LitLovers Blog

I don’t do math (can’t).  But do do grammar. I believe in grammar—its rules for clarity of expression—so others can make sense of what we’re trying to say.  (Notice I’m violating grammar here…because I can.  I’m so good…the grammar police gave me permission.)

Nonetheless . . . here’s one grammatical rule that continually irritates me:

     WHO \ WHOM
The M Conundrum

THIS?     —    Give the award to   WHOEVER   deserves it.
Or this?  —    Give the award to WHOMEVER  deserves it.

THIS?      —    Give the award to those   WHO   you think deserve it.
Or this?  —    Give the award to those WHOM  you think deserve it.

The who / whom embroglio is totally overrated.  Clarity can be achieved perfectly well without that niggling little ”m.”  Who?  Whom?  Does it matter?  We get the point.

Read at your own peril . . .

Answer:  Give the award to WHOEVER deserves it. 
“Whomever” is not the prepositional object of  “to.”  Rather, WHOEVER  is the subject of a dependent clause, “whoever deserves it.”  The entire clause is the prepositional object.  Phew!

Answer:  Give the award to those WHO you think deserve it. 
“Whomever” is not the object of  “you think…whom.”   “You think” is parenthetical…you can remove it altogether. So the “who” becomes a relative pronoun for “those” and subject of the relative clause “who deserve it.”  

See what I mean? So much ink spilled over a measly “m”!  The rules of grammar, in this particular case, are so arcane—it’s like trying to figure out the oyster fork from the fish course fork at an Edith Wharton dinner party. 

So here’s my personal campaign for a better world:  let’s drop the M!

Tags: Just ♥ Words by Molly Lundquist
No Comments »

English—what a great language to have fun with!  Here’s a silly little grammatical conundrum for which I have no explanation . . . except that it’s idiomatic.  Nonetheless, rules are rules—and rules must be obeyed.

Don’t You Just ♥ Words?

You can say
Take the garbage out.  —or—  Take out the garbage.
And you can say
Take it out. —but not— Take out it.
______________________

You can say
Butter Mom up.  —or—  Butter up Mom.
And you can say
Butter her up. —but not— Butter up her.
______________________

You can say
Turn the lights on.  —or—  Turn on the lights.
And you can say
Turn them on. —but not— Turn on them.  

Verbs and prepositional adverbs—you would think they’re like infinitive verbs—to be or not to be—you’re to never split one of those.  I mean “you’re never to split one.”  (But we all do.)

But prep-adverbs are different from infinitives.  If you use a pronoun, you have to split them up” . . . not  ”split up them.”  Strange.

Isn’t it a wonder anyone ever learns English?

Tags: Just ♥ Words by Molly Lundquist
1 Comment »

English—what a great language to have fun with!  Below is a silly tongue-twister.  It’s a hoot when you say it fast.

Don’t You Just ♥ Words? 

sects  |  section  |  sex  |  shun

Sects shun sex in this section.
Even harder to say . . .
In this section, sects shun sex.

Right.  A grown woman — and this is what I do for a living.  But I hope you’ll join in the fun.  Leave a comment.  This one is mine.  Can you come up with any?  Think of it as brain exercise.

Tags: Just ♥ Words by Molly Lundquist
No Comments »

English—it’s a great language to have fun with!  Here’s a funny little grammatical conundrum that struck my husband Pete—a numbers guy, who gets a kick out of language.

Don’t You Just ♥ Words?

You can say
This is good eating.   —or—  This is eating well.

But not
 This is eating good.   —or—  This is well eating.

Why?
 

Answer:  The top two sentences seem similar in meaning; after all, we often use “good” and “well” interchangably . . . but we shouldn’t. 

Actually the sentences have different meanings.  The reason has to do with how the word “eating” functions, and the difference between adjectives and adverbs. 

• This is good eating  =  the food is tasty.
  Eating is a noun. 
  Good is an adjective, which precedes a noun—as in good book.
• This is eating well  =  the food is healthy … or expensive & posh.
  Eating (is eating) is a verb.
  Well is an adverb, which follows a verb—as in read slowly.

So much for niggling rules of grammar.  Is it a wonder anyone ever learns?

Tags: Just ♥ Words by Molly Lundquist
2 Comments »

English—what a great language to have fun with!  Below are several homophones, words that sound alike but have different meanings and often spellings (a few liberties taken, I know).  Thanks for this one to my dear friend Gordon Higgins.

Don’t You Just ♥ Words? 

gnu  |   knew   |  new  |  nu 

In a moment of existential despair. . .
the new gnu knew he knew nada about nu.

Translation:
The young wildebeest realized he had
no understanding of the Greek letter N.

Great brain exercise.  Got one?  Let us know.

Tags: Just ♥ Words by Molly Lundquist
No Comments »

English—what a great language to have fun with!  Below are several homophones, words that sound alike but have different meanings and often spellings.  (I know, I’ve taken a few liberties.)  My thanks to Gordon Higgins.  He’s too, too clever.

Don’t You Just ♥ Words?

to  |  too |  tutu  |  two

She went a tutu too far—wearing
two too many tutus to twirl.

Translation:
Her multiple dance skirts prevented her from dancing well.

Really, this is what I do for a living.  Too too much.  Anyway, hope you’ll join in the fun.  These are mine.  Can you find others . . . or come up with your own.  It’s good exercise for the brain—honest.

Tags: Just ♥ Words by Molly Lundquist
No Comments »

Slough—a great word, and one that’s kept me running to the dictionary over the years. The problem is, it has 4 different pronunciations . . . along with 6 different meanings, and I can never keep them straight.  Slough is the perfect example of a heteronym.

Don’t You Just ♥ Words?

Slough — when it sounds . . .

—like slow,
is a morass or swamp or . . .
despair (as in Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress)

—like slew,
is a sluice or drainage ditch

—like Sl-how . . . (or slouch, minus ch)
is a town near Liverpool, England

—like sluff,
is a skin (as in snake)
and a verb: to discard, throw off

Okay, see how quickly you can get through this:

He decided, that poor snake, in a slough of despond
to slough off his slough in the slough
near the slough outside Slough.

Here’s what it sounds like…

He decided, that poor snake, in a slow of despond
to sluff off his sluff in the slew
near the slow outside Sl-how.

This is how I spend my days.  So how do you spend yours?  Got any cool words?  Please join in the fun by leaving us a comment.

Tags: Just ♥ Words by Molly Lundquist
No Comments »

English—what a great language to have fun with!  Below are several homophones, words that sound alike but have different meanings and often spellings. (And, yes, I’ve taken some liberties.)

Don’t You Just ♥ Words? 

want  |   wantin’   |  wanton  |  wont  |  wonton

My wont isn’t wantin’ to be wanton —
I just want a wonton.  Want one?

Translation:
I’m not usually fresh; I’m just reaching over you for a fried wonton.

These are mine.  See if you can find others . . . or come up with your own.  This is good exercise for the brain—so, please, play along!

Try the Fried Wontons Recipe on our Website!

Tags: Just ♥ Words by Molly Lundquist
No Comments »

English—what a great language to have fun with!  Below is a set of homophones, words that sound alike but have different meanings and often different spellings.  (I know, I’ve used a few liberties.)

Don’t You Just ♥ Words?

peak  |  peek  |  peke  |  pique

He kicked her peke out of pique when she took a
quick peek before it could peak.

Translation:
He kicked her dog in anger when she opened the oven
before his souffle had risen.

I came up with these.  Let us know if you can you find others . . . or come up with some of your own.  Leave a comment.

Tags: Just ♥ Words by Molly Lundquist
No Comments »

How any of us ever learns to speak and spell English is a mystery.  Below are common words that surely confound anyone—child or adult—trying to learn this quirky language.

Don’t You Just ♥ Words? 

If cow rhymes with bough
shouldn’t cow rhyme with cough?

If rafter rhymes with laughter
shouldn’t rafter rhyme with daughter?

If hoe rhymes with toe
shouldn’t hoe rhyme with shoe?

If threw sounds like through
shouldn’t threw rhyme with rough?

If lime rhymes with climb
shouldn’t lime sound like limb?

These erratic spellings have to do with the development of the English language—which wasn’t really “English” and wasn’t really a language.  From the end of the Roman occupation, the ancient Brits spoke a mishmash of Germanic and Norse tongues, with a soupcon of French and Latin throw in by the upper classes.

The language underwent constant change until the 15th century, leading to such confusion that people from one part of England could barely understand those from another. 

It was William Claxton, a mid-15th century printer, who first began to consolidate and standardize English. But he started a bit too early—printing technology cemented the language before all the kinks could be worked out.  Thus, the cow-bough-cough imbroglio.

Tags: Just ♥ Words by Molly Lundquist
2 Comments »