Who/Whom

Schenecker's mother had called police from Texas because she was unable to reach the 50-year-old woman, whom she said was depressed and had been complaining about her children.

For God’s sake, let Bi-Anne decide who she wants to be with.

The above two sentences are taken from newspapers in a tragic news item about a mother killing her teen boy and daughter for the first sentence and in a hot issue attracting different views from readers about a custody battle of a girl in a divorce case for the second one.

The ‘whom’ used in the first sentence should have been ‘who’ as this ‘who’ is the subject in the state of being depressed and doer of the action of complaining mentioned later in the sentence while "she said" is merely a parenthetical clause having no grammatical function.

‘Whom’ (in the objective case) can be used if the sentence is reworded as “Schenecker's mother had called police from Texas because she was unable to reach the 50-year-old woman, whom she described to be depressed and to have been complaining about her children.”

However, in the second sentence, the ‘who’ should be replaced by ‘whom’ being the objective noun governed by the preposition ‘with’.

For the correct use of such relative pronouns, please refer to the simple guide contained in my earlier posting of September 28, 2009, When to use who, whom.

Informal use of 'plus'

Enjoy 20% savings on buffet lunch or dinner plus get a complimentary plate of Yee Sang worth RM40 with our Credit Card.

I have seen the above advertising message in a newspaper, and I have brought it up here because I have noticed a non-standard usage of the ‘plus’.

‘Plus’ is normally used as a noun or a preposition or an adjective. In the above case, it is used as a conjunction which is regarded as informal.

The sentence can be improved with just a slight change as “Enjoy 20% savings on buffet lunch or dinner plus a complimentary plate of Yee Sang worth RM40 with our Credit Card” (that is deleting the word ‘get’ and then ‘plus’ will become a preposition) or “Enjoy 20% savings on buffet lunch or dinner and get a complimentary plate of Yee Sang worth RM40 with our Credit Card” (that is replacing ‘plus’ with ‘and’ which is a proper conjunction).

Ambiguity/Correct position of the Modifier

While I was reading news on the online version of a popular national English daily the other day, my attention was caught specially by the following headline of a news item:-

Tens of prisoners shot in Tunisia jail escape

Such heading immediately led me to think, "There are tens of prisoners shot in Tunisia jail but they escape."

After I had gone through the news in full, I realized that was not the intended meaning. The gist is in the word 'escape' which was treated as a verb in my earlier interpretation.

The writer has used it as a noun in the intended meaning. Of course, the ambiguity can be done away with if the modifier is placed in front: In Tunisia jail escape tens of prisoners shot.

This is the main reason that to avoid ambiguity, modifiers must be placed in their correct positions in any phrases/clauses/sentences.

The Past Perfect Tense is used instead of the correct Present Perfect Tense

The past perfect (pluperfect) tense can be seen to be used to describe the earlier action or occurrence in a sentence where two actions or occurrences in the past are stated.

This is not so in the case of the following sentence found in the section highlighting the various sections that are contained in a particular issue of a popular national English daily.

We should all learn from the past, and 2010 had offered us a few lessons where health is concerned.

However, in the particular section itself the correct version appears therein.

We should all learn from the past, and 2010 has offered us a few lessons where health is concerned.

The mistake in the earlier version could be just a typesetting error or a mistake subsequently corrected by the editor.

Balanced Construction

After reading this article Wayward letters on a popular English daily recently, I have written an e-mail to its editor about a sentence in such article being unsound grammatically.

The sentence in question reads, “Cordial relations between nations may be compromised, or worse,” and should have been written as “Cordial relations between nations may be compromised, or worsened.”

The writer has replied through the editor as follows:-

The reader has a point in wanting to see the said sentence having a balanced construction --- that the past participle "compromised" be balanced by the past participle "worsened". However, I see here the word "compromised" as a state or condition, balanced by the word "worse" indicating another state or condition --- one that is worse than compromised. Come to think of it, it would be awkward to say that a controversial blogger could be jailed or worsened.

He has raised a talking point which, together with my reply, could be printed under "Open Channel" --- so as to invite readers' comments.

I always read such articles from the online version of the newspaper and have not seen further comments therein from any other reader.

To me, the argument on blogger appears wayward as my contention is on relations; so I need to conclude here with one of Groucho Marx quotes/sayings, "I cannot say that I do not disagree with you."