Why Samsung Galaxy S3 has horrid grammar (e.g., "Who do you want to call?")

[Donna Olsen]

What I don't understand is why the makers of the Samsung S-Voice
consented to the absolutely gratingly horrid grammar, e.g.,
"Who do you want to call?" (sic)

A third grader has better English grammar than this brand new phone does.

My question:
Can the user to 'fix' the horrid S-Voice grammar?
How?

[alien8er]

On Oct 8, 9:40 pm, Donna Olsen <donnaol...@deletethisbit.com> wrote:
> What I don't understand is why the makers of the Samsung S-Voice
> consented to the absolutely gratingly horrid grammar, e.g.,
>  "Who do you want to call?"  (sic)

You misspelled "colloquial".

> My question:
>  Can the user to 'fix' the horrid S-Voice grammar?
>  How?

Try getting in touch with Samsung customer service?


Mark L. Fergerson

[just me]

On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 04:40:27 +0000 (UTC), Donna Olsen
<donna...@deletethisbit.com> wrote:

>What I don't understand is why the makers of the Samsung S-Voice
>consented to the absolutely gratingly horrid grammar, e.g.,
> "Who do you want to call?" (sic)

Your suggested/preferred/"improved" version would be what, exactly?

>A third grader has better English grammar than this brand new phone does.

Highly debatable.

[Donna Olsen]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 09:19:35 +0800, just me wrote:

>>What I don't understand is why the makers of the Samsung S-Voice
>>consented to the absolutely gratingly horrid grammar, e.g.,
>> "Who do you want to call?" (sic)
>
> Your suggested/preferred/"improved" version would be what, exactly?

The personal pronoun "who" follows the same rules as the
personal pronoun "him".

So, it must be:
"Whom do you want to call?"

Saying "Who do you want to call" sounds to everyone as ridiculous
as saying "I want to call he" does.

It's amazing that this egregious error wasn't caught in the
Samsung testing phase, but I guess they don't speak English
in Korea so they don't even notice the horrid grammar.

I wonder if the iPhone is just as bad?

[Jack Campin]

Donna Olsen wrote:
>>> What I don't understand is why the makers of the Samsung S-Voice
>>> consented to the absolutely gratingly horrid grammar, e.g.,
>>> "Who do you want to call?" (sic)
>> Your suggested/preferred/"improved" version would be what, exactly?
> The personal pronoun "who" follows the same rules as the
> personal pronoun "him". So, it must be:
> "Whom do you want to call?"

That's an archaic American provincialism. In British English it
sounds just bizarre. "Whom" is essentially dead.

> Saying "Who do you want to call" sounds to everyone as ridiculous
> as saying "I want to call he" does.

No it doesn't. But it is ambiguous. You don't know which way
the desired call is intended to go. Perhaps Samsung's ad agency
intended the ambiguity? - in context it might be a clever piece
of writing. Your preferred version eliminates the alternate
reading, "who do you want to call [you]?"

> It's amazing that this egregious error wasn't caught in the
> Samsung testing phase, but I guess they don't speak English
> in Korea so they don't even notice the horrid grammar.

Are you a native speaker of English yourself? Or maybe (given
the surname) you're from a place like Wisconsin where the main
language was Swedish until the last couple of generations, and
you've internalized Swedish grammatical rules?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u k
Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland
mobile 07800 739 557 <http://www.campin.me.uk> Twitter: JackCampin

[Charlie Hoffpauir]

Well not to "everyone". Probably well over 50% of US users of a cell
phone would think that "Whom do you want to call" sounds pretentious.
Of course, that doesn't make them "right"…. It's just that Samsung is
playing to the market.

Remember, most purchasers of the S3 are probably teenagers, and
teenagers listen daily to much worse grammar in their music. Are you
old enough to remember the cigarette advertisement "Winston tastes
good, like a cigarette should"? Do you think they would have become
the #1 selling brand if they'd used "as"?

[ProfIJM]

I do hope so in order that it might be corrected to:
"With whom wouldst thou wisheth to share some saucy intrigue?"

I,JM

[Mr Pumpov]

ProfIJM wrote:

> I do hope so in order that it might be corrected to:
> "With whom wouldst thou wisheth to share some saucy intrigue?"

Marvellous irony!
I'm convinced there is nothing bad in "Who do you want to call?".
Maybe it's even more nice-looking than old archaistic "Whom" if you are
not tidy ass, of course :-)

--
Mr. Pumpov

[Anton Shepelev]

Mr Pumpov:

Me wants to know whether it is your striving for
beauty or your reluctance to take increased care
when writing that makes you say this.

--
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments

[Mr Pumpov]

Anton Shepelev wrote:

> Me wants to know whether it is your striving for
> beauty or your reluctance to take increased care
> when writing that makes you say this.

I don't approve uncompromising ossified views on English grammar. It has
rights to change.

--
Mr. Pumpov

[Anton Shepelev]

Mr Pumpov:

> > > > I do hope so in order that it might be cor-

> > > > rected to: "With whom wouldst thou wisheth
> > > > to share some saucy intrigue?"
> > >
> > > Marvellous irony! I'm convinced there is
> > > nothing bad in "Who do you want to call?".

> > > Maybe it's even more nice-looking than old ar-

> > > chaistic "Whom" if you are not tidy ass, of
> > > course :-)
> >

> > Me wants to know whether it is your striving for
> > beauty or your reluctance to take increased care
> > when writing that makes you say this.
>
> I don't approve uncompromising ossified views on
> English grammar. It has rights to change.

Your assumption of my views' being so is plain
wrong.

But my quesiton as to the reasons you approve this
certain "chage" you didn't anwer.

[Anton Shepelev]

I wrote:

> But my quesiton as to the reasons you approve this
> certain "chage" you didn't anwer.

Sorry, typo here. Should be "change".

[Warren Oates]

In article <k54ltl$jch$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,

Donna Olsen <donna...@deletethisbit.com> wrote:

> I wonder if the iPhone is just as bad?

Wherefore is this important?
--

... do not cover a warm kettle or your stock may sour. -- Julia Child

[Warren Oates]

In article <a35c781prgtvprhp8...@4ax.com>,

Charlie Hoffpauir <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:

> Well not to "everyone". Probably well over 50% of US users of a cell
> phone would think that "Whom do you want to call" sounds pretentious.
> Of course, that doesn't make them "right"…. It's just that Samsung is
> playing to the market.

There are a lot of people who (even now) excoriate Mr. Roddenberry and
his group for splitting that infinitive so that people all over the
English speaking world would never go boldly anywhere if they could
boldly go instead, mostly because it sounded better and who the hell
cares?

[Johannes]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 21:03:25 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:

> If you want to sound like a pretentious prig,
> then go ahead and say "Whom".

If you want to sound like a uneducated moron, then, go ahead: say 'who'.

[Simone D.]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 20:49:00 -0700, Evan Platt wrote:

> Because the correct 'whom do you want to call' would sound 'weird'.

You do realize that, to every educated person, 'who' not only sounds
weird, but it is just horrid grammar!

>>My question:
> "Can the user to fix"?
> A third grader has better English grammar than that.

I admit, I made an accidental typographic error. I apologize.

[Peter Duncanson (BrE)]

The reason for this disagreement is that in many versions of informal
English "whom" is dying out. Some people never use it. That does not
mean they are uneducated morons.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.english.usage)

[Peter Duncanson (BrE)]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 13:30:56 +0000 (UTC), "Simone D."
<simone...@ymail.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 20:49:00 -0700, Evan Platt wrote:
>
>> Because the correct 'whom do you want to call' would sound 'weird'.
>
>You do realize that, to every educated person, 'who' not only sounds
>weird, but it is just horrid grammar!
>

Many educated people do not find it sounds weird, even if they
themselves would use "whom". A change in the language is taking place,
and has been fro a long time.

The OED says of "whom":

The objective case of who pron.: no longer current in natural
colloquial speech.

That entry in the dictionary dates from 1924.

>>>My question:
>> "Can the user to fix"?
>> A third grader has better English grammar than that.
>
>I admit, I made an accidental typographic error. I apologize.

[Charlie Hoffpauir]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 13:30:56 +0000 (UTC), "Simone D."
<simone...@ymail.com> wrote:

Are you simonedangleo or are you Donna Olsen? you seem to post as
both.

I'm one of those who think whoever you are you are seriously
misinformed about what constitutes "every" and "educated". Also you
have a strange view of what is weird.

[Mr Pumpov]

Mr Pumpov wrote:

> Marvellous irony!
> I'm convinced there is nothing bad in "Who do you want to call?".
> Maybe it's even more nice-looking than old archaistic "Whom" if you are
> not tidy ass, of course :-)

Also a typo? Does it have to be "...not a tidy ass,..."?

[tony cooper]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 13:30:56 +0000 (UTC), "Simone D."
<simone...@ymail.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 20:49:00 -0700, Evan Platt wrote:
>
>> Because the correct 'whom do you want to call' would sound 'weird'.
>
>You do realize that, to every educated person, 'who' not only sounds
>weird, but it is just horrid grammar!

Really? I guess my grade school, high school, college, and grad
school years were wasted, then. The usage doesn't sound at all weird
to me.

Do you finish your written correspondence with "Your obedient
servant"?


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[Johannes]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 14:43:39 +0100, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote:

>>If you want to sound like a uneducated moron, then, go ahead: say 'who'.
>
> The reason for this disagreement is that in many versions of informal
> English "whom" is dying out. Some people never use it. That does not
> mean they are uneducated morons.

Two comments:
1. If we allow "who" to have different rules than we already have for
he/him, she/her, we/they, etc., then the morons will have succeeded
in making a simple personal pronoun rule into one with exceptions.
The result will actually be more complicated rules, than we have today.

2. Personally, I've asked many people who used 'who' instead of 'whom
why they do so; their answer almost invariably was that they didn't
know the rules.

Hence my conclusion:
The morons will eventually succeed, unknowingly, in making what is
currently a simple personal pronoun rule, into a complicated set of
rules containing needless exceptions.

[Peter Duncanson (BrE)]

The "rules" are a description of the language and the way it is used.

[Warren Oates]

In article <lrtd78ls6fj3qqrdh...@4ax.com>,

tony cooper <tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Do you finish your written correspondence with "Your obedient
> servant"?

I don't even like to use "Yours sincerely" anymore, which is pretty
innocuous. I tend to go with "Best wishes" even in formal business or
begging letters.

You should see some of the French constructions that are still in use.

Je vous prie d'accepter l'assurance de mes respectueux hommages,

Warren

PS
There's a story about how Edward VII's valet once wrote to him and
closed with "Your most obedient servant" which was apparently considered
quite humourous at the time.

[Glenn Knickerbocker]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 16:55:43 +0000 (UTC), Johannes wrote:
>1. If we allow "who" to have different rules than we already have for
> he/him, she/her, we/they, etc., then the morons will have succeeded
> in making a simple personal pronoun rule into one with exceptions.
> The result will actually be more complicated rules, than we have today.

a. "Who" is not a personal pronoun. The other interrogative and
relative pronouns already have similar rules.

b. Two personal pronouns, "it" and "you," already have similar rules.

ŹR http://users.bestweb.net/~notr You are already too educated stupid to
understand the truth of nature's harmonic simultaneous 4-liter wine cube

[Johannes]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 18:01:07 +0100, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote:

> The "rules" are a description of the language and the way it is used.

Nobody said otherwise.

What I said was that the morons, needlessly and unknowingly, will
actually make the language rules more complicated, in the guise of
making it simpler for them.

Currently, the rule is simple:
- Who is on the phone; the phone call is for whom?
- He is on the phone; the phone call is for him?
- She is on the phone; the phone call is for her?

With the rules being propagated by the morons taking force,
this simple symmetry will be needlessly complicated to something
similar to the following bastardization:
- Whom is on the phone; who is the phone call for?
- Him is on the phone; the phone call is for he?
- Her is on the phone; the phone call is for she?

In short, the morons are ruining this otherwise wonderful language.

[Warren Oates]

In article <k57cpu$n4$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,

Johannes <johan...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> With the rules being propagated by the morons taking force,
> this simple symmetry will be needlessly complicated to something
> similar to the following bastardization:
> - Whom is on the phone; who is the phone call for?
> - Him is on the phone; the phone call is for he?
> - Her is on the phone; the phone call is for she?
>
> In short, the morons are ruining this otherwise wonderful language.

I man is on the 'phone.

[Johannes]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 22:44:26 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:

> We morons have already won.

Correction. The morons have 'almost' won.

At this point, it seems only the literate minority knowingly notice
the improper "who" ceaselessly emanating from the unwashed mouths
of the untidy proles, who daily reveal a severe lack of education in
their very vernacular.

[Scott Hemphill]

Sqwertz <swe...@cluemail.compost> writes:

[snip]

> Let's ask googlefight about the simple sentence "Who/Whom do you want
> to win" (as an example).
>
> <http://googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=%22Whom+do+you+want+to+win%22&word2=%22Who+do+you+want+to+win%22>
>
> This indicates that less than 1% of the population would use "whom"
> instead of "who". That makes you (and your moron colleagues) quite a
> minority.

This isn't a good example, because "whom" isn't correct in this case.
(Unless, e.g. people were being auctioned off, and the pronoun is the
object of the verb "win".)

Scott
--
Scott Hemphill hemp...@alumni.caltech.edu
"This isn't flying. This is falling, with style." -- Buzz Lightyear

[Glenn Knickerbocker]

On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 14:44:08 -0400, Scott Hemphill wrote:
>Sqwertz <swe...@cluemail.compost> writes:
>> Let's ask googlefight about the simple sentence "Who/Whom do you want
>> to win" (as an example).

>This isn't a good example, because "whom" isn't correct in this case.
>(Unless, e.g. people were being auctioned off, and the pronoun is the
>object of the verb "win".)

Really? Would you say "I want he to win"?

ŹR The anti-suffragists will continue to be eligible, won't they?
http://users.bestweb.net/~notr/engel.html --Ida Husted Harper

[Scott Hemphill]

Glenn Knickerbocker <No...@bestweb.net> writes:

> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 14:44:08 -0400, Scott Hemphill wrote:
>>Sqwertz <swe...@cluemail.compost> writes:
>>> Let's ask googlefight about the simple sentence "Who/Whom do you want
>>> to win" (as an example).
>>This isn't a good example, because "whom" isn't correct in this case.
>>(Unless, e.g. people were being auctioned off, and the pronoun is the
>>object of the verb "win".)
>
>
> Really? Would you say "I want he to win"?

Nevermind. ;-)

[alexd]

Warren Oates (for it is he) wrote:

> There's a story about how Edward VII's valet once wrote to him and
> closed with "Your most obedient servant" which was apparently considered
> quite humourous at the time.

Does the story happen to mention why this might be considered quite
humourous?

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEs...@ale.cx)
20:28:26 up 8 days, 8:49, 5 users, load average: 0.05, 0.23, 0.29
Qua illic est reprehendit, illic est a vindicatum

[James Gagney]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 21:13:34 +0000, Johannes wrote:

> - Whom is on the phone; who is the phone call for?
> - Him is on the phone; the phone call is for he?

I also wonder whether it's possible to 'fix' my Samsung Galaxy SVoice so
that it simply asks "Whom do you wish to call?".

It grates on my nerves to have my kids see "who" in that context, when
I've been admonishing them for years to use "whom".

[Glenn Knickerbocker]

On 10/11/2012 5:13 PM, Johannes wrote:
> Currently, the rule is simple:
> - Who is on the phone; the phone call is for whom?
> - He is on the phone; the phone call is for him?
> - She is on the phone; the phone call is for

shim?
- We are on the phone; the phone call is for wim?

- You are on the phone; the phone call is for youm?
- It is on the phone; the phone call is for tim?

¬R

[George WB]

I feel sorry for the kids. I'm betting they'll revert to common usage
once they get out from under parental control. Kids have a knack for
figuring out and then avoiding those things that get them teased
and/or beaten. Starting an interrogative with 'Whom" is definitely one
of those things.

[Jack Campin]

> I also wonder whether it's possible to 'fix' my Samsung Galaxy
> SVoice so that it simply asks "Whom do you wish to call?".
>
> It grates on my nerves to have my kids see "who" in that context,
> when I've been admonishing them for years to use "whom".

Sounds like a good way to wind up in your old age staring at the
walls in a nursing home with no visitors.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u k
Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland
mobile 07800 739 557 <http://www.campin.me.uk> Twitter: JackCampin

[alien8er]

On Oct 16, 9:15 am, James Gagney <jamesgagneyGARB...@nowhere.com>
wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 21:13:34 +0000, Johannes wrote:
> >  - Whom is on the phone; who is the phone call for?
> >  - Him is on the phone; the phone call is for he?
>
> I also wonder whether it's possible to 'fix' my Samsung Galaxy SVoice so
> that it simply asks "Whom do you wish to call?".

I wonder why you and Donna Olsen haven't bothered to contact Samsung
customer service.


Mark L. Fergerson

[Warren Oates]

In article <2ZednQdMs-NsE-DN...@bestweb.net>,

Glenn Knickerbocker <No...@bestweb.net> wrote:

> We are on the phone; the phone call is for wim?
>
> - You are on the phone; the phone call is for youm?

The call is for we'ns.
The call is for y'all.

Thou are (art, if you like) on the 'phone; the 'phone call is for thee.

[Glenn Knickerbocker]

On 10/16/2012 5:41 PM, Warren Oates wrote:
> Thou are (art, if you like) on the 'phone; the 'phone call is for thee.

It's a toll call.

ŹR

[tlvp]

On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 11:47:35 -0500, George WB wrote of:

> ... things that get them teased

> and/or beaten. Starting an interrogative with 'Whom" is definitely one
> of those things.

Not always -- think of the classic response to being accused of, say
chewing gum, or throwing a spitball:

"Whom-me?" :-)

Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

[bob smith]

On Monday, October 8, 2012 11:40:31 PM UTC-5, Donna Olsen wrote:
> What I don't understand is why the makers of the Samsung S-Voice
>
> consented to the absolutely gratingly horrid grammar, e.g.,
>
> "Who do you want to call?" (sic)
>
>
>
> A third grader has better English grammar than this brand new phone does.
>
>
>
> My question:
>
> Can the user to 'fix' the horrid S-Voice grammar?
>
> How?

You're right.

It should definitely be:

Who you gonna call

[GBW]

And on incoming calls it says, "Who dat?"

[Joe Mastroianni]

On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 11:47:35 -0500, George WB wrote:

> Kids have a knack for figuring out and then avoiding those things that
> get them teased and/or beaten.

Kids get beaten for speaking properly?

What planet do your kids live on?

In my world, basic 3rd-grade grammar the first sign of intelligence &
upbringing.

Just like having straight teeth, no tattoos, clean clothes, and clean
fingernails, anyone can and should speak like a native 3rd grader, at the
very least.

I don't have a galaxy but if it actually says "who" do you want to speak
to, then it's really stupid.

I hope it can be fixed soon.

[Joe Mastroianni]

On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 20:00:17 -0400, tlvp wrote:

> think of the classic response to being accused of, say chewing gum, or
> throwing a spitball:
>
> "Whom-me?"

That doesn't make sense.

Who threw the spitball. He threw the spitball.

Saying "whom me" would be the opposite of correct grammar.

Now, if you said "Whom did you throw the spitball at?", the answer would
be him.

We already know the rules for "him". You'd never say "They threw the
spitball at he", would you?

So, the funny thing is, the dumbshits who say "who" instead of "whom"
actually KNOW the right answer. They'd NEVER say "You want to speak to
he".

They'd say, "You want to speak to him".

Likewise, anyone (who had at least a 3rd grade education) would say "Whom
do you want to speak to", since the answer would be "to him".

Get it?
To he --> who
To him --> whom

We ALREADY know the answer!
That's what's so grating if the Samsung galaxy (arguably a great phone
otherwise) is so stupid.

[Glenn Knickerbocker]

On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 00:26:16 +0000 (UTC), Joe Mastroianni wrote:
>Kids get beaten for speaking properly?
>What planet do your kids live on?

Did you grow up on one where the bullies don't target the smart kids?
You're lucky.

ŹR "I love Blip just because it's the absolute opposite of fun"
http://users.bestweb.net/~notr/travelog/19990710.html --Kibo

[Frank Ghallo]

On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 00:26:16 +0000 (UTC), Joe Mastroianni <j...@coohoo.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 11:47:35 -0500, George WB wrote:
>
>> Kids have a knack for figuring out and then avoiding those things that
>> get them teased and/or beaten.
>
>Kids get beaten for speaking properly?
>
>What planet do your kids live on?

All kids live on the same planet, (along with the rest of us), although
sometimes their behavior makes one wonder.

>In my world, basic 3rd-grade grammar the first sign of intelligence &
>upbringing.

...grammar IS...

>Just like having straight teeth, no tattoos, clean clothes, and clean
>fingernails, anyone can and should speak like a native 3rd grader, at the
>very least.

I think everyone should have a basic grasp of grammar rules, but common
usage trumps the rules, especially in this case. 'Whom' sounds stupid and
completely wrong in this context, regardless of whether the rules say that
it's right.

>I don't have a galaxy but if it actually says "who" do you want to speak
>to, then it's really stupid.

'Who do you want to call' sounds perfectly fine to me, while 'Whom do you
want to call' sounds awful. Again, common usage versus 'the rules'.

>I hope it can be fixed soon.

I certainly hope not.

[tlvp]

On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 00:29:54 +0000 (UTC), Joe Mastroianni wrote:

>> "Whom-me?"
>
> That doesn't make sense.

Does if you're so nervous you get to stuttering :-) .