• finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        It probably annotates abbreviation of the full year 1985 1986 1987, etc, so people don’t get confused and think Tom Cruise was 87 when he married Mimi Rogers.

        I can’t say if it’s a good or bad annotation, but theres a possible explanation.

            • TheRealKuni@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              5 days ago

              Just to be pedantic, you should use “whoever” there, not “whomever.”

              To tell whether to use “who” or “whom,” replace it with “he” or “him” and follow the ‘m.’

              “he made this” vs “him made this”

                • TheRealKuni@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 days ago

                  Sure!

                  “If I’m asked, I’ll give grammar tips to whomever.”

                  Whomever is tough, because often this would be constructed as “I’ll give grammar tips to whoever asks.” And you would use “who” there, because “whoever” is the subject of the clause “whoever asks.”

                  Generally speaking, it’s usually safe to pick “whoever” over “whomever.”

                  But if you drop the “-ever” it’s a lot easier. Anywhere you’d use “him” (that is, the objective pronoun), you use “whom.” To whom, for whom, by whom, etc.

          • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 days ago

            Idk why or who makes the conventions. It might be a required format, kind of like how you’re supposed to start numbering pages in APA after the title page.

    • designatedhacker@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      5 days ago

      I went down a rabbit hole on this one. I think the age may be irrelevant, or only correlated with children. At least Kidman and Holmes left him over Scientology. They were trying to avoid having their kids indoctrinated. That worked for Holmes, backfired on Kidman. It might have worked for Holmes because it backfired on Kidman. https://www.mercurynews.com/2024/06/28/after-tom-cruise-once-denied-abandoning-suri-she-seems-to-get-the-last-word/

      • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        6 days ago

        Leonardo DiCaprio? I don’t know much about him. If you mean the young girlfriend/partners, those are transactional relationships. He gets arm candy and they get access to high level producers and directors at parties. I feel like it’s much more honest and safe that they aren’t married to him.