended the sentence to function as a dependent clause, though it may not be correct. As well, I had read up on the subjective and objective uses but did not realize that many was counted as the subject. Jack, good catch on that. Using only decades, I would probably have to change many to some to still be factually accurate. Sazea (talk) 01:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When in doubt, try reordering the words. "Of whom many are" is the underlying message. μηδείς (talk) 01:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on exactly how many the "some" are, they could still be described as "many". They're both relative terms. It wouldn't be inaccurate to say "Many of the people who've contributed to this thread are no doubt law-abiding citizens", even if the population is only 5 people at this stage. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 02:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here in America we have something called The Fifth. μηδείς (talk) 02:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Many of whom" is fine. "Many of who" is also fine, but there are plenty of people around who don't acknowledge that language changes, and think that what their grandparents were taught at school is the only possibility, and so will tell you that it is "incorrect". And "of whom many are", though grammatical, is a stylistic abomination.--ColinFine (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you abominate a position no one has advocated. To say that changing the word order in one's head allows one to see the underlying meaning is in no way to advocate using that word order.

It was not obvious to me that that was what you meant. Apologies. --ColinFine (talk) 10:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If language changes, surely it can change back? Or is there only a one-way progression allowed in polite company, with our grandparents always on the wrong side of history? μηδείς (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it has changed that far yet, Colin. If you were to use "many of who" in management circles or education or the like, you'd be considered poorly educated at best in my world, anyway. Bielle (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly educated and not very bright, and certainly not a candidate for promotion. A lawyer who used "who" instead of "whom" in such an instance might even get his filing thrown out of court, and certainly wouldn't impress the judge. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 00:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As in dat guy dat was defendin dem yutes? μηδείς (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course these responses to me are correct: but they are sociology, not language. I submit that a lawyer using "who" for "whom" is precisely parallel to one turning up at the court in inappropriately casual dress. --ColinFine (talk) 10:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sort of makes the case for the other side, Colin. Wouldn't there be something, well, inappropriate about turning up at the court in inappropriately casual dress? No different from the the inappropriateness of saying "many of who". It's not a crime to say this, and many people do say it, but many people also say "Me and 'im done it". -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 11:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]