Why Samsung Galaxy S3 has horrid grammar (e.g., "Who do you want tocall?")
Why Samsung Galaxy S3 has horrid grammar (e.g., "Who do you want tocall?"). Discuss Why Samsung Galaxy S3 has horrid grammar (e.g., "Who do you want tocall?"), on Wireless Forums.
Why Samsung Galaxy S3 has horrid grammar (e.g., "Who do you want tocall?")
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?
Re: Why Samsung Galaxy S3 has horrid grammar (e.g., "Who do you wantto call?")
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?
Re: Why Samsung Galaxy S3 has horrid grammar (e.g., "Who do you want to call?")
On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 04:40:27 +0000 (UTC), Donna Olsen
<donnaolsen@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.
Re: Why Samsung Galaxy S3 has horrid grammar (e.g., "Who do youwant to call?")
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.
Re: Why Samsung Galaxy S3 has horrid grammar (e.g., "Who do you want to call?")
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
Re: Why Samsung Galaxy S3 has horrid grammar (e.g., "Who do you want to call?")
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 20:30:45 +0000 (UTC), Donna Olsen
<donnaolsen@deletethisbit.com> wrote:
>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?
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"?
Re: Why Samsung Galaxy S3 has horrid grammar (e.g., "Who do you wantto call?")
On 09/10/12 05:40, 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?
>
I do hope so in order that it might be corrected to:
"With whom wouldst thou wisheth to share some saucy intrigue?"
Re: Why Samsung Galaxy S3 has horrid grammar (e.g.,"Who do you want to call?")
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 ***, of course :-)
Re: Why Samsung Galaxy S3 has horrid grammar (e.g.,"Who do you want to call?")
Mr Pumpov:
> > 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 ***, 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.
--
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
Re: Why Samsung Galaxy S3 has horrid grammar (e.g.,"Who do you want to call?")
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 ***, 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.
--
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
Re: Why Samsung Galaxy S3 has horrid grammar (e.g., "Who do you want to call?")
In article <a35c781prgtvprhp8hlei7fflkecammjmj@4ax.com>,
Charlie Hoffpauir <invalid@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?
--
.... do not cover a warm kettle or your stock may sour. -- Julia Child
Re: Why Samsung Galaxy S3 has horrid grammar (e.g., "Who do you want to call?")
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 13:28:42 +0000 (UTC), Johannes
<johannes32@yahoo.com> wrote:
>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'.
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.
Re: Why Samsung Galaxy S3 has horrid grammar (e.g., "Who do you want to call?")
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 13:30:56 +0000 (UTC), "Simone D."
<simonedangelo@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.
Re: Why Samsung Galaxy S3 has horrid grammar (e.g., "Who do you want to call?")
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 13:30:56 +0000 (UTC), "Simone D."
<simonedangelo@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!
>
>>>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.
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.
Re: Why Samsung Galaxy S3 has horrid grammar (e.g.,"Who do you want to call?")
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 ***, of course :-)
Also a typo? Does it have to be "...not a tidy ***,..."?
Re: Why Samsung Galaxy S3 has horrid grammar (e.g., "Who do you want to call?")
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 13:30:56 +0000 (UTC), "Simone D."
<simonedangelo@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"?
Re: Why Samsung Galaxy S3 has horrid grammar (e.g., "Who do youwant to call?")
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.
Re: Why Samsung Galaxy S3 has horrid grammar (e.g., "Who do you want to call?")
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 16:55:43 +0000 (UTC), Johannes
<johannes32@yahoo.com> wrote:
>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.
>
The "rules" are a description of the language and the way it is used.
Re: Why Samsung Galaxy S3 has horrid grammar (e.g., "Who do you want to call?")
In article <lrtd78ls6fj3qqrdhracte2kj9o8hl5l58@4ax.com>,
tony cooper <tony.cooper214@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.
--
.... do not cover a warm kettle or your stock may sour. -- Julia Child
Re: Why Samsung Galaxy S3 has horrid grammar (e.g., "Who do you want to call?")
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.
¬R http://users.bestweb.net/~notr You are already too educated stupid to
understand the truth of nature's harmonic simultaneous 4-liter wine cube
Re: Why Samsung Galaxy S3 has horrid grammar (e.g., "Who do youwant to call?")
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 *******ization:
- 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.
Re: Why Samsung Galaxy S3 has horrid grammar (e.g., "Who do you want to call?")
In article <k57cpu$n4$1@speranza.aioe.org>,
Johannes <johannes32@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 *******ization:
> - 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.
--
.... do not cover a warm kettle or your stock may sour. -- Julia Child
Re: Why Samsung Galaxy S3 has horrid grammar (e.g., "Who do youwant to call?")
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.
Re: Why Samsung Galaxy S3 has horrid grammar (e.g., "Who do you want to call?")
Sqwertz <swertz@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 hemphill@alumni.caltech.edu
"This isn't flying. This is falling, with style." -- Buzz Lightyear
Re: Why Samsung Galaxy S3 has horrid grammar (e.g., "Who do you want to call?")
On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 14:44:08 -0400, Scott Hemphill wrote:
>Sqwertz <swertz@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".)
Why Samsung Galaxy S3 has horrid grammar (e.g., "Who do you want tocall?") 
Linear Mode
