Doll wrote:ОООО, а "юный оратор".....это вы кого имеете ввиду?
Юный оратор, это, надо полагать, я.
Видите ли, на меня действует жестокое peer pressure со стороны всех моих trailer-trash знакомых ( голливудских актеров в фильмах, коллег-американцев, преподавателя на курсах advanced conversation improvement, ненужное зачеркнуть ), которое заставляет меня говорить "who" вместо "whom" и "whatcha" вместо "what are you". А с другой стороны, OOOO - столп и образец непреклонности. Он точно знает, как надо говорить по американски, и никакое мнение окружающих его людей не в силах этого изменить. Но почему-то так получается, что люди, носящие Ролексы и галстуки за $500, говорят по американски так же, как он.
BTW, интересный линк
http://www.bartleby.com/68/2/5702.html
Students of language have frequently divided the users of American English into three rough categories on the basis of some combination of three factors: formal education, occupation, and economic and social position or power. Then, (...) they have proposed that the language characteristic of the topmost group—those with the most formal education (college graduates, in most instances), (...) and who have the largest share of economic and social power - should be considered Standard English. At the other extreme, those with minimal formal education (grade school at best, say), who do only unskilled work, and who have the lowest economic and social positions, must be speakers of what can properly be called Vulgar English—the language of the people, of the masses. Finally, the middle group comprises all that large number of Americans who fall into the educational, occupational, and economic and social categories in between the other two. The language of this group can be said to be Common English, sharing many characteristics of Standard, but not quite up to it in some respects, yet clearly not displaying the peculiar hallmarks of Vulgar.
Примеры различий между Standard & Common English:
So as a conjunction is one of the most heavily used causal connectives in the language:
I came early, so we could chat, where
so means “in order that,” and
He didn’t believe me, so he fired me, where
so means “and for that reason” or “and therefore.” The frequency of these uses is higher in spoken than in written English, and speakers of Vulgar and Common American English use it much more often than do Standard users, who have
consequently and
therefore and several other words to provide variety and minor sense distinctions.
Standard English still usually requires this basic pattern: use
less with mass nouns and
fewer with plural count nouns, as in
less employment, fewer jobs. But Common English—and even some Standard—increasingly uses
less with plurals, especially after
than.
where … at, where … to:
Where means “in the place at (to) which,” so
at and
to are redundant in sentences such as
Where is your brother at? and
Where are you going to? Both locutions are Nonstandard in written English and in most spoken English as well, although they are frequent in Common and Vulgar English, especially in some regional dialects.
Would have, in place of
had alone as auxiliary, as in
if they would have known, instead of the Standard
if they had known, is frequent in Common English, especially in speech. This “extra” auxiliary is never appropriate in Standard written English, however, and most Standard speakers object to it at all levels as well.
Am I not is the usually preferred Standard way of negating
I am and
I’m, although the expression often seems uncomfortably stiff and formal in Conversational use. Long a shibboleth for twentieth-century Americans, the negative contraction
ain’t continues to be Substandard when used unconsciously or unintentionally. It is a word, though, and in Vulgar and some Common use, it replaces
are not, is not, am not, has not, and
have not in statements. Standard English replaces
I ain’t with
I’m not and the interrogative
ain’t I (which is often added to statements, e.g.,
I’m safe, ain’t I?) with a choice of somewhat clumsy locutions:
am I not? aren’t I? or an even more roundabout
Isn’t that so? Ain’t probably developed out of the differently pronounced, now rare, and Nonstandard
an’t and
a’n’t; but it may also have developed from other contractions as well (e.g.,
amn’t, from am not, or
IN-it, a pronunciation of
isn’t it?). The firm rejection of
ain’t in Standard use is hard to explain, but clearly Americans have come down hardest on it, and they have made the rejection stick in Standard American English. Consciously jocular uses are acceptable, but using
ain’t in circumstances that do not suggest deliberate choice may brand you as a speaker of Vulgar English.
Who, whom: Who is the nominative case form of this interrogative and relative pronoun,
whom the objective form:
Who called? Whom were you calling? She’s the one who called. She’s the one whom I took to dinner. Only in Oratorical and Edited English and other Formal uses are these cases always distributed according to those rules. Conservative practice adheres to them in all levels as well, and such use is always appropriate, though not required: English has long given us Conversational, Informal, Semiformal, and occasionally even Formal uses where, at the beginnings of clauses where
whom is called for,
who occurs instead, and at the ends of utterances where
who is called for,
whom occurs instead. Thus, at the lower levels of usage, such diametrically opposite uses as these are Standard:
Who was the lady I saw you with? You asked who to go with you? The one exception to the frequent occurrence of
who toward the fronts and
whom toward the ends of sentences: the closer a preposition is to its object pronoun, the more likely we are to use objective case:
Who did you go with? but
With whom did you go? I saw who you were talking to but I saw to whom you were talking. 
To put up with smth. - идиома. Разорвав ее получаем абсурд.
Спасибо!... 