Author Topic: Knock Knock (Read 2989 times)

Porter · « **on:** January 25, 2008, 12:38:58 AM »

Knock Knock

Tante Shvester · « **Reply #1 on:** January 25, 2008, 01:45:32 AM »

What? You want me to say "Who's there?" I can tell it's you, Porter. Fine. I'll play along, but just to humor you.

Who's there?

Porter · « **Reply #2 on:** January 25, 2008, 07:48:18 AM »

Objective Case

Brinestone · « **Reply #3 on:** January 25, 2008, 08:01:05 AM »

Objective case who?

Porter · « **Reply #4 on:** January 25, 2008, 08:09:59 AM »

No -- objective case whom.

Jonathon · « **Reply #5 on:** January 25, 2008, 08:13:02 AM »

That's probably the best grammatical knock-knock joke I've ever heard.

(Even though it's wrong.)

Tante Shvester · « **Reply #6 on:** January 25, 2008, 08:18:18 AM »

Quote

That's probably the best grammatical knock-knock joke I've ever heard.

Please don't impose upon us the runners up.

Jonathon · « **Reply #7 on:** January 25, 2008, 08:19:48 AM »

I didn't mention that it's the only one I've ever heard.

Porter · « **Reply #8 on:** January 25, 2008, 08:22:47 AM »

Go ahead -- tell me how it's wrong.

Jonathon · « **Reply #9 on:** January 25, 2008, 08:29:38 AM »

Because it's not the object of anything. I'm trying to figure out just how to parse a construction like "Objective case who," but I am fairly confident that "who" it can't be construed as an object.

Porter · « **Reply #10 on:** January 25, 2008, 08:31:30 AM »

Oh. I thought you meant something else.

Jonathon · « **Reply #11 on:** January 25, 2008, 08:43:11 AM »

What did you think I meant?

Porter · « **Reply #12 on:** January 25, 2008, 09:00:54 AM »

I thought that maybe it should have been the objective mood or some such error with the jargon.

Jonathon · « **Reply #13 on:** January 25, 2008, 09:03:27 AM »

Ah. Gotcha.

Porter · « **Reply #14 on:** January 25, 2008, 10:57:27 AM »

BTW, I got that joke from A Way With Words the NPR show that you weren't interested in.

Jonathon · « **Reply #15 on:** January 25, 2008, 10:59:04 AM »

*laugh*

I should've guessed.

Farmgirl · « **Reply #16 on:** January 25, 2008, 11:13:39 AM »

Ooooooooooo..

Object. Objective case.

(My mind is turning here -- there is something that was said during conversation the other day that had to do with Objective Case that was inadvertently SO funny, that I thought "I must tell that one to Jonathon!". However, now I can't remember it well enough to share it. I hate getting old)

(It's just like all those times I think "I want to quote that on Facebook!" but then next time I log on, I have totally forgotten the quote)

pooka · « **Reply #17 on:** January 25, 2008, 12:25:38 PM »

Is it called objective case in English, or is it still accusative?

Jonathon · « **Reply #18 on:** January 25, 2008, 12:36:36 PM »

The objective case in English (where separate forms actually exist, anyway, as in the pronouns) is actually descended from the dative case, which had pushed out the accusative case by Middle English times. I suppose you could call it either dative or accusative depending on the context, but I think I've generally seen it called objective.

pooka · « **Reply #19 on:** January 25, 2008, 12:51:46 PM »

Okay, that makes sense.