“Of which you thought.” - I also enjoy not ending sentences with prepositions.
Again, I just think it makes everyday language better. Similar to having art on one’s walls, doesn’t improve anything other than aesthetics but that’s enough to make it worthwhile to some.
I also would never use “k” instead of okay in a text but to each their own!
To each their own!
I personally think English sounds better when spoken well and enjoy doing so. “For Who the Bell Tolls” sounds silly and I think people missing whom tend to sound similarly silly.
It’s the same idea, we understand exactly what he’s saying, 0 impairment of understanding etc.
There’s no reason for a lot of stuff; why do verbs like have and be require different conjugations when the subject is in the sentence? Why bother pluralizing words when we can usually figure it out from context etc.
Absolutely deliberate. Monty Python was mostly Oxford and Cambridge grads who darn well knew how to use whom.
I know but the original quote is who killed who, so figured accuracy beats grammar.
I tried to find out but need to make an account to see more than a couple lies.
The bar fits many many more people, some of whom you don’t already know!
For most of the world’s population, things have significantly improved by almost every conceivable measure.
I strongly recommend Roslings book, Factfulness. The difference between how people think things have changed and what’s happened is wild.
Edit: Just saw the (US tag, sorry.)
Economist news podcast.
Jesus, this person wrote a whole article based on their impression of a stage managed photo op? Really?
Conservatives: Local government knows best, unless we don’t agree!
“Well, as much as we like British Columbian shipbuilders, we felt it rude to ask the taxpayers to pay a few extra billion doars (a couple thousand per person) to subsidize them.”
Which of those groups do you routinely lie to?
“Sorry date/group of friends/family/work function, we can’t eat here. I don’t want to scan a QR code.”
Judging by how many people wear clothes made by children in sweatshops, I’d say the wants of the many seem to outweigh the needs of the few.
so you have some established right to indicate which of us can speak as to what’s best for the Canadian people (you) and the other can’t (me). Because…reasons?
What in what I wrote leads you to this?
I correctly noted this doesn’t affect you and that it does affect mamy.
Your position, as far as I can tell is:
If the reason for doing the wrong thing is “the jobs” then you need to rethink your reasoning.
… It’s bad policy to concede to the US right now.
I think that the jobs really do matter to a lot of people and that when the US has significantly more leverage you Canada has very few options.
Again, noting that your position really hurts a lot of people doesn’t mean you can’t have a position rather, it’s that you support a position that really hurts people.
I don’t know if I’d call it formal (to me, formal means using sir, more conditionals and more emphasis on manners) so much as I enjoy speaking grammatically, the same way I like to use idiosyncratic words, all fun stuff that makes language more interesting. Yes, plain English, unencumbered by whom or unnecessarily large words is more simple but it is also less joyful. (In my cynical way, I wonder if I’ll see textbooks with “k” instead of okay in my lifetime.)
Fully agree on literally (in part, Dave Cross broke me on that one years ago. “When you misuse that word, you are using it exactly incorrectly.”) The other one that bugs me is nonplussed, which is becoming to mean its opposite to the point where if it’s used it pretty much has no meaning because you have no way of knowing whether the speaker knows it actually means bewildered/startled or if they’re using it incorrectly to mean the exact opposite.