could be perfectly acceptable. in other cases you've got to consider who you're writing for. if you're writing for any more formal contexts there are certain conventions that you would be wise to follow. in a more casual setting you can get away with looser usage. but the overall framework is to be mindful of the expectations of your readers. because that's really the only authority. so the case of the correct meaning of nauseous, now, i don't know, how many of you realize that there's a controversy over the meaning of nauseous? so according, less than a quarter. according to a stickler's rule, notches may only be used to mean to be now seated. and may not be used to mean now seated. we try the nauseous roller

coaster ride. wrong. after trying the roller coaster ride, we were nauseous. now, this is, that's the way the language is to be spoken but it has, that horse has left the barn, and very few people will actually interpret nauseous as meaning causing nazi of. indeed, the dictionaries now reflect that. pdus nauseous in the so-called correct sense evil confusion readers. i liken it to be sketched in monty python's flying circus and which someone is arrested for selling a hungarian english phrase book to translate, can you show me the way to the train station, as will you fondle my buttocks? [laughter] if you had a dictionary that were to define nauseous, only as causing nausea, it would be abuse with a hungarian phrasebook. that's why dictionary to update themselves and, other than

trusting your ear, consulting diction is the best way to make such judgments. >> just a couple more questions. who has had their hand up for the longest? [laughter] several. okay, that gentleman there. >> you say it depends on who you're writing for. shouldn't it be whom you are writing for? [laughter] >> it would be, i have a whole section on who versus whom, and whom it is kind circling the drain in english. there are many circumstances in which houma, even if it is -- whom, even if it is called for by the sense of humor is used in when is the object of a verb or preposition and two is used in homage of context when it is the subject of the clause. in practice if you were to follow that rule you would be an insufferable desperate you would be saying things like do you

know to whom you're talking to? and who are you going to call? ghostbusters. and, in fact, careful writers going back to shakespeare and early or have used to in context that technically might call for whom. so much depends on the level of formality. that is, there are styles of writers that are appropriate for the inscription on a genocide memorial. they are you want to use the most careful and formal style that you can. on the other hand, if you read any milk to a close friend or having a conversation, you follow the same conventions as you're going to sound pompous, stuffy, like a peasant. much of traditional advisors confuses the two notions of formality and grammatical correctness, and stipulate that the more formal construction is the only one that is correct, whereas often overcorrect or any

property different styles. using the wrong style in either direction, a formal stall when an informal it is called for, or vice versa, are both grammatical errors. and whom i accept as the object of the preposition. you know, no one would say to whom it may concern. but other than that context whom is appropriate in a more formal style of speech and writing. >> who the hell bills for? >> or for whom the bell tolls, there's an object of a preposition and so it clashes even in an informal style. i give a number of examples in the book. in formal e-mails that indeed the use whom always as the object of a preposition but if one were to follow that rule or use it consistently, which by the way no one does, even the language peasants. you can catch a point of us using who were the own rules will call for who, so because if you haven't -- if you have an ear for the language you will not use whom in every context.

you would just sound way to pop the informal. and i think that's all we have time for. thank you very much. [applause] >> is there a nonfiction author of book you'd like to see featured on booktv? send us an e-mail to booktv at c-span.org. tweet us at booktv or post on our wall facebook.com/the tv. >> so tell me about "the american vice-presidency." what made you decide to focus on office number two? >> well, for a long time as being a political reporter i covered many presidential campaigns and presidents come and i was always concerned about the problem of the presidential succession. i felt that many times the choice of more than they seriously, oh, well. so i decided to write a book about all of the vice president, many of whom were americans

including me, that didn't know who they were. tried to give them a little sunlight. >> who was your favorite? >> well, i always liked walter mondale as i covered him as a reporter, he became a friend of mine that i also thought it was an excellent vice president. and the way he was chosen, which he was involved in the process to become a model to how a vice president was chosen. when jimmy carter picked him for vice president, mondale sent carter a letter or memo saying what carter needed for a vice president and what mondale could provide for him. it was a very persuasive letter and it got him the job. >> okay. so the vice president that you didn't know, which one was your favorite? >> i always liked thomas marshall because he was -- summit he put up with an awful

lot of baloney. when wilson was very sure is what bill, the things he admitted in the sick room, and he wasn't even aware of how sick wilson was, but he was a very good american. he didn't declare wilson disabled and take over the presidency. so he suffered in silence, but wound up being a very, very loyal vice president. >> who do you think was the least effective? >> the what? >> the least effective vice president. >> well, i think not just the least effective of the worst vice president was obviously spiro agnew. he was convicted of bribery. it affected -- [inaudible] and even collected money from contractors, contractors he had

paid them off while he was still vice president. it was a terrible stain on the vice presidency. >> can you point to a period in history where the power level of the vice president, what they're able to do, change? the? >> yes. it was a very clear-cut when it happened. when harry truman became vice president after fdr was killed, he wasn't even aware that there was an atomic bomb on development about being ready to be used. so i think after that experience, presidents largely kept their vice presidents better informed of what was going on in their administrations. but it wasn't for another 30 years, until jimmy carter, the process i just told you about, to vet a vice president to make sure he was qualified to be president, that it happened.

and since then that model, called the mondale model, has been followed by most presidential nominees and most residential presidents in taking their vice presidents. >> thank you very much for your time. >> thank you. >> military historian and one recounts the u.s. 15th air force of military exports during world war ii in europe, specifically begins attacks against not the initial facilities. this is about an hour and 15 minutes. -- specifically nazi and daschle facilities. >> good afternoon, everybody. i am barbara peters. it's sunday october 12, and i'm delighted to welcome act barrett tillman who is written over 40 books. most nonfiction but i know you've been here -- did you call write something with stephen cohen's? >> and harold coyle. >> were you kind of their