Language Follies 2

So here I am scratching my head. Pepperoni “Italian Style.” What other styles can there be? “Polish Style” maybe? That would be like finding Kielbasa “Italian Style” at your local supermarket. 

*

Yes, it’s Language Follies time again.

*

I should have started here: pre-pepperoni.

What is it with “pre-“? 

Here am I “pre-approved.” In other mailings I have been “pre-qualified,” “pre-selected” (or “preselected,” depending on the sender’s hyphenation quirks). 

“Pre-“ is the most redundant of redundancies. To be approved before I have even lifted a finger is already “pre.” 

I can only attribute this usage to the inexorable march of intensification by the insecure.

*

And what if we’re not “pre-selected,” but only just “selected”?

By what right have these guys selected me to represent Fords, New Jersey? Is it like tapping someone in a game of tag, and making them “it”? At least in tag there are rules about how one is caught. 

I am the captain of my soul—so get your hand off my back. I’m not “it” on your say-so.

*

I have previously written about the World Cup in the desert, but I neglected to point out the mind-numbing sentiments offered by advertisers on the billboards of the Qatari stadia. Try these on for size:

“Pause is Power”;

“Believing is Magic”;

“Impossible is Nothing.”

Is there a grain of sense in any of that? Is there any indication that the ones responsible understand how English works?

*

Speaking of not understanding how English works, take a look at this:

“Accidentally ate three bites of vegan pizza as it was not well marked. Whomever came up with vegan cheese really hates vegans.”

“Whomever” is the most useless word in the English language. There is seldom a need for it. Here, extraordinarily, it is actually useful: “The next year, he started going to meet with whomever he could about the possibility . . .” The word "whomever" is the object of the preposition “with.” But note that “he could . . .” is a dependent clause modifying “whomever.”

Now compare the above with these abominations:

“Still, the F.B.I. has been unable to identify whomever was responsible.”

“‘No, you listen!’ he yelled at whomever was on the other end of the call.”

“‘Honestly whomever is running this twitter account can go to hell.’”

"Depending on whom is asked . . .” 

“. . . kudos to whomever thought Reza Aslan would have chemistry with Miss Piggy.

In all these examples, the writer/speaker does not recognize that the following clause (not the single word "whomever" or "whom") is the direct object of a verb or an indirect object of a preposition. And a clause needs a subject in the nominative case.

*

Follow the ball:

Give the ball to John. (Noun as object)

Give the ball to the man in the corner. (Phrase as object)

Give the ball to whoever is in the corner. (Clause as object)

*

Now, of course, you would never write:

“Whomever thought . . .”;

“Whom is asked . . .”;

“Whomever is running . . .”

“Whomever was . . . .”

Right? 

(Or would you write, “Whomever came up with vegan cheese . . .”?)

Nah. I think better of you.