Dear Expert

[Porter]

Control yourself!  This is a family-safe forum!

[pooka]

Eh, I didn't know about my alveolar ridge until I took linguistics.

Uhg  I can't believe I had to check the prior page and it was my own post. 

[sweet clementine]

I pretty much forgot this half of the forum even exists.  Now the prospect of trying to catch up depresses me.  So I shan't.

I'm proof reading a friend's essay and he uses "whom" all over the place.  He says that in philosophy they use "whom" all the time because it helps to distinguish which person they're referring to when they write.  Anyway, in this particular phrase has he used "whom" correctly?

I would continue on in the prospect of honoring my family whom I loved so dearly

[Brinestone]

Yes.

[Jonathon]

Yes, that's correct. You should be able to replace "whom" with another object pronoun like "him" or "her" or "them" and move it back to its normal position in the clause.

whom I loved so dearly > I loved whom so dearly > I loved them so dearly

But your friend's explanation makes me wonder whether he actually knows how to use it properly. Maybe he does know how to use it but explained it badly.

[sweet clementine]

he explained it much better, but I didn't understand and so paraphrased it really poorly.  I've never really understood the distinction.

[Jonathon]

It's the same distinction between subject and object that most other personal pronouns show. Just think of he/him and they/them as a mnemonic. The trouble with who/whom is that it usually moves to the front of the sentence, so sometimes you have to mentally move it back to see if it's a subject or object.

[sweet clementine]

Thank you!  That is very good to know! 

[Jonathon]

No problem.

[Tante Shvester]

Pants, jeans, trousers, britches, Levis, dungarees -- they're all plural.  But why.  It's not like anyone ever has one pant, jean, trouser, britch, Levi, or dungaree.  And I understand that they have two legs, but shirts have two sleeves, and blouse, top, shirt, chemise, and sweater are all singular.  As is jacket, coat, windbreaker, yadda yadda ya.

Even underwear that has no legs (just leg openings) get pluralized: boxers, jockeys, shorts, panties.  How is a person supposed to put on a pair of panties when there is only one of them?  What are the two halves of the pair here?

[Porter]

Levis is a brand name, and is just as plural when talking about a Levis jacket.

[The Genuine]

I don't wear underwears.  (At the same time.)

[Tante Shvester]

Quibblers!

[Jonathon]

Pants, jeans, trousers, britches, Levis, dungarees -- they're all plural.  But why.  It's not like anyone ever has one pant, jean, trouser, britch, Levi, or dungaree.  And I understand that they have two legs, but shirts have two sleeves, and blouse, top, shirt, chemise, and sweater are all singular.  As is jacket, coat, windbreaker, yadda yadda ya.

Even underwear that has no legs (just leg openings) get pluralized: boxers, jockeys, shorts, panties.  How is a person supposed to put on a pair of panties when there is only one of them?  What are the two halves of the pair here?

I don't fully understand the historical reasons, but English has a whole bunch of plurals that denote things made of two connected halves, like scissors, tweezers, pliers, glasses, and so on. A shirt may have two sleeves, but it's not essentially two sleeves that join in the middle, whereas pants are more or less two legs that join in the middle. And in the middle ages, one might wear a pair of hose—separate pieces on each leg—so there's some historical precedent for treating pants and trousers the same way. Briefs, boxers, and panties all follow the same pattern simply by analogy.

Levis is a brand name, and is just as plural when talking about a Levis jacket.

Except it's Levi's—possessive, not plural.

[Porter]

Except for the misspelling, what I said is correct -- it is just as plural when talking about jackets or pants.

[Jonathon]

Can you give me an example? I'm not quite sure I follow.

[Porter]

"I bought a new pair of Levi's [jeans]."  "I bought a new Levi's jacket."

The word Levi's is just as plural in the second sentence as in the first sentence -- not at all.

[Jonathon]

I guess I misunderstood your first post. By "just as plural," I thought you were saying that "Levi's" is plural just as "pants" is plural.

But I'm still not sure what point you're making.

[Porter]

She was asking why words like pants, bloomers, panties, trousers, Levi's, chaps, and other leg coverings are plural.

I was pointing out that Levi's doesn't fit with the the rest of that list. The s in Levi's does not come from it being leg clothing.

[Jonathon]

Ah, I see now. I think it's still treated as a plural when used alone to refer to pants, though. If I talk about a pair of Levi's, I'm essentially saying "a pair of Levi's [pants or jeans]." So Levi's itself is not plural, but it's an adjective by itself standing in for an implied plural noun. But the same doesn't apply if it's a Levi's jacket.

[spacepook]

How do you pronounce "butcher"? I have always pronounced it but-chir (totally failed at the special thing you guys do with the stuff and the italics) but pooka and the Man say it's boot-chir.

[BlackBlade]

It's actually boo-sher. Doesn't that sound so much more pleasant?

[rivka]

It's actually boo-sher.

Definitely not.

I say it like this.

[Jonathon]

I'd say the same as Rivka's link. In IPA, it's ['bʊtʃɹ]. The first vowel is the same as in put, not but or boot.

[Tante Shvester]

Now I say it like that, but growing up, we pronounced it "BUT-chuh".