Dorothy L. Sayers
janelaw
my way out the door, I grabbed a book to read, "The Documents In
the Case," by Dorothy L. Sayers and Robert Eustace. It's a
pretty funny book.
On the first page I found this: To me, who have been working
over them for the last six or seven months, they seem to point
clearly to one and only one conclusion,...
I was surprised. I couldn't figure out if I would say "who
have" or "who has."
What would you say?
Jane
Pk2222
>I was surprised. I couldn't figure out if I would say "who
>have" or "who has."
>
>What would you say?
I would say "who has", then again, I *rarely* use the Imperial plural.... :-))
pk
Bob Newman
> I was in the hospital today, waiting to get my cast removed. On
> my way out the door, I grabbed a book to read, "The Documents In
> the Case," by Dorothy L. Sayers and Robert Eustace. It's a
> pretty funny book.
>
> On the first page I found this: To me, who have been working
> over them for the last six or seven months, they seem to point
> clearly to one and only one conclusion,...
>
> I was surprised. I couldn't figure out if I would say "who
> have" or "who has."
>
> What would you say?
>
> Jane
Sidestep it. "Having been".
Bob Newman
George F. Hardy
>I would say "who has", then again, I *rarely* use the Imperial plural.... :-))
The Imperial plural would require the use of "us" in place of "me".
I can see why you seldom use it. ;-)
GFH
janelaw
That's precisely what I would do, write it a different way.
But I got two definite answers, on different sides of the
fence.
Is this a British/American distinction? Maybe usage has changed
since the book was written in 1930.
Pk2222
>The Imperial plural would require the use of "us" in place of "me".
>I can see why you seldom use it. ;-)
We *knew* that Sir, when first we wrote. <sg>
In this particular matter, one must agree with Janelaw. The distinction may
very well be attitudinal and somewhat recent American usage.
Fie on you for such obvious pedantry!
pk
Pat Kelley
Gryphon Communications, Inc.
Chicago, IL 60630
pk2...@aol.com
Charles Riggs
>> Sidestep it. "Having been".
>>
>> Bob Newman
>
>That's precisely what I would do, write it a different way.
>
>But I got two definite answers, on different sides of the
>fence.
>
>Is this a British/American distinction? Maybe usage has changed
>since the book was written in 1930.
I find the Brits often messing up when it comes to pluralization. I've
seen headlines read "Manchester United have won the match!" or
"Parliament have decided...". I even wrote the Oxford Dictionary
folks shortly after coming to Ireland to see whether they could clear
up my confusion. The answer I received was so convoluted I still don't
know what is considered proper in Britain and Ireland: Is a group
singular or is it plural? I would only use the plural if I were
speaking of the individual members of the group.
Charles
Charles Riggs
>I was in the hospital today, waiting to get my cast removed. On
>my way out the door, I grabbed a book to read, "The Documents In
>the Case," by Dorothy L. Sayers and Robert Eustace. It's a
>pretty funny book.
>
>On the first page I found this: To me, who have been working
>over them for the last six or seven months, they seem to point
>clearly to one and only one conclusion,...
>
>I was surprised. I couldn't figure out if I would say "who
>have" or "who has."
>
>What would you say?
>
>Jane
Clearly, I would say "who has". "Have" must have been a typo. :-)
Charles
Charles Riggs
>Fie on you for such obvious pedantry!
>
>pk
>
>Pat Kelley
But isn't that the purpose of this news group? :-)
Charles
Daniel James
> I found this: To me, who have been working
> over them for the last six or seven months, they seem to point
> clearly to one and only one conclusion,...
>
> I was surprised. I couldn't figure out if I would say "who
> have" or "who has."
>
> What would you say?
>
"Have", without a shadow of a doubt. You wouldn't say "I has been ..."
would you?
Think of it as "To me: I, who have been ... "
Cheers,
Daniel James
janelaw
>
> Bob Newman (No...@dial.pipex.com) wrote:
> > janelaw wrote:
> >
> > > I was in the hospital today, waiting to get my cast removed. On
> > > my way out the door, I grabbed a book to read, "The Documents In
> > > the Case," by Dorothy L. Sayers and Robert Eustace. It's a
> > > pretty funny book.
> > >
> > > over them for the last six or seven months, they seem to point
> > > clearly to one and only one conclusion,...
> > >
> > > I was surprised. I couldn't figure out if I would say "who
> > > have" or "who has."
> > >
> > > What would you say?
> > >
> >
> > Sidestep it. "Having been".
> >
>
> it ought to be.
>
> "Having been working over them for the last six or seven months,
> they seem to point clearly to one and only one conclusion..."
>
> Please tell me this is not being accepted as correct English
> these days? Where, pray tell, is the unhappy referent of that
> delinquent opening gerund?
>
> --
> Ellen Mizzell
Now, Ellen,
He just said "having been." You needn't get carried away. I am
sure he meant something like, "Having been working on these
documents for the last six or seven months, I can see only one
conclusion."
Reassuringly,
Jane
Pk2222
>But isn't that the purpose of this news group? :-)
D'accord. Just having fun! %}}
pk
Pk2222
>I find the Brits often messing up when it comes to pluralization. I've
>seen headlines read "Manchester United have won the match!" or
>"Parliament have decided...". I even wrote the Oxford Dictionary
>folks shortly after coming to Ireland to see whether they could clear
>up my confusion. The answer I received was so convoluted I still don't
>know what is considered proper in Britain and Ireland: Is a group
>singular or is it plural? I would only use the plural if I were
>speaking of the individual members of the group.
>
and I think he's on to something. It strikes me that when one says or writes
"Parliment have", one actually implies the individuals who make up Parliment,
as in "The members of Parliment have". The writer apparently took a shortcut or
invented a contraction not in common, American use.
pk
janelaw
> > over them for the last six or seven months, they seem to point
> > clearly to one and only one conclusion,...
> >
> > I was surprised. I couldn't figure out if I would say "who
> > have" or "who has."
> >
> > What would you say?
> >
>
> would you?
>
> Think of it as "To me: I, who have been ... "
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel James
Where are you guys? I'm trying to figure out if this is a
geographical distinction.
Half of you would use "has." I assume that you all think that
"who" is the subject of the sentence and takes a 3rd person
verb. I have to point out that while we say, "He who has...,"
we also say, "We who are..." and "You who are...."
Half of you would use "have." I assume that you all think that
"I" is the subject of the sentence and takes a 1st person verb.
For you I note that there is no "I" in the sentence. I imagine
we are to infer an elliptical "I." I think a lot of us reject
this idea intuitively because "me" is in the accusative. Since
"me" can't be the subject, we turn to "who," etc.
Still, I think we would all say, "To those of us who have
nothing better to do with their time...."
George F. Hardy
>
>Mr. Hardy remarked that:
>
>>The Imperial plural would require the use of "us" in place of "me".
>>I can see why you seldom use it. ;-)
>
>We *knew* that Sir, when first we wrote. <sg>
No indication that thou knewst it.
GFH
George F. Hardy
when she wrote: "To me, who have ... " "Who" refers to the first
person singular, thus the inflected verb form is the same -- first
person singluar. (That is "have", as in "I have").
GFH
Pk2222
>Why would British headline writers follow American usage rather than
>British usage?
and I can think of no good reason why they would or should follow American
usage. This isn't a right/wrong issue - just a difference of expression.
I was simply observing that American usage treats groups as single objects,
perhaps because we focus sometimes on seeing ourselves as one unit (even though
we'd kill to maintain our individuality!).
What I really miss is the sprinkling of precise foreign phrases into great
writing. We haven't much seen that since Eliot.
pk
Bob Newman
> janelaw (jan...@excite.com) wrote:
> > Ellen Mizzell wrote:
> > >
> > > Bob Newman (No...@dial.pipex.com) wrote:
> > > > janelaw wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I was in the hospital today, waiting to get my cast removed. On
> > > > > my way out the door, I grabbed a book to read, "The Documents In
> > > > > the Case," by Dorothy L. Sayers and Robert Eustace. It's a
> > > > > pretty funny book.
> > > > >
> > > > > On the first page I found this: To me, who have been working
> > > > > over them for the last six or seven months, they seem to point
> > > > > clearly to one and only one conclusion,...
> > > > >
> > > > > I was surprised. I couldn't figure out if I would say "who
> > > > > have" or "who has."
> > > > >
> > > > > What would you say?
> > > > >
> > > > > Jane
> > > >
> > > > Sidestep it. "Having been".
> > > >
> > >
> > > <aghast> Please don't. That's a capital offence, or if it isn't
> > > it ought to be.
> > >
> > > "Having been working over them for the last six or seven months,
> > > they seem to point clearly to one and only one conclusion..."
> > >
> > > Please tell me this is not being accepted as correct English
> > > these days? Where, pray tell, is the unhappy referent of that
> > > delinquent opening gerund?
> > >
> >
> > Now, Ellen,
> >
> > He just said "having been." You needn't get carried away. I am
> > sure he meant something like, "Having been working on these
> > documents for the last six or seven months, I can see only one
> > conclusion."
> >
> > Reassuringly,
> > Jane
>
> :-) (removes hands from hips, swallows kava-kava, breathes deeply)
>
> I recommend Gaudy Night, by the way.
>
> --
> Ellen Mizzell
You may need to re-arrange your hands once more, and have another mouthful
of something sustaining... While I appreciate Jane's gallant defence, what I
meant, in full, was "To me, having been working over them for the last six
or seven months,
they seem to point clearly to one and only one conclusion...", the "unhappy
referent of that delinquent opening gerund" being "me", which you
unaccountably omitted. It was late, and I'd had a pint or two, and I'm no
longer completely sure that I was right, but that's what I meant. A
re-ordering of that would be "It seems to me, having been working over them
for the last six or seven months, that they point..."; I think you'd find
that unobjectionable. I would maintain, in any case, that my first answer
was preferable to either of the alternatives originally on offer.
Bob Newman
Pk2222
>You may need to re-arrange your hands once more, and have another mouthful
>of something sustaining... While I appreciate Jane's gallant defence, what I
>meant, in full, was "To me, having been working over them for the last six
>or seven months,
>they seem to point clearly to one and only one conclusion...", the "unhappy
>referent of that delinquent opening gerund" being "me", which you
>unaccountably omitted. It was late, and I'd had a pint or two, and I'm no
>longer completely sure that I was right, but that's what I meant. A
>re-ordering of that would be "It seems to me, having been working over them
>for the last six or seven months, that they point..."; I think you'd find
>that unobjectionable. I would maintain, in any case, that my first answer
>was preferable to either of the alternatives originally on offer.
I can't help thinking that it's the "been" that gives so much trouble. How
about this:
"Having worked on the documents (or with them) for the last six or seven
months..."
pk
Charles Riggs
Mizzell) wrote:
>Why would British headline writers follow American usage rather than
>British usage?
>
>I much prefer the plural form. When I first came to Britain it was
>the usual practice but nowadays groups are just as likely to be
>treated as singular. :-(
>
>The BBC tend to cling to the plural, especially on the World Service,
>where ideas of noblesse oblige die hard. But most newspapers I see
>seem to have adopted the singular.
>
>To my mind, using the singular form when speaking of a group suggests
>that groups are monolithic, which they seldom are.
I've noticed this trend as well. This makes things worse than ever
because now one sees groups used as a singular or plural word with no
rhyme nor reason in Britain. However, the BBC and the rest will get it
right sooner or later I suspect.
Charles
George F. Hardy
had a little fun, but now let's admit it. The proof reader
was correct.
GFH
janelaw
You're not getting it. I'm talking about English usage. I'm
not trying to rewrite DLS.
To you the sentence sounds fine. To some of us it is wrong (for
us). We would never say, "To me, who have...." or "To me, who
am...." It doesn't matter that you can figure out that the
writer intended I to be the subject of the sentence. It's not
there. We don't/can't read an elliptical "I" in after "To me,"
probably because we would never say, "To me, I who am..."
either. I don't know if we fill in some other phrase such as
"the one" or what. I think most often we would just write
around it. I'm just curious.
Charles Riggs
>Ellen asked:
>
>>Why would British headline writers follow American usage rather than
>>British usage?
>
>and I can think of no good reason why they would or should follow American
>usage. This isn't a right/wrong issue - just a difference of expression.
>
>I was simply observing that American usage treats groups as single objects,
>perhaps because we focus sometimes on seeing ourselves as one unit (even though
>we'd kill to maintain our individuality!).
>
>What I really miss is the sprinkling of precise foreign phrases into great
>writing. We haven't much seen that since Eliot.
>
>pk
I agree that it's not an earth shaking matter - just a minor irritant.
Foreign phrases are a welcome thing to see when they make our language
clearer or more beautiful. I remember reading that President
Eisenhower used to hate seeing foreign words or phrases in English
prose, which seems to support the idea they should be encouraged!
Charles
Daniel James
> Where are you guys?
>
[remembering a different thread] These would be non gender specific
guys, right? <grin>
This guy's English, living in England, but seems to be in a minority
here! (In my case the ".co.uk" EMail address is a bit of a giveaway as
far as the "living in England" part is concerned - except, of course,
that that's not *quite* my real EMail address.)
I think that "who" is the subject of the verb, and that it refers to
the same person as "me", so actually represents "I" (because one
wouldn't say "me have been working...") and so, of course, takes a
first person verb: "have".
I also think that DLS's original passage is a thoroughly ugly piece of
English prose, and suspect that it may not have seemed natural even to
her when she wrote it (when? 1930-something?). The grammar is strictly
correct but the sentence, as a whole, is strikingly inelegant.
Whose sentence is it, though? It is not DLS's own, but that of one of
her characters, and is taken from a formal and somewhat stiffly worded
letter that starts the novel. The transcript of letters and telegrams
between the major characters makes up the majority of the first half of
the book; each character writes in a different style, and in a
different 'mood', sepending on the circumstances of their writing. It
really doesn't surprise me to find "dodgy" sentences in writing of this
kind, because people in general - and the characters in popular fiction
in particular - typically have a poorer grasp of the finer points of
language than you or I - or Dorothy L.Sayers.
Cheers,
Daniel James
janelaw
Oh, good. So you think I am to infer from this usage that the
son is stuffy?
George F. Hardy
>To you the sentence sounds fine. To some of us it is wrong (for
>us). We would never say, "To me, who have...." or "To me, who
>am...."
I would never say it, true. I probably would not write it. But
neither of these facts is any indication that others would not.
GFH
Bob Newman
> I've noticed this trend as well. This makes things worse than ever
> because now one sees groups used as a singular or plural word with no
> rhyme nor reason in Britain. However, the BBC and the rest will get it
> right sooner or later I suspect.
>
> Charles
If by "get it right" you mean "conform to American usage" I'm afraid
you're probably right - but let's hope it's later rather than sooner.
Bob Newman
Pk2222
Mr. Newman wrote:
>If by "get it right" you mean "conform to American usage" I'm afraid
>you're probably right - but let's hope it's later rather than sooner.
but I believe that "getting it right" had to do with considering nouns that
describe groups to be considered either a singular or a plural word - no both.
Could be American. Could be not. ;-)
pk
Bob Newman
In British usage, some group nouns take a singular verb, others a plural one. The
rationale for this may be hard to understand if you're not British - or even if
you are - but there is little doubt what sounds right to British ears, in any
particular case.
There's too much harmonisation going on. Let's stay quirky.
Bob Newman
Bob Newman
> I sentence the lot of you to six months' uninterrupted reading of
> Macaulay.
I'll choose my own reading matter, thank you. I particularly recommend Sir Ernest
Gowers.
Bob Newman
Daniel James
> Oh, good. So you think I am to infer from this usage that the
> son is stuffy?
>
Stuffy, perhaps, yes. Perhaps also unaccustomed to writing a formal
letter of that type; uncomfortable with the circumstances of his
writing, almost certainly. Infer what you will.
Cheers,
Daniel James