Are our Elite spoiled brats or prima donnas?

[Freefall]

3. Compete ie active junior & senior team achieving nationally and internationally.

Would that include taking part in a major championship (comprising of say, 3 associations) covering an area of several thousand square kilometres?

[Jon X]

3. Compete ie active junior & senior team achieving nationally and internationally.

Would that include taking part in a major championship (comprising of say, 3 associations) covering an area of several thousand square kilometres?

Let it go Colin. Even you can't think Helen should be turning down her place in the GB Women's team at the WOC Ski-O relay, just so she can come to the Northern Championship held on the same day instead. At least I hope you can't...

[Freefall]

Of course not - but that's an extreme. I would just like to see some more involvement, which is why I started the thread. However, I do accept that if there is no demand, we don't bother in the future and that this is reflected in the rules and regulations. Lets move on and be positive about things such as WOC2015 - I most certainly am (as well as showcasing the Elite Race at Oban 2011 with the big screen from Racing Scotland).

[frog]

Who v whom. According to my English grammer book I think I'm right.
" Whom is always used in the objective case as the object of a verb or preposition. It is never used as the subject". I think in my sentence I was using it as the subject in which case who is correct. My training is in science not English though (like most orienteers I know). Any English specialists out there?

[Scott]

frog is right, AndyC is wrong (with my linguist hat on).

[mappingmum]

Lets move on and be positive about things

Freefall, that's the most sensible thing you've said all thread.

How's that disclaimer footer coming along?

[EddieH]

Interesting grammatical point Frog. The problem is that you didn't really write a sentence which requires a subject and a verb. You start with the verb, and therefore we are dealing with a colloquialism not a grammatical sentance at all. The word by is followed by (I can't remember but is it the ablative?) which would be whom.

As for AndyC, your use of "who" jumped out at me as wrong, and I even considered a reply of sorts

[AndyC]

1) I apologise for being a bumptous pedant
2) I apologise for typing well below the standard I expect of myself
3) I nominate Kitch

at the little red triangle

for an award for a brilliant comment
4) (my final comment I hope) recreating the the original statement to fit in with Eddie's analysis it should/could have read "you were asked not to comment by what person or organisation" or "you were asked by who/whom not to comment" In which situation who/whom is the object of the verb "to ask" is it not?

Anyway I'm getting my coat and going to Ray Demense because I forgot this is an orienteering board not an English seminar at school.

[AlanB]

Interesting grammatical point Frog. The problem is that you didn't really write a sentence which requires a subject and a verb. You start with the verb, and therefore we are dealing with a colloquialism not a grammatical sentance at all. The word by is followed by (I can't remember but is it the ablative?) which would be whom.

As for AndyC, your use of "who" jumped out at me as wrong, and I even considered a reply of sorts

Sentence.

[keever]

Oh FFS, shut up! Start another thread if it bothers you so much

[Gnitworp]

Start anuver fred, Fred

[Big Jon]

By now most of us have forgotten the original point of the thread anyway - which is probably a good thing!

[AlanB]

By now most of us have forgotten the original point of the thread anyway - which is probably a good thing!

Whether grammarians/linguists/pedants are spoiled (spoilt?) brats or prima donnas?

[Frustrated]

I think you'll find the plural should be prime donne.

[AndyC]

I think you'll find the plural should be prime donne.

We've been there and I offered "donnae" but was wrong (probably)