Who/whom

[Frederick Williams]

This:

... and who knows who else

or this:

... and who knows whom else

? Sorry an'all. I have a vague feeling that I've asked before, if so
double plus sorry.

--
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by
this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.
Jonathan Swift: Thoughts on Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting

[Nathan Sanders]

In article <5144B80F...@btinternet.com>,

Frederick Williams <freddyw...@btinternet.com> wrote:

> This:
>
> ... and who knows who else
>
> or this:
>
> ... and who knows whom else
>
> ? Sorry an'all. I have a vague feeling that I've asked before, if so
> double plus sorry.

"'[Whom]' is never actually right. [...] It's a made-up word used to
trick students."

Nathan

--
Department of Linguistics
Swarthmore College
http://sanders.phonologist.org/

[Marius Hancu]

On Mar 16, 2:21 pm, Frederick Williams <freddywilli...@btinternet.com>
wrote:

> This:
>
>    ... and who knows who else
>
> or this:
>
>    ... and who knows whom else

"Whom" doesn't work here, as "knows" doesn't have "who" for direct
object here.

Marius Hancu

[Stan Brown]

On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 18:21:03 +0000, Frederick Williams wrote:
>
> This:
>
> ... and who knows who else
>
> or this:
>
> ... and who knows whom else
>
> ? Sorry an'all. I have a vague feeling that I've asked before, if so
> double plus sorry.

"Context is all."

The first is correct after "John Smith will be there". The second is
correct after "This decision will throw my whole team out of work".
But most people would probably accept "who" in the second case.

--
"The difference between the /almost right/ word and the /right/ word
is ... the difference between the lightning-bug and the lightning."
--Mark Twain
Stan Brown, Tompkins County, NY, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com

[Skitt]

Marius Hancu wrote:

> Frederick Williams wrote:

>> This:
>>
>> ... and who knows who else
>>
>> or this:
>>
>> ... and who knows whom else
>
> "Whom" doesn't work here, as "knows" doesn't have "who" for direct
> object here.
>

How an you tell without context?

He can see you from there, and who knows whom else?

--
Skitt (SF Bay Area)
http://home.comcast.net/~skitt99/main.html

[Harrison Hill]

On Saturday, 16 March 2013 21:51:57 UTC, Skitt wrote:
> Marius Hancu wrote:
>
> > Frederick Williams wrote:
>
>
>
> >> This:
>
> >>
>
> >> ... and who knows who else
>
> >>
>
> >> or this:
>
> >>
>
> >> ... and who knows whom else
>
> >
>
> > "Whom" doesn't work here, as "knows" doesn't have "who" for direct
>
> > object here.
>
> >
>
> How an you tell without context?
>
>
>
> He can see you from there, and who knows whom else?

That is awful on the ear.

[Frederick Williams]

Stan Brown wrote:
>
> On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 18:21:03 +0000, Frederick Williams wrote:
> >
> > This:
> >
> > ... and who knows who else
> >
> > or this:
> >
> > ... and who knows whom else
> >
> > ? Sorry an'all. I have a vague feeling that I've asked before, if so
> > double plus sorry.
>
> "Context is all."

Yes, I'm sorry I see that now. In full:

I'm getting a bit fed up with journalists, presenters,
commentators, and who knows who else, using the word
'paedophile' as if it meant 'sexual abuser of children'.

vs.

I'm getting a bit fed up with journalists, presenters,
commentators, and who knows whom else, using the word
'paedophile' as if it meant 'sexual abuser of children'.

>
> The first is correct after "John Smith will be there". The second is
> correct after "This decision will throw my whole team out of work".
> But most people would probably accept "who" in the second case.



--

[Frederick Williams]

Skitt wrote:
>
> Marius Hancu wrote:
> > Frederick Williams wrote:
>
> >> This:
> >>
> >> ... and who knows who else
> >>
> >> or this:
> >>
> >> ... and who knows whom else
> >
> > "Whom" doesn't work here, as "knows" doesn't have "who" for direct
> > object here.
> >
> How an you tell without context?

Indeed so. See my reply to Stan Brown

> He can see you from there, and who knows whom else?

--

[Frederick Williams]

What does it mean? Who else can he see, or who else can see me?

[Skitt]

Frederick Williams wrote:

> Stan Brown wrote:
>> Frederick Williams wrote:

>>> This:
>>>
>>> ... and who knows who else
>>>
>>> or this:
>>>
>>> ... and who knows whom else
>>>
>>> ? Sorry an'all. I have a vague feeling that I've asked before, if so
>>> double plus sorry.
>>
>> "Context is all."
>
> Yes, I'm sorry I see that now. In full:
>
> I'm getting a bit fed up with journalists, presenters,
> commentators, and who knows who else, using the word
> 'paedophile' as if it meant 'sexual abuser of children'.
>
> vs.
>
> I'm getting a bit fed up with journalists, presenters,
> commentators, and who knows whom else, using the word
> 'paedophile' as if it meant 'sexual abuser of children'.
>

This is a tricky one, as the whole sentence is clumsy. To escape making
a decision that will not cure all ills in either case, I suggest a rewrite.

I'm not delighted with
"... fed up with journalists using the word ...",
to start with.

>
>>
>> The first is correct after "John Smith will be there". The second is
>> correct after "This decision will throw my whole team out of work".
>> But most people would probably accept "who" in the second case.

Right, but neither is a perfect fit for the currently presented sentence.

[Skitt]

On 3/16/2013 3:47 PM, Frederick Williams wrote:
> Harrison Hill wrote:
>>
>> On Saturday, 16 March 2013 21:51:57 UTC, Skitt wrote:
>>> Marius Hancu wrote:
>>>
>>>> Frederick Williams wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> This:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> ... and who knows who else
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> or this:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> ... and who knows whom else
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> "Whom" doesn't work here, as "knows" doesn't have "who" for direct
>>>
>>>> object here.
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> How an you tell without context?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> He can see you from there, and who knows whom else?
>>
>> That is awful on the ear.
>
> What does it mean? Who else can he see, or who else can see me?
>

Well, to me it means that he can see me, and we don't know whom else he
can see. Yes, "whom else" is the grammatically correct expression for
edited prose, while I am fully aware that it might not be the commonly
spoken or even written one.

Using a "who" where a "whom" is the grammatically recommended choice
(for edited prose) seems to be more acceptable than making the opposite
selection.

[erilar]

In article <ki2phr$98k$1...@news.albasani.net>,

Skitt <ski...@comcast.net> wrote:

> Marius Hancu wrote:
> > Frederick Williams wrote:
>
> >> This:
> >>
> >> ... and who knows who else
> >>
> >> or this:
> >>
> >> ... and who knows whom else
> >
> > "Whom" doesn't work here, as "knows" doesn't have "who" for direct
> > object here.
> >
> How an you tell without context?
>
> He can see you from there, and who knows whom else?

Exactly. This is one of the uses of gender, though we have very little
left in English.

--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist

[erilar]

In article <ki2phr$98k$1...@news.albasani.net>,
Skitt <ski...@comcast.net> wrote:

> Marius Hancu wrote:
> > Frederick Williams wrote:
>
> >> This:
> >>
> >> ... and who knows who else
> >>
> >> or this:
> >>
> >> ... and who knows whom else
> >
> > "Whom" doesn't work here, as "knows" doesn't have "who" for direct
> > object here.
> >
> How an you tell without context?
>
> He can see you from there, and who knows whom else?

oops, I said gender when I meant case. We have even less of that!

--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist

[erilar]

In article <8d6ed006-c539-45d8...@googlegroups.com>,

That's because you are assuming it's a different person doing the
seeing. With whom it's referring to "you" being only one of the persons
being seen.

--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist

[Marius Hancu]

On Mar 16, 6:14 pm, Frederick Williams <freddywilli...@btinternet.com>
wrote:

> Yes, I'm sorry I see that now.  In full:
>
>         I'm getting a bit fed up with journalists, presenters,
>         commentators, and who knows who else, using the word
>         'paedophile' as if it meant 'sexual abuser of children'.
>
> vs.
>
>         I'm getting a bit fed up with journalists, presenters,
>         commentators, and who knows whom else, using the word
>         'paedophile' as if it meant 'sexual abuser of children'.

The 2nd. Same argument:

"Whom" doesn't work here, as "knows" doesn't have "who" for direct
object here.

"who knows who(m) else" is not about knowing, it just means "various/
unnameable others."

Marius Hancu

[Skitt]

Marius Hancu wrote:

> Frederick Williams wrote:

>> Yes, I'm sorry I see that now. In full:
>>
>> I'm getting a bit fed up with journalists, presenters,
>> commentators, and who knows who else, using the word
>> 'paedophile' as if it meant 'sexual abuser of children'.
>>
>> vs.
>>
>> I'm getting a bit fed up with journalists, presenters,
>> commentators, and who knows whom else, using the word
>> 'paedophile' as if it meant 'sexual abuser of children'.
>
> The 2nd. Same argument:
>
> "Whom" doesn't work here, as "knows" doesn't have "who" for direct
> object here.
>
> "who knows who(m) else" is not about knowing, it just means "various/
> unnameable others."

True, the simplified sentence is "fed up with [who knows] *whom*", but
that's only part of the problem. Recast.

[Frederick Williams]

I'm confused. Leaving aside the need to rewrite it, is the first or
second correct so far as who/whom is concerned?

[Frederick Williams]

Marius Hancu wrote:
>
> On Mar 16, 6:14 pm, Frederick Williams <freddywilli...@btinternet.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Yes, I'm sorry I see that now. In full:
> >
> > I'm getting a bit fed up with journalists, presenters,
> > commentators, and who knows who else, using the word
> > 'paedophile' as if it meant 'sexual abuser of children'.
> >
> > vs.
> >
> > I'm getting a bit fed up with journalists, presenters,
> > commentators, and who knows whom else, using the word
> > 'paedophile' as if it meant 'sexual abuser of children'.
>
> The 2nd. Same argument:
>
> "Whom" doesn't work here, as "knows" doesn't have "who" for direct
> object here.

I'm being dim. When you wrote "The 2nd", did you mean the 2nd is
correct? But then you wrote '"Whom" doesn't work here...'. Sorry.

> "who knows who(m) else" is not about knowing, it just means "various/
> unnameable others."
>
> Marius Hancu

[Skitt]

Frederick Williams wrote:
> Skitt wrote:
>> Marius Hancu wrote:
>>> Frederick Williams wrote:

>>>> Yes, I'm sorry I see that now. In full:
>>>>
>>>> I'm getting a bit fed up with journalists, presenters,
>>>> commentators, and who knows who else, using the word
>>>> 'paedophile' as if it meant 'sexual abuser of children'.
>>>>
>>>> vs.
>>>>
>>>> I'm getting a bit fed up with journalists, presenters,
>>>> commentators, and who knows whom else, using the word
>>>> 'paedophile' as if it meant 'sexual abuser of children'.
>>>
>>> The 2nd. Same argument:
>>>
>>> "Whom" doesn't work here, as "knows" doesn't have "who" for direct
>>> object here.
>>>
>>> "who knows who(m) else" is not about knowing, it just means "various/
>>> unnameable others."
>>
>> True, the simplified sentence is "fed up with [who knows] *whom*", but
>> that's only part of the problem. Recast.
>
> I'm confused. Leaving aside the need to rewrite it, is the first or
> second correct so far as who/whom is concerned?
>

If I were forced to choose one of the shown sentences, I'd go with the
"whom" one. Mind you, I'd never write such sentence.

[CDB]

On 16/03/2013 8:43 PM, Frederick Williams wrote:

> Marius Hancu wrote:
>> Frederick Williams <freddywilli...@btinternet.com> wrote:

>>> Yes, I'm sorry I see that now. In full:

>>> I'm getting a bit fed up with journalists, presenters,
>>> commentators, and who knows who else, using the word
>>> 'paedophile' as if it meant 'sexual abuser of children'.

>>> vs.

>>> I'm getting a bit fed up with journalists, presenters,
>>> commentators, and who knows whom else, using the word
>>> 'paedophile' as if it meant 'sexual abuser of children'.

>> The 2nd. Same argument:

>> "Whom" doesn't work here, as "knows" doesn't have "who" for direct
>> object here.

> I'm being dim. When you wrote "The 2nd", did you mean the 2nd is
> correct? But then you wrote '"Whom" doesn't work here...'. Sorry.

>> "who knows who(m) else" is not about knowing, it just means "various/
>> unnameable others."

There are more problems here than appear at first glance. Substitute a
pronoun for the words in question and you get

"I'm getting a bit fed up with them using the word

'paedophile' as if it meant 'sexual abuser of children'."

In formal North American English, at least, that should be "their
using", and therefore your sentence should be

"I'm getting a bit fed up with journalists', presenters',
commentators', and who knows who else's, using the word
'paedophile' as if it meant 'sexual abuser of children,"

but that would hardly help. If you decide to go with the accusative
form, then the equivalent form with the problematic words should be "who
knows whom" (an alternative would be "I don't know whom"); the pronoun
is the object of both the preposition "[fed up] with" and the verb "knows".

However, I would recommend that you use "who", not "whom", because
anyone who prefers "whom" will forgive you for following the modern
tendency to use "who" for the accusative, and the rest will assume you
are right. Also, it sounds better to me.

Skitt probably gave you the best advice. Recast.

[Marius Hancu]

On Mar 16, 8:43 pm, Frederick Williams <freddywilli...@btinternet.com>

wrote:
> Marius Hancu wrote:
>
> > On Mar 16, 6:14 pm, Frederick Williams <freddywilli...@btinternet.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Yes, I'm sorry I see that now.  In full:
>
> > >         I'm getting a bit fed up with journalists, presenters,
> > >         commentators, and who knows who else, using the word
> > >         'paedophile' as if it meant 'sexual abuser of children'.
>
> > > vs.
>
> > >         I'm getting a bit fed up with journalists, presenters,
> > >         commentators, and who knows whom else, using the word
> > >         'paedophile' as if it meant 'sexual abuser of children'.
>
> > The 2nd. Same argument:
>
> > "Whom" doesn't work here, as "knows" doesn't have "who" for direct
> > object here.
>
> I'm being dim.  When you wrote "The 2nd", did you mean the 2nd is
> correct?  But then you wrote '"Whom" doesn't work here...'.  Sorry.
>
> > "who knows who(m) else" is not about knowing, it just means "various/
> > unnameable others."

I apologize. The 1st (with "who") is the appropriate one based on that
argument, IMO.

Marius Hancu

[Marius Hancu]

On Mar 16, 9:52 pm, CDB <bellemar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 16/03/2013 8:43 PM, Frederick Williams wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Marius Hancu wrote:
> >> Frederick Williams <freddywilli...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >>> Yes, I'm sorry I see that now.  In full:
> >>>          I'm getting a bit fed up with journalists, presenters,
> >>>          commentators, and who knows who else, using the word
> >>>          'paedophile' as if it meant 'sexual abuser of children'.
> >>> vs.
> >>>          I'm getting a bit fed up with journalists, presenters,
> >>>          commentators, and who knows whom else, using the word
> >>>          'paedophile' as if it meant 'sexual abuser of children'.
> >> The 2nd. Same argument:

Wanted to say the 1st, sorry.

> >> "Whom" doesn't work here, as "knows" doesn't have "who" for direct
> >> object here.
> > I'm being dim.  When you wrote "The 2nd", did you mean the 2nd is
> > correct?  But then you wrote '"Whom" doesn't work here...'.  Sorry.
> >> "who knows who(m) else" is not about knowing, it just means "various/
> >> unnameable others."
>
> There are more problems here than appear at first glance.  Substitute a
> pronoun for the words in question and you get
>
> "I'm getting a bit fed up with them using the word
> 'paedophile' as if it meant 'sexual abuser of children'."
>
> In formal North American English, at least, that should be "their
> using", and therefore your sentence should be
>
>   "I'm getting a bit fed up with journalists', presenters',
> commentators', and who knows who else's, using the word
> 'paedophile' as if it meant 'sexual abuser of children,"

Do you feel "else's" is better than "else" here?

> but that would hardly help.  If you decide to go with the accusative
> form, then the equivalent form with the problematic words should be "who
> knows whom" (an alternative would be "I don't know whom"); the pronoun
> is the object of both the preposition "[fed up] with" and the verb "knows".

Well, the accusative form is in a huge minority at Google Books in
similar constructions:

"and I don't know who else"
About 24,300 results (I know, it reduces to something else on the last
search page, but still)

"and I don't know whom else"
About 176 results

At COCA:

and who knows who else

11 results

and who knows whom else

0 results

Justified applications of "whom," IMO:
---
I really need to talk to someone about something, and I don't know
whom else I
can trust. ["whom" is required by "trust," not "know"]
---
And I don't know whom else to turn to. ["whom" is required by "turn
to," not "know"]
---
They had signed Paul Robeson and I don't know whom else for the cast,
but one
fine morning Kern told me the news. ["whom" is required by "signed,"
not "know"]
---

> However, I would recommend that you use "who", not "whom", because
> anyone who prefers "whom" will forgive you for following the modern
> tendency to use "who" for the accusative, and the rest will assume you
> are right.  Also, it sounds better to me.
>
> Skitt probably gave you the best advice.  Recast.

Marius Hancu

[Stan Brown]

On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 22:14:09 +0000, Frederick Williams wrote:
>
> Stan Brown wrote:

> > "Context is all."
>
> Yes, I'm sorry I see that now. In full:
>
> I'm getting a bit fed up with journalists, presenters,

> commentators, and who knows who[whom] else, using the word

> 'paedophile' as if it meant 'sexual abuser of children'.

This is an interesting puzzle, because I think you could make a case
for it either way. Either you are fed up with the people, in which
case it's "whom" (though most people would probably use "who"), or
you're fed up with the using, in which case most people would
probably use "who" even though that turns "using" into a fused
participle.

Conclusion: Use "who", or rewrite the sentence.

[Stan Brown]

On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 03:03:04 -0700 (PDT), Marius Hancu wrote:
> On Mar 16, 9:52�pm, CDB <bellemar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > [quoted text muted]
> > >>> � � � � �I'm getting a bit fed up with journalists, presenters,

> > >>> � � � � �commentators, and who knows whom else, using the word
> > >>> � � � � �'paedophile' as if it meant 'sexual abuser of children'.
> > >> The 2nd. Same argument:
>
> Wanted to say the 1st, sorry.
>

> > [quoted text muted]
> >
> > � "I'm getting a bit fed up with journalists', presenters',

> > commentators', and who knows who else's, using the word
> > 'paedophile' as if it meant 'sexual abuser of children,"
>
> Do you feel "else's" is better than "else" here?
>

I agree with CDB's condemnation of the fused participle, though s/he
did not use the term.

"Who else's" could be rewritten as "whose else", I think. But these
micro-rewrites that you want to do are just rearranging the deck
chairs on the /Titanic/. Rewrite the sentence.

(At some point someone should mention that "paedophile" [non-metric
spelling: pedophile] does mean "sexual abuser of children" to all but
a few classicists and cranks like ourselves. It did not mean that
originally, but it does today. I believe Fowler would call it a
"worsened word".)

[Frederick Williams]

Stan Brown wrote:

> (At some point someone should mention that "paedophile" [non-metric
> spelling: pedophile] does mean "sexual abuser of children" to all but
> a few classicists and cranks like ourselves. It did not mean that
> originally, but it does today. I believe Fowler would call it a
> "worsened word".)

The New Shorter (1993) (the most comprehensive and authoritative
dictionary I have) says:
paedophile - a person who exhibits paedophilia
paedophilia - sexual desire directed towards children

One may desire without acting. One often does.

[Frederick Williams]

Stan Brown wrote:
>
> On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 22:14:09 +0000, Frederick Williams wrote:
> >
> > Stan Brown wrote:
> > > "Context is all."
> >
> > Yes, I'm sorry I see that now. In full:
> >
> > I'm getting a bit fed up with journalists, presenters,
> > commentators, and who knows who[whom] else, using the word
> > 'paedophile' as if it meant 'sexual abuser of children'.
>
> This is an interesting puzzle, because I think you could make a case
> for it either way. Either you are fed up with the people, in which
> case it's "whom" (though most people would probably use "who"), or
> you're fed up with the using, in which case most people would
> probably use "who" even though that turns "using" into a fused
> participle.
>
> Conclusion: Use "who", or rewrite the sentence.

I think it's the using I'm fed up with. So I will write "who", but I
will make no use of it, instead I will rewrite it. I.e., there will be
a version one with "who" that will remain unprinted. And there will be
a version two that will steer clear of who/whom all together, and...
um... that will probably remain unprinted as well :-).

A fused participles bad?

[Marius Hancu]

On Mar 17, 10:27 am, Stan Brown <the_stan_br...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 22:14:09 +0000, Frederick Williams wrote:
>
> > Stan Brown wrote:
> > > "Context is all."
>
> > Yes, I'm sorry I see that now.  In full:
>
> >    I'm getting a bit fed up with journalists, presenters,
> >    commentators, and who knows who[whom] else, using the word
> >    'paedophile' as if it meant 'sexual abuser of children'.
>
> This is an interesting puzzle, because I think you could make a case
> for it either way.  Either you are fed up with the people, in which
> case it's "whom"

Ah, interesting, and you're right on this one:

I'm fed up with who knows whom else.

> (though most people would probably use "who"), or
> you're fed up with the using, in which case most people would
> probably use "who" even though that turns "using" into a fused
> participle.
>
> Conclusion: Use "who", or rewrite the sentence.

Marius Hancu

[Major Scott]

On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 22:50:25 -0000, Skitt <ski...@comcast.net> wrote:

> Frederick Williams wrote:
>> Stan Brown wrote:
>>> Frederick Williams wrote:
>
>>>> This:
>>>>
>>>> ... and who knows who else
>>>>
>>>> or this:
>>>>
>>>> ... and who knows whom else
>>>>
>>>> ? Sorry an'all. I have a vague feeling that I've asked before, if so
>>>> double plus sorry.
>>>
>>> "Context is all."
>>
>> Yes, I'm sorry I see that now. In full:
>>
>> I'm getting a bit fed up with journalists, presenters,
>> commentators, and who knows who else, using the word
>> 'paedophile' as if it meant 'sexual abuser of children'.
>>
>> vs.
>>
>> I'm getting a bit fed up with journalists, presenters,
>> commentators, and who knows whom else, using the word
>> 'paedophile' as if it meant 'sexual abuser of children'.
>>
>
> This is a tricky one, as the whole sentence is clumsy. To escape making
> a decision that will not cure all ills in either case, I suggest a rewrite.
>
> I'm not delighted with
> "... fed up with journalists using the word ...",
> to start with.

I prefer "fed up of". If I'm fed up WITH you, then we are both sitting in a bus shelter, waiting for a bus that never arrives. We are both fed up, and we are with each other. I'f I'm fed up OF you, then you're going on about something boring while I'm trying to concentrate on the book while waiting for my bus.

--
Hit the button marked 'STOP' with remaining hand.

[Major Scott]

I can see the point of he and him, but I've never bothered with whom, because we're talking about an unknown person, so we can't pick one.

--
Helpdesk: Click on the 'my computer' icon on the left of the screen.
Customer: Your left or my left?

[CDB]

On 17/03/2013 6:03 AM, Marius Hancu wrote:
> On Mar 16, 9:52 pm, CDB <bellemar...@gmail.com> wrote:

[editing a sentence]

>> "I'm getting a bit fed up with journalists', presenters',
>> commentators', and who knows who else's, using the word
>> 'paedophile' as if it meant 'sexual abuser of children,"

> Do you feel "else's" is better than "else" here?

As Stan said, that would be "whose else", in keeping with the genitives
in the rest of the list. I considered that version, and rejected it on
the grounds that it sounded peculiar.

[Stan Brown]

On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 16:37:12 +0000, Frederick Williams wrote:
>
> Stan Brown wrote:
>
> > (At some point someone should mention that "paedophile" [non-metric
> > spelling: pedophile] does mean "sexual abuser of children" to all but
> > a few classicists and cranks like ourselves. It did not mean that
> > originally, but it does today. I believe Fowler would call it a
> > "worsened word".)
>
> The New Shorter (1993) (the most comprehensive and authoritative
> dictionary I have) says:
> paedophile - a person who exhibits paedophilia
> paedophilia - sexual desire directed towards children
>
> One may desire without acting. One often does.

You're right i logic, but wrong in usage.

[Frederick Williams]

Stan Brown wrote:
>
> On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 16:37:12 +0000, Frederick Williams wrote:
> >
> > Stan Brown wrote:
> >
> > > (At some point someone should mention that "paedophile" [non-metric
> > > spelling: pedophile] does mean "sexual abuser of children" to all but
> > > a few classicists and cranks like ourselves. It did not mean that
> > > originally, but it does today. I believe Fowler would call it a
> > > "worsened word".)
> >
> > The New Shorter (1993) (the most comprehensive and authoritative
> > dictionary I have) says:
> > paedophile - a person who exhibits paedophilia
> > paedophilia - sexual desire directed towards children
> >
> > One may desire without acting. One often does.
>
> You're right i logic, but wrong in usage.

Dictionaries may lay down the law or they may report usage. Perhaps
they should put big, bold Ls or Us in their margins to tell us which
they are doing in each particular entry!

There is a real problem here: how does the dictionary reader know
whether he is being told what a word means logically, or how it is
actually used? I know the OED has lots of examples of usage down the
years, but the Shorter doesn't.