Newest at the top
| 2026-06-02 18:31:07 +0000 | emilym | (~Thunderbi@user/emilym) emilym |
| 2026-06-02 18:27:42 +0000 | <probie> | Outside of set phrases ("to whom it may concern"), it's on the way out. |
| 2026-06-02 18:26:52 +0000 | <tomsmeding> | wikipedia also rather clearly classifies the people prescribing 'whom' as, well, prescriptivists |
| 2026-06-02 18:26:23 +0000 | <probie> | Whatever native speakers do is preferable to an artificial standard |
| 2026-06-02 18:26:09 +0000 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 245 seconds) |
| 2026-06-02 18:23:59 +0000 | <raincomplex> | worse is better i guess? ;D |
| 2026-06-02 18:23:47 +0000 | Digitteknohippie | (~user@user/digit) Digit |
| 2026-06-02 18:23:42 +0000 | Digit | (~user@user/digit) (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) |
| 2026-06-02 18:23:37 +0000 | <raincomplex> | anyway |
| 2026-06-02 18:23:26 +0000 | <raincomplex> | "who did you see" is much more common |
| 2026-06-02 18:23:23 +0000 | <tomsmeding> | yes |
| 2026-06-02 18:23:17 +0000 | <raincomplex> | "you saw whom?" does sound pretty weird haha |
| 2026-06-02 18:22:24 +0000 | <tomsmeding> | (To whom did you give the book? vs Whom did you see?) |
| 2026-06-02 18:22:10 +0000 | <raincomplex> | so like "who did this" versus "you gave it to whom?" |
| 2026-06-02 18:22:02 +0000 | <tomsmeding> | but dative uses feel much more natural than accusative uses to me -- although my feeling here is very fraught as I'm not a native speaker |
| 2026-06-02 18:21:37 +0000 | <tomsmeding> | what I'm reading is that 'whom' was used ~100y ago for the object, yes |
| 2026-06-02 18:21:29 +0000 | <raincomplex> | he->who, him->whom |
| 2026-06-02 18:21:21 +0000 | <raincomplex> | an easy way to remember this is that he/him are used in the same places as who/whom |
| 2026-06-02 18:21:19 +0000 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2026-06-02 18:21:08 +0000 | <raincomplex> | i believe 'whom' is used when the pronoun is the object |
| 2026-06-02 18:20:53 +0000 | <tomsmeding> | apparently? |
| 2026-06-02 18:20:49 +0000 | <monochrom> | english sucks :) |
| 2026-06-02 18:19:37 +0000 | humasect | (~humasect@dyn-192-249-132-90.nexicom.net) (Quit: Leaving...) |
| 2026-06-02 18:19:35 +0000 | confusedalex | (~confuseda@user/confusedalex) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2026-06-02 18:15:45 +0000 | <yin> | i guess not |
| 2026-06-02 18:14:57 +0000 | confusedalex | (~confuseda@user/confusedalex) confusedalex |
| 2026-06-02 18:13:22 +0000 | <yin> | tomsmeding: thanks. wouldn't it be "whom" in extremely correct english? |
| 2026-06-02 18:12:53 +0000 | ft | (~ft@p4fc2aedc.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) ft |
| 2026-06-02 18:10:40 +0000 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) |
| 2026-06-02 18:08:31 +0000 | machinedgod | (~machinedg@d172-219-48-230.abhsia.telus.net) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
| 2026-06-02 18:05:49 +0000 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2026-06-02 17:59:50 +0000 | weary-traveler | (~user@user/user363627) user363627 |
| 2026-06-02 17:59:40 +0000 | ricardomaps | (~ricardoma@2804:14d:a040:81ea:732:f532:4ef6:e193) |
| 2026-06-02 17:55:07 +0000 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 272 seconds) |
| 2026-06-02 17:52:48 +0000 | whack | (~textual@2607:fb91:4c21:4a8a:c8a2:9161:db9c:dd0f) (Quit: Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com) |
| 2026-06-02 17:50:25 +0000 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2026-06-02 17:50:10 +0000 | whack | (~textual@2607:fb91:4c21:4a8a:c8a2:9161:db9c:dd0f) |
| 2026-06-02 17:47:58 +0000 | vanishingideal | (~vanishing@user/vanishingideal) (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) |
| 2026-06-02 17:41:29 +0000 | wootehfoot | (~wootehfoo@user/wootehfoot) wootehfoot |
| 2026-06-02 17:39:48 +0000 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 270 seconds) |
| 2026-06-02 17:36:33 +0000 | m | (~travltux@user/travltux) travltux |
| 2026-06-02 17:36:15 +0000 | <monochrom> | and then think back "oh that's what Backus said" :) |
| 2026-06-02 17:35:48 +0000 | m | (~travltux@user/travltux) (Quit: WeeChat 4.7.2) |
| 2026-06-02 17:35:29 +0000 | <monochrom> | Over the years I noticed a high correlation between "this language is actually compositional" and "has lambda". :) |
| 2026-06-02 17:34:42 +0000 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2026-06-02 17:33:07 +0000 | <monochrom> | (And independently, I tried OCaml and concluded that only it does justice to typed OO, or generally static subtyping.) |
| 2026-06-02 17:32:06 +0000 | <monochrom> | I didn't try the language either. Just saw a few examples. I think representative examples because I was in a reading group reading a paper on code optimizations for smalltalk. But at once I recognized that it's the closest to the "objects messaging each other" narrative, plus it has lambda! I concluded that only it (or squeak) does justice to untyped OO. |
| 2026-06-02 17:30:39 +0000 | ystael | (~ystael@user/ystael) (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) |
| 2026-06-02 17:28:11 +0000 | <probie> | int-e: Unfortunately most of the smalltalk community seem to consider that to be one of the best features (GNU smalltalk didn't, but I'm pretty sure that's barely been touched in the past 10 years) |
| 2026-06-02 17:25:55 +0000 | skum | (~skum@user/skum) skum |