They shall not grow old (was "new twist on "whom" etc)
Richard Harding
In the poem "For the Fallen (September 1914)" Laurence Binyon wrote:
They shall not grow old as we that are left grow old,
Age shall not weary them etc. etc. etc.
I wonder why he did not write "...as we _who_ are left". I would have
thought that, by the standards of the time, he was sloppy to use
"that", or am I wrong to think that?
RH
j. lyle
In article <356C2707...@nassau.cv.net>,
"That" has always been used in reference to people by the speakers and
writers of English, despite the protests of some grammarians, who seem to
find it dehumanizing. (At one time there wasn't even a choice; "that" is
older than "who.") Writers, particularly poets, tend to choose whichever
relative better fits the flow of their text.
Jane Lyle
Indiana University Press
N Mitchum
Richard Harding <rhar...@nassau.cv.net> wrote:
------
>In the poem "For the Fallen (September 1914)" Laurence Binyon wrote:
>
>They shall not grow old as we that are left grow old,
>Age shall not weary them etc. etc. etc.
>
>I wonder why he did not write "...as we _who_ are left". I would have
>thought that, by the standards of the time, he was sloppy to use
>"that", or am I wrong to think that?
For one thing it's a poem, and Binyon might have thought "that"
sounded better than "who" in this setting -- especially since the
"th" echoes the line's opening sound.
For another, it was apparently written in or around 1914, and I do
believe the very properest English of that time preferred "that"
to "who." But it seems there was also a growing dislike of "that"
used for people, and commentators began to prescribe against it,
so that we today tend (erroneously) to believe "that" can only
refer to things and "who" only to people.
-----NM [REAL ADDRESS : aj...@lafn.org]
M. Ranjit Mathews
N Mitchum wrote:
> For one thing it's a poem, and Binyon might have thought "that"
> sounded better than "who" in this setting -- especially since the
> "th" echoes the line's opening sound.
>
> For another, it was apparently written in or around 1914, and I do
> believe the very properest English of that time preferred "that"
> to "who." But it seems there was also a growing dislike of "that"
> used for people, and commentators began to prescribe against it,
> so that we today tend (erroneously) to believe "that" can only
> refer to things and "who" only to people.
In the Sermon on the Mount: ..... even as your father which is in heaven
is perfect. (which is used in place of who, as far as I can remember)
Stephen Doerr
M. Ranjit Mathews wrote in message <356C664B...@austin.ibm.com>...
>> For another, it was apparently written in or around 1914, and I do
>> believe the very properest English of that time preferred "that"
>> to "who." But it seems there was also a growing dislike of "that"
>> used for people, and commentators began to prescribe against it,
>> so that we today tend (erroneously) to believe "that" can only
>> refer to things and "who" only to people.
>
>In the Sermon on the Mount: ..... even as your father which is in heaven
>is perfect. (which is used in place of who, as far as I can remember)
Or in the Lord's Prayer: 'Our father, which art in heaven . . . As we
forgive them that trespass against us.' People now seem to say 'who art in
heaven' and 'those who trespass against us', I've noticed.
Steve
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
On Wed, 27 May 1998 13:07:20 -0700, "John Emery"
<jfe...@ucd.edu> wrote:
>True. The use of 'who' or 'whom' as a relative pronoun is a result of
>'sloppy' usage in Middle English. The only correct English relative pronoun
>is 'the', though it may be combined with other pronouns for clarity.
Absolutely: "The Who" always had a touch of class and and "The
Whom" would have been even better. Of course in Scotland they
might have called themselves "The Wham" and been thoroughly
misunderstood elsewhere.
Rainer Thonnes
In article <356C2707...@nassau.cv.net>,
Richard Harding <rhar...@nassau.cv.net> writes:
> In the poem "For the Fallen (September 1914)" Laurence Binyon wrote:
>
> They shall not grow old as we that are left grow old,
> Age shall not weary them etc. etc. etc.
>
> I wonder why he did not write "...as we _who_ are left". I would have
> thought that, by the standards of the time, he was sloppy to use
> "that", or am I wrong to think that?
And what about "Our Father, [who] art in Heaven, ..."?
There are versions which have "which" in place of "who".
As this de-personification cannot have been intended to be
blasphemous, could it have stemmed from the idea that God is
so far removed from anything merely human, and that "who"
only applies to humans? Or does this pre-date the very
existence of "who"?
j. lyle
In article <Eto6JB.7v8.0.sta...@dcs.ed.ac.uk>,
According to Evans and Evans, "that" is about 800 years old as a relative
pronoun, "which" about 400 years old, and "who" about 300 years old.
Some earlier versions of the Bible also used "that" instead of "who." Note
also "Ah, great God that art so good," from _Noah's Flood_, written
sometime before 1425.
The prescription that "who" should be the only relative pronoun used to
refer to people is a relatively recent one in the language--and a widely
ignored one; like so many other "rules" in English, it may have originated
with the Latinists (there is no equivalent for "that" in Latin). In truth,
there is nothing "inhuman" or "dehumanizing" about "that" (or, for that
matter, "which"); all they do is work quietly and steadily to link one
word with another. The fact that we now have "who" to use in reference to
people does not mean that suddenly "that" no longer should be able to
function that way as well.
Simon R. Hughes
Thus Spake r...@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Rainer Thonnes):
> In article <356C2707...@nassau.cv.net>,
> Richard Harding <rhar...@nassau.cv.net> writes:
> > In the poem "For the Fallen (September 1914)" Laurence Binyon wrote:
> >
> > They shall not grow old as we that are left grow old,
> > Age shall not weary them etc. etc. etc.
> >
> > I wonder why he did not write "...as we _who_ are left". I would have
> > thought that, by the standards of the time, he was sloppy to use
> > "that", or am I wrong to think that?
>
> And what about "Our Father, [who] art in Heaven, ..."?
> There are versions which have "which" in place of "who".
> As this de-personification cannot have been intended to be
> blasphemous, could it have stemmed from the idea that God is
> so far removed from anything merely human, and that "who"
> only applies to humans? Or does this pre-date the very
> existence of "who"?
Both "who" and "which" existed in 1611, but there were no agreed upon
rules governing their usages.
--
Simon R. Hughes
| Mail not sent directly to | http://skrik.home.ml.org |
| my reply address will be | |
| deleted without being read. | (Last updated 13th May 1998) |
John Emery
According to _The World's Major Languages_ chapter on English, 'who' was not
used as a relative pronoun until the sixteenth century, though 'whose' was
used by Chaucer. Earlier 'that' was commonly used, but the earliest
recorded relative pronoun was 'the' [which was not originally the definite
article, but used only as an indeclinable relative particle]. So precedent
is certainly on the side of 'that' rather than 'who, whom' as relatives,
though if you want to be *really* correct you should use 'the': "... as we
the are left...".
add avis to ucd
----------
In article <6kkah0$fec$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
jl...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (j. lyle) wrote:
>In article <Eto6JB.7v8.0.sta...@dcs.ed.ac.uk>,
>Rainer Thonnes <r...@dcs.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>In article <356C2707...@nassau.cv.net>,
>> Richard Harding <rhar...@nassau.cv.net> writes:
>>> In the poem "For the Fallen (September 1914)" Laurence Binyon wrote:
>>>
>>> They shall not grow old as we that are left grow old,
>>> Age shall not weary them etc. etc. etc.
>>>
>>> I wonder why he did not write "...as we _who_ are left". I would have
>>> thought that, by the standards of the time, he was sloppy to use
>>> "that", or am I wrong to think that?
>>
>>And what about "Our Father, [who] art in Heaven, ..."?
>>There are versions which have "which" in place of "who".
>>As this de-personification cannot have been intended to be
>>blasphemous, could it have stemmed from the idea that God is
>>so far removed from anything merely human, and that "who"
>>only applies to humans? Or does this pre-date the very
>>existence of "who"?
>
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
On 28 May 1998 18:30:56 GMT, jl...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (j.
lyle) wrote:
>According to Evans and Evans, "that" is about 800 years old as a relative
>pronoun, "which" about 400 years old, and "who" about 300 years old.
>
I suggest you read the relevant entries in the OED for these
words before spouting such stuff. There are a lot of people here
who see the quotation of an "authority" and think what is said is
therefore true.
As for "whom", with which this thead started, it has a long
history of correct usage. And it has a long history of misusage
too. That is no reason to argue its uselessness and to urge
eradication in favour of a single, caseless, word "because that's
the way people talk".
Ron or Dane
j. lyle <jl...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
> In article <Eto6JB.7v8.0.sta...@dcs.ed.ac.uk>,
> Rainer Thonnes <r...@dcs.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >In article <356C2707...@nassau.cv.net>,
> > Richard Harding <rhar...@nassau.cv.net> writes:
> >> In the poem "For the Fallen (September 1914)" Laurence Binyon wrote:
> >>
> >> They shall not grow old as we that are left grow old,
> >> Age shall not weary them etc. etc. etc.
> >>
> >> I wonder why he did not write "...as we _who_ are left". I would have
> >> thought that, by the standards of the time, he was sloppy to use
> >> "that", or am I wrong to think that?
> >
> >And what about "Our Father, [who] art in Heaven, ..."?
> >There are versions which have "which" in place of "who".
> >As this de-personification cannot have been intended to be
> >blasphemous, could it have stemmed from the idea that God is
> >so far removed from anything merely human, and that "who"
> >only applies to humans? Or does this pre-date the very
> >existence of "who"?
>
> According to Evans and Evans, "that" is about 800 years old as a relative
> pronoun, "which" about 400 years old, and "who" about 300 years old.
>
An interesting thread this, but please excuse me while I jump in with a
little nitpick. Richard Harding wrote (above) "In the poem "For the
Fallen (September 1914)" Laurence Binyon wrote: They shall not grow
old.......".
Actually, Binyon wrote "They shall grow not old...", not "not grow".
********
The particular verse this comes from has been used for many years by ex
servicemen and women in Australia and New Zealand. It is known there as
The Ode and is recited at 9pm daily in hundreds of ex-service clubs in
Australia, and some in New Zealand. I guess it may be used extensively
in other countries as well.
ron hawker
j. lyle
In article <356ebfbd...@news.bctel.ca>, <a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>On 28 May 1998 18:30:56 GMT, jl...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (j.
>lyle) wrote:
>
>
>>pronoun, "which" about 400 years old, and "who" about 300 years old.
>>
>words before spouting such stuff. There are a lot of people here
>who see the quotation of an "authority" and think what is said is
>therefore true.
OK, I have "read the relevant entries in the OED for these words," as I
have on numerous occasions. They back up what the Evanses say. The first
citation of "that" as a relative pronoun in the sense that we're
discussing is from 825; the first one that I'm sure is used in reference
to a person is from 1175:
that
The general relative pronoun, referring to any antecedent, and used
without inflexion irrespective of gender, number, and case.
I.
1.
a. Introducing a clause defining or restricting the antecedent, and thus
completing its sense. (The ordinary use: referring to persons or things.)
Sometimes replaceable by who (of persons) or which (of things), but
properly only in cases where no ambiguity results: cf. 2, and see who,
which, rel. (For ellipsis of that, see 10.)
C. 1175 Lamb. Hom. 3 God [? gop] in ~ane castel ~et is on3ein eou;
C. 1175 Lamb. Hom. 79 ^es Mon ~het alihte from ierusalem in to ierico;
(I apologize for the loss of any characters.)
The first citations of "who" as a relative pronoun are from around 1300--a
total of three of them--then nothing until 1599, after which they become
numerous. I believe this is the same time period during which "that" as a
relative fell out of favor and almost disappeared from English. It later
made a resurgence. Below are only the first few entries:
a. As simple relative (of a person or persons), introducing a clause
defining or restricting the antecedent and thus completing the sense: =
that rel. pron. 1.
. . .
1297 R. Glouc. (Rolls) 1977 He nadde bote an do3ter wo mi3te is eir
be.
13.. Northern Passion I. 154/382* Als men may here wha takes entent.
1375 Barbour Bruce i. 445 Lordingis quha likis for till her, The
romanys now begynnys her.
1599 Shaks. Much Ado iii. iii. 68 A man who hath anie honestie in
him.
1633 G. Herbert Temple, Ch. Porch i, A verse may finde him, who a
sermon flies.
**************************
So the Evanses are correct with their approximate dates, which are for
when these pronouns began to be popularly used. I just checked the book,
and their exact words are "_That_ has been the standard relative pronoun
for about eight hundred years and can be used in speaking of persons,
animals, or things. Four hundred years ago _which_ became popular as a
substitute for the relative _that_ and was used for persons, animals, and
things. Three hundred years ago _who_ also became popular as a relative.
It was used in speaking of persons and animals but not of things."
>As for "whom", with which this thead started, it has a long
>history of correct usage. And it has a long history of misusage
>too. That is no reason to argue its uselessness and to urge
>eradication in favour of a single, caseless, word "because that's
>the way people talk".
Who is arguing in favor of the eradication of "whom"??? This discussion
is currently about whether it's all right to use "that" in reference to a
person. And it is. You can say "The man whom I saw" or "the man that I
saw," and you will be correct either way.
Ash Nallawalla
Ron or Dane wrote in message
<1d9sku9.1x1...@p26-m6-mdr1.dialup.xtra.co.nz>...
>j. lyle <jl...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>
>> In article <Eto6JB.7v8.0.sta...@dcs.ed.ac.uk>,
>> Rainer Thonnes <r...@dcs.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> >In article <356C2707...@nassau.cv.net>,
>> > Richard Harding <rhar...@nassau.cv.net> writes:
>> >> In the poem "For the Fallen (September 1914)" Laurence
Binyon wrote:
>> >>
>> >> They shall not grow old as we that are left grow old,
>> >> Age shall not weary them etc. etc. etc.
>>
with a
>little nitpick. Richard Harding wrote (above) "In the poem "For
the
>Fallen (September 1914)" Laurence Binyon wrote: They shall not
grow
>old.......".
>
>Actually, Binyon wrote "They shall grow not old...", not "not
grow".
> ********
>The particular verse this comes from has been used for many years
by ex
>servicemen and women in Australia and New Zealand. It is known
there as
>The Ode and is recited at 9pm daily in hundreds of ex-service
clubs in
>Australia, and some in New Zealand.
At my local RSL it is at 6 pm.
I get the feeling that Binyon has been misquoted in print and
variations have been perpetuated. I had a discussion with a
friend who maintains the page (and site, I believe)
http://www.kiwiclub.org/kiwiklips/news/around2.html where the "not
grow" variant is found, but I was querying another line "At the
going down of the sun and in the morning we shall remember
hem." -- At my RSL and in the majority of web sightings, it ends
with "we will remember them". My friend cited a book of Binyon's
poems as his source - I don't recall its name.
AltaVista sightings:
"They shall not grow old" = 53
"They shall grow not old" = 100
"the morning we shall remember them" = 20
"the morning we will remember them" = 113
How can one find the "real" version?
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
On 30 May 1998 00:03:36 GMT, jl...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (j.
lyle) wrote:
>In article <356ebfbd...@news.bctel.ca>, <a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>On 28 May 1998 18:30:56 GMT, jl...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (j.
>>lyle) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>According to Evans and Evans, "that" is about 800 years old as a relative
>>>pronoun, "which" about 400 years old, and "who" about 300 years old.
>>>
>>I suggest you read the relevant entries in the OED for these
>>words before spouting such stuff. There are a lot of people here
>>who see the quotation of an "authority" and think what is said is
>>therefore true.
>
[snip a good deal of unnecessary quoting by jlyle]
As you must be aware the point I made was not to draw your
attention to the usage of the three words as described in the OED
but to protest the use of a spurious relative antiquity to
somehow reinforce what is common knowledge concerning the
employment of the words. All three words have history enough as
they are used today.
As for "who" the Evanses are wrong: 1297 is seven hundred years
ago not 300. The OED gives a reference for each century and
misses the only the 15th for this particular (restrictive)
relative use of "who", though the non-restrictive form was alive
and well throughout that century. That's not enough, surely, to
truncate the word's history to 300 years: even the Shakespearean
use is (1599) four hundred years' old.
I could probably nit-pick the other dates too but I have neither
time nor inclination.
>
>>As for "whom", with which this thead started, it has a long
>>history of correct usage. And it has a long history of misusage
>>too. That is no reason to argue its uselessness and to urge
>>eradication in favour of a single, caseless, word "because that's
>>the way people talk".
>
>Who is arguing in favor of the eradication of "whom"??? This discussion
>is currently about whether it's all right to use "that" in reference to a
>person. And it is. You can say "The man whom I saw" or "the man that I
>saw," and you will be correct either way.
OK. This thread has had so many twists and turns that I am not
sure who said what. Sorry. Somebody was arguing along those
lines though.
And of course you are right about the usage of 'that' and 'who'
(and 'whom').
In fine, what the Evanses say about this (assuming they say what
you are saying) is right, but waving about spurious figures as
credentials is not right and I do not understand why, since you
have read the OED entries many times, you passed them on without
comment.
j. lyle
In article <356f8542...@news.bctel.ca>, <a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>>According to Evans and Evans, "that" is about 800 years old as a relative
>>>>pronoun, "which" about 400 years old, and "who" about 300 years old.
>>>>
>attention to the usage of the three words as described in the OED
>but to protest the use of a spurious relative antiquity to
>somehow reinforce what is common knowledge concerning the
>employment of the words. All three words have history enough as
>they are used today.
Obviously you have not been following this thread. The question that was
asked was whether "that" can be used of persons. The poster, like many
other people, was taught the "rule" that "that" is used only for animals
and things, and that "who" is the only appropriate relative for people.
(One man I know was taught that saying "that" of persons is the same as
using "it" for persons.) The reason for citing other authorities is to let
those who have been taught this false "rule" see that "that" indeed *is*
used of persons, and was used that way long before "who" became popular.
>As for "who" the Evanses are wrong: 1297 is seven hundred years
>ago not 300. The OED gives a reference for each century and
>misses the only the 15th for this particular (restrictive)
>relative use of "who", though the non-restrictive form was alive
>and well throughout that century. That's not enough, surely, to
>truncate the word's history to 300 years: even the Shakespearean
>use is (1599) four hundred years' old.
Again, you are missing the point. The date that a word entered the
language and the approximate date that it became standard--commonly
accepted, widely used by educated people--are two different things. Of
course these words were around before they became standard; words don't
usually enter a language and immediately become an established part of it.
>I could probably nit-pick the other dates too but I have neither
>time nor inclination.
And your doing so would have no relevance to the question that was asked
and answered.
>In fine, what the Evanses say about this (assuming they say what
>you are saying) is right, but waving about spurious figures as
>credentials is not right and I do not understand why, since you
>have read the OED entries many times, you passed them on without
>comment.
Because the person who asked the question that I was answering needed
only proof of how "that" and "who" have historically been used. I wasn't
writing a dissertation on the history of relative pronouns. I'm here to
help, not to impress.
Ross Howard
>Who is arguing in favor of the eradication of "whom"??? This discussion
>is currently about whether it's all right to use "that" in reference to a
>person. And it is. You can say "The man whom I saw" or "the man that I
>saw," and you will be correct either way.
I get the impression that many people consider the optional "that" (as
in your example), used when the referent is the direct object, to be
less jarring than "that" when used to replace "who" in reference to
the subject.
This would seem to give us this pattern of "correctness":
OBJ. PRON. The man whom I saw
?*The man who I saw
?*The man that I saw
The man I saw
*The man which I saw
SUBJ. PRON. The man I saw
The man who saw me
?*The man that saw me
*The man which saw me
As for transpondian differences in relative acceptability, I think the
objective use of "who" instead of "whom" is more acceptable in the UK
than in the USA (especially when there's a preposition muscling in abd
demanding to be dealt with -- "the man who I danced with" is far more
idiomatic than the ultra-correct "the man with whom I danced"),
whereas the reverse seems to be true for the subjective use of "that"
(if I saw "the man that saw me" while editing a text for publication
in the UK, I'd almost certainly change it -- and I'd only leave "the
committee that/which reviewed the budget" alone if the subject pronoun
used by the writer to refer to the committee was "it" rather than
"they").
Ross Howard
**************************************
There's a number in my e-mail address.
Subtract four from it to reply.
**************************************
Frances Kemmish
Ash Nallawalla wrote:
>
> I get the feeling that Binyon has been misquoted in print and
> variations have been perpetuated. I had a discussion with a
> friend who maintains the page (and site, I believe)
> http://www.kiwiclub.org/kiwiklips/news/around2.html where the "not
> grow" variant is found, but I was querying another line "At the
> going down of the sun and in the morning we shall remember
> hem." -- At my RSL and in the majority of web sightings, it ends
> with "we will remember them". My friend cited a book of Binyon's
> poems as his source - I don't recall its name.
>
> AltaVista sightings:
> "They shall not grow old" = 53
> "They shall grow not old" = 100
> "the morning we shall remember them" = 20
> "the morning we will remember them" = 113
>
> How can one find the "real" version?
I'm not sure how you would define 'real', in this context; I have
checked my own bookshelf, and 'The New Oxford Book of English Verse'
(edited by Helen Gardner, OUP 1972) has:
'They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.'
as the fourth verse of the Laurence Binyon poem 'For the Fallen'.
Fran
K. Edgcombe
In article <3571520F...@iconn.net>,
Frances Kemmish <arc...@iconn.net> wrote:
>> "the morning we shall remember them" = 20
>> "the morning we will remember them" = 113
>
> Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
> At the going down of the sun and in the morning
> We will remember them.'
Morover, in the English of Binyon's time, the two versions would not have meant
the same thing. "We shall remember them" is a statement of what the writer
expects will happen: "we will remember them" is a statement of what he intends.
Binyon assuredly meant, and wrote, the second.
This distinction still exists in relatively formal UK English; I have the
impression that it has almost disappeared in the US, but should be happy to be
corrected.
Katy
Aaron J. Dinkin
> As for transpondian differences in relative acceptability, I think the
> objective use of "who" instead of "whom" is more acceptable in the UK
> than in the USA (especially when there's a preposition muscling in abd
> demanding to be dealt with -- "the man who I danced with" is far more
> idiomatic than the ultra-correct "the man with whom I danced"),
What about "the man whom I danced with", which is what I use?
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
On 31 May 1998 21:49:19 GMT, ke...@cus.cam.ac.uk (K. Edgcombe)
wrote:
>This distinction still exists in relatively formal UK English; I have the
>impression that it has almost disappeared in the US, but should be happy to be
>corrected.
>
Maybe you would be happy but you won't be corrected by any of the
boys. Remember the Chicagoan of many names? He NEVER used
"shall", he said. Whizz on Georgian though, he said.
j. lyle
In article <356fd9b...@news.redestb.es>,
Ross Howard <rho...@mx7.redestb.es> wrote:
>On 30 May 1998 00:03:36 GMT, jl...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (j. lyle)
>
>As for transpondian differences in relative acceptability, I think the
>objective use of "who" instead of "whom" is more acceptable in the UK
>than in the USA (especially when there's a preposition muscling in abd
>demanding to be dealt with -- "the man who I danced with" is far more
>idiomatic than the ultra-correct "the man with whom I danced"),
>(if I saw "the man that saw me" while editing a text for publication
>in the UK, I'd almost certainly change it -- and I'd only leave "the
>committee that/which reviewed the budget" alone if the subject pronoun
>used by the writer to refer to the committee was "it" rather than
>"they").
I would agree that in U.S. English, "that" most often replaces "whom."
But it is also used to replace "who," in reference to the subject.
However, most people who do use "that" in this way would not use it in
every case. I'm not sure that I can put my finger on the subtleties of its
use, though.
I too definitely would say "the man who saw me," not "the man that saw
me." But I might well say "Who is the man that just walked in?" Here I
think I would use it to avoid repeating "who."
I know that I sometimes use "that" when it better fits the cadence of a
sentence; "that" can be minimized in speech, taking almost no stress, so
that it calls less attention to itself.
I think I might also use it in reference to someone I don't know, someone
I'm not according any "personality" to. I would be just as likely to say
"The prisoner that escaped today has taken two people hostage" as I would
be to say "The prisoner who escaped today. . . . "
But never would I make a conscious choice to use "that" instead of
"who(m)." When I do use it, it finds its way into my speech or writing
naturally.
Hmm.
Jane
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
>
>What about "the man whom I danced with", which is what I use?
>
It seems to me that English often dispenses with the relative
altogether in short phrases:
"The girl I danced with had two left feet".
N.Mitchum
K. Edgcombe wrote (about "shall" and "will") :
------
> This distinction still exists in relatively formal UK English; I have the
> impression that it has almost disappeared in the US, but should be happy to be
> corrected.
It also still exists in "relatively formal" American English.
Those of us (or at least those in my generation and earlier) who
can use this brand of writing have been fairly well educated, and
our education has taught us the difference between the two words.
Academics of course will be more scrupulous about applying the
rules, and others may feel twinges of guilt for not always
following their good example.
----NM
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
William Lieblich
K. Edgcombe wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> Morover, in the English of Binyon's time, the two versions would not have meant
> the same thing. "We shall remember them" is a statement of what the writer
> expects will happen: "we will remember them" is a statement of what he intends.
>
> Binyon assuredly meant, and wrote, the second.
>
> impression that it has almost disappeared in the US, but should be happy to be
> corrected.
>
AFAIK, the only context in which the distinction lives on in the U.S. is
in legal documents like contracts and statutes, in which "shall" is
generally used to indicate that something is obligatory - in other
words, that it represents the parties' mutual expectations. I'm not sure
how a court would construe a contract provision that said "XYZ will do
so-and-so." Consistent with the distinction you describe, it could be
taken as a "mere" statement of intention and therefore not binding.
Bill Lieblich
K. Edgcombe
Ah, but the tricky bit of all this is that the rule is reversed for second and
third person statements, as compared with first person. Thus your legal "shall"
is a statement of intention, and becomes a sort-of imperative, whereas "will"
would be a prediction, and contracts are not generally in the business of making
predictions.
In fact we have tripped over an ambiguity in the use of the word "expect". You
can expect that something will happen merely in the sense that you would, if
pressed, be prepared to bet on it - "I expect he'll be late for work again
tomorrow" - or you can expect something in the sense of requiring it - "I expect
him to stay late to make up the time". In this example the two cases are
distinguished grammatically, but if you start talking about "expectation" you
could be using it in either sense.
Thus my "what the writer expects" is related to prediction; your "mutual
expectations" is related to intention.
I think the original shall/will setup is a useful distinction that is
understandably being lost to us, partly because of a design fault in the
original spec. which made it quite difficult to handle correctly even for
native speakers.
Katy
Mike Zorn
In <6ksj8v$p9t$1...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> ke...@cus.cam.ac.uk (K. Edgcombe) writes:
>>> "the morning we shall remember them" = 20
>>> "the morning we will remember them" = 113
>This distinction still exists in relatively formal UK English; I have the
>impression that it has almost disappeared in the US, but should be happy to be
>corrected.
I think the differnce is disappearing from common use. In the
miltary, though, "shall" has the effect of an order: "You shall report
to Ft. Weemix on the 23rd".
Does anybody remember how Churchill said it: "We shall fight them on
the beaches,..." (or "will fight")?
(I consider WC to be a fine writer, in spite of his occasional ending
prepositions (criticism of which was something up with which he did
not put).)
Mike Zorn rigo...@kaiwan.com
John Davies
In article <rigoleto.896852588@kaiwan009>, Mike Zorn <rigoleto@kaiwan009
.kaiwan.com> writes
>In <6ksj8v$p9t$1...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> ke...@cus.cam.ac.uk (K. Edgcombe) writes:
>>>> "the morning we shall remember them" = 20
>>>> "the morning we will remember them" = 113
>
>>This distinction still exists in relatively formal UK English; I have the
>>impression that it has almost disappeared in the US, but should be happy to be
>>corrected.
> I think the differnce is disappearing from common use. In the
>miltary, though, "shall" has the effect of an order: "You shall report
>to Ft. Weemix on the 23rd".
Old gents like me still observe the shall/will difference without
thinking about it: I'm pretty sure my offspring (all now in their 30s)
do as well--I must listen hard next time they come round.
Incidentally, in most British dialects first person "shall" is much more
common in questions than in the simple affirmative. The only people I
can think of who say "Will I...?" are my wife's relatives in Ireland.
What about the US?
> Does anybody remember how Churchill said it: "We shall fight them on
>the beaches,..." (or "will fight")?
"We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on
the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing
strength in the air, we shall defend our island whatever the cost may
be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing
grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight
in the hills; we shall never surrender." (4 June 1940)
Not a "will" to be found, which is interesting now I come to think of
it, given that first person "will", in both Churchill's and my dialect,
usually signals intention, not just simple futurity. "Shall", to my
ears, is undoubtedly stronger in this context, but I find it impossible
to say why.
Churchill was a great orator, and a good but not a great writer. The
two arts are related but by no means the same. On the same page of the
Oxford Dictionary of Quotations as "We shall fight..." is the
following:
Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties and so bear ourselves
that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand
years men will still say, 'This was their finest hour'. (18 June 1940)
My head knows that the British Empire had evaporated within 25 years of
that speech, but the sound in my mind's ear of his voice making it can
still send a shiver up my spine.
On an historical note (cross-thread alert!) it is now clear that when
Churchill made these stirring speeches Hitler had already concluded that
any invasion of Britain was doomed to failure, because the Royal Navy
would almost certainly destroy a sea-borne force before it could make a
serious attempt at landing. The subsequent RAF success in the Battle
of Britain simply underlined the soundness of a decision he had already
taken. Hitler continued with the pretence of his invasion plans, even to
his own General Staff, long after he had come to this conclusion, in
order to mask his real intentions of a strike against the Soviet Union.
--
John Davies (jo...@redwoods.demon.co.uk)
Donna Richoux
Mike Zorn <rigo...@kaiwan009.kaiwan.com> wrote:
> Does anybody remember how Churchill said it: "We shall fight them on
> the beaches,..." (or "will fight")?
According to "Oxford Dictionary of Quotations," 1979 edition, the
sentence has ten of "shall" and no "will."
{What is the plural of quote-shall-unquote, anyway?
Quote-shall-unquote-s?]
Best wishes --- Donna Richoux
Jesse the K
In article <1da22m4.1rg...@p518.asd.euronet.nl>, tr...@euronet.nl
(Donna Richoux) wrote:
> {What is the plural of quote-shall-unquote, anyway?
> Quote-shall-unquote-s?]
Of course! The plural of capital "A" is capital "A"s, so the plural of
"shall" shall be "shall"s. Or is there something I'm totally missing?
--
Jesse the K - Madison Wisconsin USA
email copies welcome: jesse at mailbag dot com
Mike Zorn
>According to "Oxford Dictionary of Quotations," 1979 edition, the
>sentence has ten of "shall" and no "will."
>{What is the plural of quote-shall-unquote, anyway?
>Quote-shall-unquote-s?]
Artfully phrased! ("ten of ...")
Applying the rules mechanically, we might write
ten "shall"s and ...
but it looks funny. There must be another rule that says, "Don't try
to pluralize words in quotes."
Mike Zorn rigo...@kaiwan.com
Ron or Dane
Jesse the K <kill-dashes...@mailbag.com> wrote:
> In article <1da22m4.1rg...@p518.asd.euronet.nl>, tr...@euronet.nl
> (Donna Richoux) wrote:
>
> > {What is the plural of quote-shall-unquote, anyway?
> > Quote-shall-unquote-s?]
>
> Of course! The plural of capital "A" is capital "A"s,
Capitals "A"?
(Says he with a grin while running for cover!)
ron h
KarCun
On> 5/27/98
>Richard Harding <rhar...@nassau.cv.net> wrote:
>------
>>In the poem "For the Fallen (September 1914)" Laurence Binyon wrote:
>>
>>They shall not grow old as we that are left grow old,
No, he didn't. It's "They shall _grow not_old"
Picky picky picky.
Karen
"blessed be carrots"
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
On 2 Jun 1998 10:12:43 GMT, ke...@cus.cam.ac.uk (K. Edgcombe)
wrote:
>I think the original shall/will setup is a useful distinction that is
>understandably being lost to us, partly because of a design fault in the
>original spec. which made it quite difficult to handle correctly even for
>native speakers.
>
Only if your mother were a Northern-, Irish-, Scottish- or
American-English speaker: or she had succumbed to those
Englishes.
The "will", "shall" and "should", "would" refinements are, to all
intents and purposes, dead except in the written language of a
careful few and in the spoken language of even fewer, who do it
by instinct and are for the most part oblivious of any "original
spec." let alone the design fault which you seem to have
discovered.
K. Edgcombe
In article <357a1111...@news.bctel.ca>, <a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>On 2 Jun 1998 10:12:43 GMT, ke...@cus.cam.ac.uk (K. Edgcombe)
>wrote:
>
>>I think the original shall/will setup is a useful distinction that is
>>understandably being lost to us, partly because of a design fault in the
>>original spec. which made it quite difficult to handle correctly even for
>>native speakers.
>
>intents and purposes, dead except in the written language of a
>careful few and in the spoken language of even fewer, who do it
>by instinct and are for the most part oblivious of any "original
>spec." let alone the design fault which you seem to have
>discovered.
Of course. I do it, as you say, by instinct (not strictly instinct, of course,
but let that pass), both in speech and in writing. However, when I
am asked, by a foreigner or by a native speaker who does not share the
instinct, what rules I am actually following, I can, I think, explain them.
When I do so, I am struck by the oddity of a rule which works in opposite
directions according to which person you are dealing with. So, usually, is the
individual who asked me. I have great sympathy with those who, not having been
brought up to it, see no point in learning a distinction which is likely to be
so tiresome to remember.
Framing this remark in terms of a spec and a design fault was intended to be
ever so slightly frivolous. If language had been designed it would be far less
fun.
Katy