I'm.
Bob Owens
Forgive me if this is has been covered before. I did not find any reference
to the following during my search of the FAQ and DejaNews.
Assuming that a sentence needs to have a subject and a predicate, the
following would be an acceptable sentence:
I am.
Having learned contractions as a boy, I certainly recognize I'm as the
contraction of *I am*. The question I have been unable to answer is whether
or not
I'm.
is a sentence.
My thinking is that since it is better not to use contractions, one can
always avoid this. However, whether it is technically correct is still
unanswered.
--
____________________________________________________________________
robert owens
durand school: room 14-A
not your typical 4th grade classroom
vineland, nj
http://www.cyberenet.net/~durand
Bob Owens
jacobi
Bob Owens <rdo...@gte.net> wrote in article <687erg$3ej$2...@gte1.gte.net>...
> Forgive me if this is has been covered before. I did not find any
reference
> to the following during my search of the FAQ and DejaNews.
>
> Assuming that a sentence needs to have a subject and a predicate, the
> following would be an acceptable sentence:
>
> I am.
>
> Having learned contractions as a boy, I certainly recognize I'm as the
> contraction of *I am*. The question I have been unable to answer is
whether
> or not
>
> I'm.
>
> is a sentence.
>
> My thinking is that since it is better not to use contractions, one can
> always avoid this. However, whether it is technically correct is still
> unanswered.
>
Because of the nature of the verb TO BE as a "copula" verb, my opinion is
that "I am" (and "I'm") is not a sentence.
"I am" requires a complement to the verb. "I am nice" would be a complete
sentence because the complement of am is provided, thereby completing the
sense of the verb.
The verb TO BE is also a stative verb. Hence, when we compare other
"stative" verb constructions similar to yours and compare, we may reach a
conclusion of whether or not "I am" is a sentence:
I know.
I like.
I belong.
"Know," "like" and "belong" beg an object (I know Bob; I like Bob; I belong
to Bob) and without it are not sentences. "I am" must be followed by a
complement in order for this construction to be valid as a (simple)
sentence. Since "I'm" is the contraction of "I am," the conclusion would
equally apply.
Even if we accepted "I am" as a valid subject-predicate construction, we
cannot deny the fact that the complement, no matter the context in which it
is used, is implicit. This being the case, "I am" is not a sentence, nor is
"I'm."
Another point with reference to contractions is that in speech we contract
but in writing we should not.
Jacobi
Henry Churchyard
> the following would be an acceptable sentence:
> I am.
> I certainly recognize I'm as the contraction of *I am*. The
> question I have been unable to answer is whether or not "I'm." is a
> sentence.
It's a fact that when verb forms such as "is, am, are, has, have, had,
will, would" etc. have main stress, they don't contract with a
preceding word. So you can say "Bill is taller than I am.", but not
"Bill is taller than I'm." and so on.
--
"She was of course only too good for him; but nobody minds || Henry Churchyard
having what is too good for them." -Austen || http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~churchh
Henry Churchyard
In article <01bd1431$ef51a420$e973e7ce@baha>,
jacobi <book...@pandore.qc.ca> wrote:
>Bob Owens <rdo...@gte.net> wrote in article <687erg$3ej$2...@gte1.gte.net>...
>> The question I have been unable to answer is whether
>> or not "I'm." is a sentence.
> my opinion is that "I am" (and "I'm") is not a sentence.
"I am" is an actually occurring _elliptical_ utterance ("Who's the
oldest of you kids?" "I am." etc., etc.), whether or not it meets
your favorite theoretical definition of a sentence. But "I'm" does
not occur at all as a complete and independent utterance which is not
broken off by hesitation, etc. (see my other post).
--
"His name is Henry, a proof how unequally the gifts of fortune are bestowed."
-Jane Austen, 10/14/1813 || Henry Churchyard http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~churchh
John Davies
>Forgive me if this is has been covered before. I did not find any reference
>to the following during my search of the FAQ and DejaNews.
>
>following would be an acceptable sentence:
>
>I am.
>
>contraction of *I am*. The question I have been unable to answer is whether
>or not
>
>I'm.
>
>is a sentence.
>
>always avoid this. However, whether it is technically correct is still
>unanswered.
>
question is whether a native speaker of the language would ever say
"I'm" as a stand-alone utterance, ie a sentence. Clearly the answer is
no. The "rule", that is to say what one can deduce from native-speaker
speech habits, is that the contraction can only be used when the verb
has a complement, eg "I'm sure". If someone asks "Who is sure about
this?" the answer would be "I am", not "I'm". The same is true of "I
have" vs "I've".
This did come up here a few months ago, and was comprehensively answered
by John Lawler, I seem to recall.
--
John Davies (jo...@redwoods.demon.co.uk)
Bob Owens
Henry Churchyard <chu...@uts.cc.utexas.edu> wrote in article
<6882in$l...@moe.cc.utexas.edu>...
> In article <01bd1431$ef51a420$e973e7ce@baha>,
> jacobi <book...@pandore.qc.ca> wrote:
> >Bob Owens <rdo...@gte.net> wrote in article
<687erg$3ej$2...@gte1.gte.net>...
>
> >> The question I have been unable to answer is whether
> >> or not "I'm." is a sentence.
>
> > my opinion is that "I am" (and "I'm") is not a sentence.
>
> "I am" is an actually occurring _elliptical_ utterance ("Who's the
> oldest of you kids?"
If the sentence "I am." is used as a state of being (am=exist) there is no
ellipsis. Now, how can we solve this? I agree that "I'm." is not a proper
sentence, yet, I am unable to explain why.
(I am truly sorry that my post was duplicated. I am on vacation and using
someone else's setup. This system is different than what I normally have
for news.)
SLHinton17
Jacobi has replied to the question of whether or not "I'm" is a sentence:
>Even if we accepted "I am" as a valid subject-predicate construction, we
>cannot deny the fact that the complement, no matter the context in >which it
is used, is implicit. This being the case, "I am" is not a >sentence, nor is
"I'm."
****************************
I never thought I'd disagree with Jacobi, but I think I do here. "I am"
(but not "I'm") certainly functions as a sentence when it is in answer to a
specific comment or question, but I can't imagine it without an emphasis upon
one of the two words, which can't be done withn "I'm." "Who's hungry?" "_I_
am." "Please clean up your room. " "I _am!_"
This makes me think of a poem by David McCord, in his series "Perambulator
Poems" which are supposed to be spoken by a baby. One of them talks about
reserving smiles for special people, and ends
"...And after
a while,
If they're
my style,
they can say
"Smile!"
and
I'll. "
And the moral for that is:
"Don't use 'I'm'
Unless you're desperate for a rhyme!"
Sam Hinton
La Jolla, CA
Robert Lipton
In article <687eok$3ej$1...@gte1.gte.net>, "Bob Owens" wrote:
>Forgive me if this is has been covered before. I did not find any reference
>to the following during my search of the FAQ and DejaNews.
>
>Assuming that a sentence needs to have a subject and a predicate, the
>following would be an acceptable sentence:
>
>I am.
>
>Having learned contractions as a boy, I certainly recognize I'm as the
>or not
>
>I'm.
>
>is a sentence.
>
>always avoid this. However, whether it is technically correct is still
>unanswered.
I suppose that "I'm" is a sentence. However, the contraction is typically
used only when "am" is an helping verb in normal usage. In addition,
a natural tendency towards parallelism makes people use the longer form in
response to questions.
"Are you sure that's right?"
"I am!"
I am somewhat bemused by your statement that it is better not to use
contractions. On the INTERNET I constantly see contractions I can't make
heads or tails of, such as "LOL" (little old lady?). Considering the
prevalence of such obscurities, the occasional "I'm" or "we're" is no
problem at all.
Bob
Bill Fisher
In article <687eok$3ej$1...@gte1.gte.net>, "Bob Owens" <rdo...@gte.net> writes:
|> Forgive me if this is has been covered before. I did not find any reference
|> to the following during my search of the FAQ and DejaNews.
|>
|> Assuming that a sentence needs to have a subject and a predicate, the
|> following would be an acceptable sentence:
|>
|> I am.
|>
|> Having learned contractions as a boy, I certainly recognize I'm as the
|> contraction of *I am*. The question I have been unable to answer is whether
|> or not
|>
|> I'm.
|>
|> is a sentence.
|>
|> My thinking is that since it is better not to use contractions, one can
|> always avoid this. However, whether it is technically correct is still
|> unanswered.
|>
I think "I am" is a good sentence, meaning "I exist". But the
contracted form sounds awful. Not every occurrence of "I am" can be
contracted. There are some slightly mysterious constraints, and one
of them is that the contracted word must not be stressed. I think this
is the one that "I am" falls afoul of.
If "I am" has had something following it elided, as in
"Who's going to town?"
"I am." (= "I am going to town")
then it falls afoul of the contraint that (in older theoretical terms)
you can't contract a word if a major constituent has been deleted following
it.
(This is off the top of my head; I'm sure pure students of syntax can
nail the constraints down more exactly.)
- billf
LLThrasher
Who's going to pay for this?
I am.
Who's being unfair?
You are.
How can those not be considered a sentences?
I've never heard a native speaker of English use "I'm" all by itself (or
you're).
Linda
P&DSchultz
Bill Fisher wrote:
>
> In article <687eok$3ej$1...@gte1.gte.net>, "Bob Owens" <rdo...@gte.net> writes:
> |> Assuming that a sentence needs to have a subject and a predicate, the
> |> following would be an acceptable sentence:
> |>
> |> I am.
> I think "I am" is a good sentence, meaning "I exist". But the
> contracted form sounds awful.
My whole comment is a poem:
Rene Descartes didn't say, "I think, therefore I'm."
But Ira Gershwin said, "I'm bidin' my time, /
'cause that's the kind o' guy I'm."
But I think he said it that way so it would rhyme.
//P. Schultz
Don Livingston
In article <l5lbKBAd...@redwoods.demon.co.uk>,
John Davies <jo...@redwoods.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <687eok$3ej$1...@gte1.gte.net>, Bob Owens <rdo...@gte.net>
>writes
>>Having learned contractions as a boy, I certainly recognize I'm as the
>>contraction of *I am*. The question I have been unable to answer is whether
>>or not
>>
>>I'm.
>>
>>is a sentence.
>I don't know what you mean by "technically correct". The only sensible
>question is whether a native speaker of the language would ever say
>"I'm" as a stand-alone utterance, ie a sentence. Clearly the answer is
>no. The "rule", that is to say what one can deduce from native-speaker
>speech habits, is that the contraction can only be used when the verb
>has a complement, eg "I'm sure". If someone asks "Who is sure about
>this?" the answer would be "I am", not "I'm". The same is true of "I
>have" vs "I've".
I think John Davies has basically the right idea here: one can't use the
contraction when a major constituent has been deleted. The one exception
seems to be negative responses to yes/no questions:
"I'm going to Tacoma tomorrow. Are you?"
"No, I'm not."
In this case the major constituent [going ... tomorrow] has been deleted,
but the contraction is fine. This is odd because the contraction works
with the negative particle, but not without it.
"I'm going to Tacoma tomorrow. Are you?"
*"Yes, I'm."
(Asterisk denotes ungrammaticality). Curious asymmetry, eh?
robert d. owens
Bill Fisher <bi...@ncsl.nist.gov> wrote in article
| I think "I am" is a good sentence, meaning "I exist". But the
| contracted form sounds awful. Not every occurrence of "I am" can be
| contracted. There are some slightly mysterious constraints, and one
| of them is that the contracted word must not be stressed.
This is what I am looking for. Will someone point me to the reference that
states the constraints of contractions?
I recognize that *I'm.* is not proper. I do not use contractions when
writing. However, I would like to be able to refer to a source rather than
proceed on the direction of teachers I had long ago.
Truly Donovan
>Bob Owens <rdo...@gte.net> wrote in article <687erg$3ej$2...@gte1.gte.net>...
>> My thinking is that since it is better not to use contractions, one can
>> always avoid this.
"Better" by what definition?
The decision to use one or more contractions should be driven by the
author's sense of what is appropriate to the audience. There are
cases where the use of contractions is to be preferred. You wouldn't
want to leave the impression of stuffiness, would you?
--
Truly Donovan
reply to truly at lunemere dot com
Mark Barton
On Sun, 28 Dec 1997 22:09, Bob Owens <mailto:rdo...@gte.net> wrote:
>Forgive me if this is has been covered before. I did not find any reference
>to the following during my search of the FAQ and DejaNews.
>
>following would be an acceptable sentence:
>
>I am.
>
>contraction of *I am*. The question I have been unable to answer is whether
>or not
>
>I'm.
>
>is a sentence.
>
>unanswered.
First, a comment. It's certainly better not to use contractions in formal
written English, more or less by definition of that style. I presume from
your signature that you're a teacher and I understand that formal written
English is what you need to teach to your students because it's important
they might otherwise not be exposed to it. However it's a bit extreme to
imply that formal written English and its associated points of style are
always and uniformly "better". You won't find much sympathy for that point
of view in alt.usage.english. All that matters is that "I'm" is equivalent
in meaning to "I am" - whether it's worse or better according to some style
is not relevant.
That said, I think it's perfectly reasonable to classify "I'm" as a
sentence. I take a sentence to be an utterance with a finite verb form,
i.e., a verb form limited for person, tense and (sometimes) number. "I'm"
can be thought of as a present tense form of "to be" which is also limited
for person and number by having the pronoun "I" embedded in it. I think
it's important not to try to make the concept of "sentence" do too much. In
particular, I don't think it's important that "I'm" is not an idiomatic
sentence in any context I can think of. (Even in casual speech, if you were
asked, "Who is?", you would say, "I am", not "I'm".)
Cheers,
Mark B.
----------------
Please remove the spam filter (both bits) from my address before replying.
This reply was posted and possibly (if you receive it by email, definitely)
also emailed. I generally CC if I'm answering a request for information or
if I severely criticise something. Please make your preferences known.
jacobi
SLHinton17 <slhin...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19971229145...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
> Jacobi has replied to the question of whether or not "I'm" is a sentence:
>
> >Even if we accepted "I am" as a valid subject-predicate construction, we
> >cannot deny the fact that the complement, no matter the context in which
it
> is used, is implicit. This being the case, "I am" is not a sentence, nor
is
> "I'm."
> ****************************
> I never thought I'd disagree with Jacobi, but I think I do here. "I
am"
> (but not "I'm") certainly functions as a sentence when it is in answer to
a
> specific comment or question, but I can't imagine it without an emphasis
upon
> one of the two words, which can't be done withn "I'm." "Who's hungry?"
"_I_
> am."
But the complement "hungry" is implicit in the response: Who's hungry? --I
am (hungry).
It is the same with auxiliary DO: Do you smoke? --Yes, I do (smoke).
And with most auxiliaries: Have you had lunch? --Yes, I have (had lunch).
Can you swim? --Yes, I can (swim).
I do not believe "I am" can stand alone as a legitimite subject-predicate.
"I'm," you must admit, is never used in any other way (poetry excepted,
perhaps) but in a construction which clearly presents the complement:
I'm an English teacher.
Jacobi
P&DSchultz
jacobi wrote:
> SLHinton17 <slhin...@aol.com> wrote
> > ... "I am" (but not "I'm") certainly functions as a sentence
> > when it is in answer to a specific comment or question...
> ---------------------
> But the complement "hungry" is implicit in the response: Who's hungry? --I
> am (hungry).
That is irrelevant. The predicate adjective is eliminated by ellipsis,
but that doesn't change the utterance's status as a sentence. "I am"
is a sentence. This is the accepted analysis of the structure, not
a mere matter of opinion. See David Crystal's _Encyclopedia of the
English Language_, p. 228.
//P. Schultz
jacobi
P&DSchultz <schu...@erols.com> wrote in article
<34A81B...@erols.com>...
Language is not rules. Rules are created after coinage or adoption by a
majority of the population. They do not guide us in understanding meaning.
When people start using expressions the grammarians jump in and want to
understand the whys and why nots. Usage rules. My opinion remains firm,
regardless of Crystal's Encyclopedia. "I'm" is not a sentence and neither
is "I am." The verb "am" begs a complement in a standalone structure (I
am....), but in a response the complement is implied:
Are you a teacher? --Yes, I am (a teacher).
Besides, what is a sentence if it conveys no meaning?
Jacobi
P&DSchultz
jacobi wrote:
> Language is not rules...
I never mentioned anything about rules. You are attacking a strawman
that has nothing to do with what I said. This seems to be your habit
with everyone. Your object is not dialogue; it is pseudointellectual
prancing and posing.
I said your analysis is at odds with the common analysis of those
conversant in the field, including me. This implies strongly that
you're wrong. I expect that either you will accept this painful fact,
or that you will rave on. In either case, I have had enough of
talking to a wall. Goodbye.
//P. Schultz
N.Mitchum
Mimi Kahn wrote to >>book...@pandore.qc.ca :
------
> >Because of the nature of the verb TO BE as a "copula" verb, my opinion is
> >that "I am" (and "I'm") is not a sentence.
>
> "I am."
>.....
Are you?
Will that be a Francis Ford Copula movie?
Be good!
--- NM
Mailed copies of replies always appreciated. (Mailers: drop HINTS.)
Bill Baldwin
Charles A. Lee wrote:
> Every native speaker I know would hang on for the
>direct object: I'm what?
And they'd wait and wait and wait. But the direct object would never come.
Because -- cruel world! -- copulative verbs don't take objects; they take
predicates, nouns or adjectives (in the nominative case where English still
makes such a distinction). Only when the speaker is ill educated or
linguistically slumming will that elusive object appear. I'm what? I am him.
Hardly satisfies the soul.
Bill Baldwin
jacobi
In a nutshell, Bob Owens asked: Is "I'm" a technically correct sentence?
My response was simple: NO!
And i explained why.
Jacobi
Charles A. Lee
Dear Bob,
On 29 Dec 1997 06:08:20 GMT, in a.y.e., you wrote:
>. . . .
>Having learned contractions as a boy, I certainly recognize I'm as the
>contraction of *I am*. The question I have been unable to answer is whether
>or not
>
>I'm. is a sentence.
Have faith. You've answered you own question. This simple combination
is a sentence and a poor one at that (as you point out), not because
it lacks a technical ingredient, but because it's so unusual in most
styles of writing. Every native speaker I know would hang on for the
direct object: I'm what?
Even simpler sentences can be formed.
Go.
The verb is "go." The understood subject is "you."
Charles A. Lee
http://www.concentric.net/~azcal
================================
= "Nobody goes there anymore; =
= it's too crowded. =
= - Yogi Berra =
================================
colf...@minn.net
On 29 Dec 1997 08:13:13 GMT, "jacobi" <book...@pandore.qc.ca> wrote:
>Because of the nature of the verb TO BE as a "copula" verb, my opinion is
>that "I am" (and "I'm") is not a sentence.
In other words, Descartes wasn't?
Best wishes,
Carol Kennedy
colf...@minn.net
Truly Donovan
On 29 Dec 1997 21:04:39 GMT, "jacobi" <book...@pandore.qc.ca> wrote:
>I do not believe "I am" can stand alone as a legitimite subject-predicate.
What does "stand alone" mean? That it needs a context to have
meaning? I can reel off sentence after sentence that needs a context
to have meaning -- does that make them not valid sentences?
>
>I'm an English teacher.
This may be the core of the problem. This seems to give you some
illusion that you know what you are talking about; cependant, the rest
of us are not fooled.
Truly Donovan
On 29 Dec 1997 22:10:46 GMT, "jacobi" <book...@pandore.qc.ca> wrote:
>Besides, what is a sentence if it conveys no meaning?
A sentence. It conveys meaning in a context. A healthy percentage of
sentences need a context for full comprehensibility.
I'm wondering how many years it takes your students to recover from
the experience.
Mark Schaefer
In article <688n00$40...@news.nist.gov>, bi...@jaguar.ncsl.nist.gov wrote:
> In article <687eok$3ej$1...@gte1.gte.net>, "Bob Owens" <rdo...@gte.net> writes:
> |> Forgive me if this is has been covered before. I did not find any reference
> |> to the following during my search of the FAQ and DejaNews.
> |>
> |> Assuming that a sentence needs to have a subject and a predicate, the
> |> following would be an acceptable sentence:
> |>
> |> I am.
> |>
> |> Having learned contractions as a boy, I certainly recognize I'm as the
> |> contraction of *I am*. The question I have been unable to answer is whether
> |> or not
> |>
> |> I'm.
> |>
> |> is a sentence.
> |>
> |> My thinking is that since it is better not to use contractions, one can
> |> always avoid this. However, whether it is technically correct is still
> |> unanswered.
> |>
> ...
>
> I think "I am" is a good sentence, meaning "I exist". But the
> contracted form sounds awful. Not every occurrence of "I am" can be
> contracted. There are some slightly mysterious constraints, and one
> of them is that the contracted word must not be stressed. I think this
> is the one that "I am" falls afoul of.
>
I was under the impression that a contraction could not end a sentence (or
perhaps a clause). To wit:
He is a good boy.
He's a good boy.
What a good boy he is!
*What a good boy he's!
Thus, inasmuch as "I'm" would be ending the original posters sentence, it
would violate the rule.
-- Mark A. Schaefer
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." -- A. Einstein.
Mark Schaefer
In article <01bd14a6$eff85d40$6573e7ce@baha>, "jacobi"
<book...@pandore.qc.ca> wrote:
> P&DSchultz <schu...@erols.com> wrote in article
Language IS about rules. It may not be about the rules that they taught
you in grade school, but there are underlying rules. As I noted in an
earlier post, the rule that governs this situation has to do with the
position of the contraction in the sentence - it simply cannot come last.
Thus a sentence like "I'm" violates this rule notwithstanding the fact
that the contraction also comes first.
TsuiDF
> >I'm an English teacher.
>
> This may be the core of the problem. This seems to give you some
> illusion that you know what you are talking about; cependant, the rest
> of us are not fooled.
I think you misplet 'ce pedant' . . . but then, that would have been
a.u.french, right?
Stephanie M in HK
P&DSchultz
TsuiDF wrote:
> I think you misplet 'ce pedant' . . . but then, that would have been
> a.u.french, right?
>
> Stephanie M in HK
You think wrong.
You could avoid being wrong in front of a world audience if you would
check in a French dictionary before posting. There is one on line
at http://humanities.uchicago.edu/forms_unrest/FR-ENG.html
//P. Schultz
Richard F Ulrich
Mark Schaefer (Mark_S...@notpartofmyaddress.csgi.com) wrote:
: >
: Language IS about rules. It may not be about the rules that they taught
: you in grade school, but there are underlying rules. As I noted in an
: earlier post, the rule that governs this situation has to do with the
: position of the contraction in the sentence - it simply cannot come last.
It can't?
go'sh.
Rich Ulrich, wpi...@pitt.edu
Lee Rudolph
TsuiDF <s...@netvigator.com> writes:
>Truly Donovan wrote:
>>
>> On 29 Dec 1997 21:04:39 GMT, "jacobi" <book...@pandore.qc.ca> wrote:
><snip>
>> >I'm an English teacher.
>>
>> This may be the core of the problem. This seems to give you some
>> illusion that you know what you are talking about; cependant, the rest
>> of us are not fooled.
>
>I think you misplet 'ce pedant'
No, no, she meant "cepe en dent".
>. . . but then, that would have been
>a.u.french, right?
Are you truffling with my afflictions?
Lee Rudolph
Robert Lipton
>you in grade school, but there are underlying rules. As I noted in an
>earlier post, the rule that governs this situation has to do with the
>position of the contraction in the sentence - it simply cannot come last.
>that the contraction also comes first.
>
I think that the rule we can derive from these discussions -- and it's one
I have not encountered before -- is that we don't end a sentence with a
contraction. Perhaps this is an artefact of necessary redundancy in
spoken language. Back when I was doing postgraduate work at NYU, I was
told that there is an average of 100% redundancy in spoken English. This
allows for variations in accents. Certainly, when spoken aloud, "I am"
or "You are" has more redundancy that "I'm" or "You're."
Bob
Mark Barton
On Mon, 29 Dec 1997 22:23, Bill Baldwin <mailto:rev...@gte.net> wrote:
>Charles A. Lee wrote:
>> Every native speaker I know would hang on for the
>>direct object: I'm what?
>
Of course it would. The English in which "to be" is a copulative verb is
the same English in which no-one ever splits an infinitive. In reality, "to
be" usually takes an object like every other verb: "It's me."
>Because -- cruel world! -- copulative verbs don't take objects; they take
>predicates, nouns or adjectives (in the nominative case where English still
>makes such a distinction). Only when the speaker is ill educated or
>linguistically slumming will that elusive object appear. I'm what? I am
him.
>Hardly satisfies the soul.
If "I am him" is strange it's mostly because it's trying to be formal
written style (because of the "I am") in a conversation and partly because
it's such an implausible thing to say. If you could contrive a situation
where the logical response was an assertion that the speaker was some other
person, I'd expect to hear "I'm him" rather more often than not.
Bill Fisher
My bookmark on Lawler's home page (http://www.ling.lsa.umich.edu/jlawler/)
doesn't seem to work anymore. Anybody know why?
- billf
(I wanted to see what he had to say about constraints on contractions.)
P&DSchultz
Mark Barton wrote:
> ... The English in which "to be" is a copulative verb is
> the same English in which no-one ever splits an infinitive. In reality, "to
> be" usually takes an object like every other verb: "It's me."
Right. Well, if "to be" can take a direct object, then it is by
definition a transitive verb. So what is it in the passive voice,
then?
Active: Clinton adopted Buddy.
Passive: Buddy was adopted by Clinton.
Active: Buddy is Clinton's dog.
Passive: Clinton's dog is be'd by Buddy.
Looks like you're wrong.
//P. Schultz
David McMurray
P&DSchultz wrote:
> TsuiDF wrote:
> > I think you misplet 'ce pedant' . . . but then, that would have been
> > a.u.french, right?
> You think wrong.
> You could avoid being wrong in front of a world audience if you would
> check in a French dictionary before posting. There is one on line
> at http://humanities.uchicago.edu/forms_unrest/FR-ENG.html
Is "jeu de mots" in there?
--
David (eliminate "hitch" to reply)
Robin L. Hill
Mimi Kahn <spam...@merriewood.com> wrote in article
<34ad309c...@news.mindspring.com>...
> On Mon, 29 Dec 1997 13:38:10 -0500, P&DSchultz <schu...@erols.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Rene Descartes didn't say, "I think, therefore I'm."
> >But Ira Gershwin said, "I'm bidin' my time, /
> >'cause that's the kind o' guy I'm."
> >But I think he said it that way so it would rhyme.
>
> Verse like that is a crime.
>
Best recited by a mime!
R. Hill
Aaron J. Dinkin
In article <34b04763...@news.mindspring.com>, spam...@merriewood.com
wrote:
> On 30 Dec 97 09:44:22 -0800, "Mark Barton"
> <mba...@icrr.no.u-tokyo.spam.ac.jp> wrote:
>
> >If "I am him" is strange it's mostly because it's trying to be formal
> >written style (because of the "I am") in a conversation and partly because
> >it's such an implausible thing to say. If you could contrive a situation
> >where the logical response was an assertion that the speaker was some other
> >person, I'd expect to hear "I'm him" rather more often than not.
>
> Shouldn't it be "I am he"?
No. That's the whole point of Mark's argument.
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
Aaron J. Dinkin
Obviously, "be" is a copulative verb whose complement is (often) in the
objective case. Case closed.
(Incidentally: Another score for the League of Scientists Who Give
Embarrassing Names to Commonplace Scientific Phenomena, the same people who
told you that rocks have cleavage: Whenever you use the word "is", you're
copulating.)
N.Mitchum
[mail&post]
Bill Fisher wrote:
----
> My bookmark on Lawler's home page (http://www.ling.lsa.umich.edu/jlawler/)
> doesn't seem to work anymore. Anybody know why?
>.....
I clicked on the URL you provided and it didn't work for me
either. I tried my own bookmark, however, and it did work. See:
http://www.lsa.umich.edu/ling/jlawler/
or http://www.lsa.umich.edu/ling/jlawler/oindex.html
The first address is quite similar to your inoperative one.
Could you have simply got the components switched round?
browse
Robert Lipton <lip...@dorsai.org> wrote:
> I am somewhat bemused by your statement that it is better not to use
> contractions. On the INTERNET I constantly see contractions I can't make
> heads or tails of, such as "LOL" (little old lady?). Considering the
> prevalence of such obscurities, the occasional "I'm" or "we're" is no
> problem at all.
I wouldn't call "LOL" (lots of laughs) a contraction. My AHD (third
edition) describes this use of contraction as "A word, as won't from
will not, or phrase, as o'clock from of the clock, formed by omitting or
combining some of the sounds of a longer phrase."
A better term would be "abbreviation" which is defined as "A shortened
form of a word or phrase used chiefly in writing to represent the
complete form, such as ... USMC for United States Marine Corps."
You might be tempted to use use "acronym" which ASD says is "A word
formed from the initial letters of a name, such as WAC for Women's Army
Corp, or by combining initial letters or parts of a series of words,
such as radar for radio detecting and and ranging."
If you consider LOL a word, pronouncing it like "loll", call it an
acronym. If it's merely shorthand (and pronounced el-oh-el), I think
it's more accurate to call it an abbreviation.
browse
http://www.deviant.com/
PS: A search in Yahoo for "FAQ alt usage english" was futile. This is a
shame, really, since the answer to this question is probably already
covered in the FAQ. Someone should add the URL to Yahoo. If someone
sends me the URL, I'll do it.
PPS: Since I tend to speak URL as "yew ar el", I'd call it an
abbreviation, while I say FAQ as "fak" and so consider it to be an
acronym.
Steve Barnard
Robert Lipton wrote:
>
> I think that the rule we can derive from these discussions -- and it's one
> I have not encountered before -- is that we don't end a sentence with a
> contraction.
I will, but you won't.
Steve Barnard
Truly Donovan
On 30 Dec 1997 16:28:24 GMT, lip...@dorsai.org (Robert Lipton) wrote:
>I think that the rule we can derive from these discussions -- and it's one
>I have not encountered before -- is that we don't end a sentence with a
>contraction.
You may consider that a rule, but I don't.
Truly Donovan
On Tue, 30 Dec 1997 23:33:20 +0800, TsuiDF <s...@netvigator.com> wrote:
>Truly Donovan wrote:
>>
>> On 29 Dec 1997 21:04:39 GMT, "jacobi" <book...@pandore.qc.ca> wrote:
><snip>
>> >I'm an English teacher.
>>
>> This may be the core of the problem. This seems to give you some
>> illusion that you know what you are talking about; cependant, the rest
>> of us are not fooled.
>
>
>I think you misplet 'ce pedant' . . . but then, that would have been
>a.u.french, right?
I spelled it the way Jacobi spelled it in one of its posts.
Robert Lieblich
Mark Schaefer wrote:
<long snip>
> I was under the impression that a contraction could not end a sentence (or
> perhaps a clause). To wit:
>
> He is a good boy.
> He's a good boy.
> What a good boy he is!
> *What a good boy he's!
Is the foregoing a good argument? No, it isn't.
Bob Lieblich
Gerald B Mathias
Truly Donovan (tru...@ibm.net) wrote:
: On 30 Dec 1997 16:28:24 GMT, lip...@dorsai.org (Robert Lipton) wrote:
: >I think that the rule we can derive from these discussions -- and it's one
: >I have not encountered before -- is that we don't end a sentence with a
: >contraction.
: You may consider that a rule, but I don't.
That ain't, but there must be a rule that says you can't contract
{BE} if it isn't (or if it's not) followed by a complement--no, I'd
better hedge: {BE}, {HAVE}, "will," and "would" contract only when
followed by another word in the same clause.
This is a rule I personally break fairly regularly, but I haven't
heard anyone else do so (outside of that song) and I'm careful where
I do it.
Bart
Gwen Lenker
Robert Lieblich <lieb...@erols.com> wrote in article
<34AAB8...@erols.com>...
I tried to think of an example in which the contraction at the end of
the sentence isn't a contraction of "not" -- but I couldn't.
Truly Donovan
On 1 Jan 1998 01:05:15 GMT, "Gwen Lenker" <gale...@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
>I tried to think of an example in which the contraction at the end of
>the sentence isn't a contraction of "not" -- but I couldn't.
If I tried hard enough, I would've.
Lyndon Thomas
Robert Lipton wrote
>I think that the rule we can derive from these discussions -- and it's one
>I have not encountered before -- is that we don't end a sentence with a
>contraction.
Now I can add that to:
To intentionally split an infinitive is acceptable.
A preposition is a word .. (you know the rest)
Any more?
--
Lyndon Thomas
Mark Schaefer
In article <34AAB8...@erols.com>, Robert Lieblich <lieb...@erols.com>
wrote:
> Mark Schaefer wrote:
>
> <long snip>
>
> > I was under the impression that a contraction could not end a sentence (or
> > perhaps a clause). To wit:
> >
> > He is a good boy.
> > He's a good boy.
> > What a good boy he is!
> > *What a good boy he's!
>
> Is the foregoing a good argument? No, it isn't.
>
Perhaps not complete, but sound. What I should've said was "pronominal"
or "nominal" contractions. Verbal contractions are, as is evident from
your example, allowed.
Pronominal: I don't know where I am. *I don't know where I'm.
Nominal: I don't know where the dog is. *I don't know where the dog's.
Verbal: I certainly do not. I certainly don't.
The original poster inquired as to "I am" which is of the first category.
In my haste to pose a rule I overlooked verbal contractions.
-- Mark Schaefer
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
To reply by e-mail | At the close of the Constitutional Convention,
change the "x" in my | Benjamin Franklin was asked, "What have you
address to "_". | wrought?" He replied, "A Republic... if you
| can keep it..."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
David McMurray
At 01:05:15 GMT Gwen Lenker wrote:
[snip]
> I tried to think of an example in which the contraction at the end of
> the sentence isn't a contraction of "not" -- but I couldn't.
You stopped trying too soon; you should have worked on it until
two o'clock.
Geoff Butler
Truly Donovan <tru...@ibm.net> writes:
>On 30 Dec 1997 16:28:24 GMT, lip...@dorsai.org (Robert Lipton) wrote:
>
>
>>I think that the rule we can derive from these discussions -- and it's one
>>I have not encountered before -- is that we don't end a sentence with a
>>contraction.
>
Rich Alderson said, very early on in this thread and possibly even the
first reply, that you can only elide the subject with the verb 'to be'
when it's unstressed. That seems to fit with my experience of the
subject.
As Truly points out, the "don't end with a contraction" should have been
a "don't end with a contraction of 'to be' with its subject". This,
however, seems to me to be merely a manifestation of the "unstressed"
thing: if the verb "to be" is at the end, you can't avoid stressing it,
so you can't contract it.
-ler
Geoff Butler
P&DSchultz <schu...@erols.com> writes:
>TsuiDF wrote:
>
>> I think you misplet 'ce pedant' . . . but then, that would have been
>> a.u.french, right?
>>
>
>You think wrong.
>You could avoid being wrong in front of a world audience if you would
>check in a French dictionary before posting. There is one on line
>at http://humanities.uchicago.edu/forms_unrest/FR-ENG.html
where you would have learnt that "pedant" is splet "pédant" in French
(or "pe'dant" or "p&ea;dant" for those that must).
Lesson 1, Stephanie: There's always somebody that'll trample on your
punchlines.
-ler
Geoff Butler
jacobi <book...@pandore.qc.ca> writes:
>Language is not rules. Rules are created after coinage or adoption by a
>majority of the population. They do not guide us in understanding meaning.
>When people start using expressions the grammarians jump in and want to
>understand the whys and why nots. Usage rules. My opinion remains firm,
>regardless of Crystal's Encyclopedia. "I'm" is not a sentence and neither
>is "I am." The verb "am" begs a complement in a standalone structure (I
>am....), but in a response the complement is implied:
>Are you a teacher? --Yes, I am (a teacher).
If you equate "grammatically correct" with "considered unexceptionable
by native speakers", then "I'm." is grammatically incorrect (nobody
would say it) and "I am." is grammatically correct (everybody would say
it, and everybody regularly does).
If it's grammatically correct (which I assert to be the case), fits the
requirements of sentencehood (is a complete utterance, and even has a
verb in case you think that matters), then it is a sentence. It doesn't
need to be meaningful to be a sentence (cf "Green beginnings sleep
darkly." and sorry that I can't quote that properly), but "I am." is
meaningful in context, so even that argument doesn't hold water.
-ler
Gwen Lenker
David McMurray <cdm...@hadanitch.kingston.net> wrote in article
<1d25x8i.1h2...@74-g1.kingston.net>...
> At 01:05:15 GMT Gwen Lenker wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > I tried to think of an example in which the contraction at the
end of
> > the sentence isn't a contraction of "not" -- but I couldn't.
>
> You stopped trying too soon; you should have worked on it until
> two o'clock.
Heck, left to my own devices, it might have taken me till next
Hallowe'en.
Markus Laker
tru...@ibm.net (Truly Donovan):
> On 1 Jan 1998 01:05:15 GMT, "Gwen Lenker" <gale...@worldnet.att.net>
> wrote:
>
> >I tried to think of an example in which the contraction at the end of
> >the sentence isn't a contraction of "not" -- but I couldn't.
>
> If I tried hard enough, I would've.
Interesting! My British dialect doesn't allow that. Either of the
following would come more naturally to me:
If I tried hard enough, I would have.
If I tried hard enough, I would've done.
In my dialect, as I posted yesterday, no form of 'be', 'have', 'will' or
'would' can be contracted at the end of a sentence. I think.
Markus Laker
--
My real address doesn't include a Christian name.
Bob Cunningham
On Thu, 01 Jan 1998 22:41:53 GMT, fredd...@tcp.co.uk (Markus Laker)
said:
>tru...@ibm.net (Truly Donovan):
[ . . . ]
>> If I tried hard enough, I would've.
>Interesting! My British dialect doesn't allow that. Either of the
>following would come more naturally to me:
>
> If I tried hard enough, I would have.
>
> If I tried hard enough, I would've done.
You were thinking about contractions when you wrote those two
statements. If you had been thinking about tense concord, wouldn't you
have written:
If I had tried hard enough, I would have.
If I had tried hard enough, I would've done.
?
As you wrote them, and as Ms Donovan wrote her similar statement, the
tenses seem to clash.
--
Bob Cunningham, Southern California, USofA
To send e-mail, delete an 'r', an 'i', and an 'o' from
the lefthand part of my address.
E-mail is welcome, but copies of postings aren't necessary.
Markus Laker
radi...@lafn.org (Bob Cunningham):
> You were thinking about contractions when you wrote those two
> statements. If you had been thinking about tense concord, wouldn't you
> have written:
>
> If I had tried hard enough, I would have.
> If I had tried hard enough, I would've done.
Yes, I would. I was aware of the crashing of linguistic gears when I
cut and pasted Truly's example sentence. However, I didn't want to
confuse the issue by making an irrelevant change to the example and
adding a second contraction ('If I'd tried ....'); anyone contracting
'would have' would certainly contract 'I had'.
> As you wrote them, and as Ms Donovan wrote her similar statement, the
> tenses seem to clash.
They certainly do.
John M. Lawler
Bob Cunningham <radi...@lafn.org> writes:
>fredd...@tcp.co.uk (Markus Laker) writes:
>>tru...@ibm.net (Truly Donovan) writes:
>[ . . . ]
>>> If I tried hard enough, I would've.
>>Interesting! My British dialect doesn't allow that. Either of the
>>following would come more naturally to me:
>> If I tried hard enough, I would have.
You might in fact be saying pretty much the same thing as Truly. The
strength of the syllable represented by either "-'ve" or "have" in spoken
English is an individual [etic] variable, and ranges phonetically from a
fully syllabic /@v/ homophonous with "of", to a vanishing gesture of the
tongue tip toward the lip with a slight slowing of the speech stream, even
in the same dialect, even in the same speaker. Even on the same day. If
we talk much, we use the perfect many times each day, and each one is
measurably different. We're dealing with a complex continuum here.
Whereas in the orthography one must make a binary choice to represent
this, either with the canonical contraction "-'ve" or as a fully-spaced
auxiliary verb "have". And people form individual conventions in using
them, based on individual choices as to what they think they hear when
they read them, usually based on what they think they hear when they're
talking, which varies a lot, as I mentioned.
Current English spelling is not a precision instrument. But Unconscious
Generations Ltd. have announced that it is soon to be upgraded to
English-1998, as discussed in the "Universal Language" thread, presaging
the Millenium, no doubt.
>> If I tried hard enough, I would've done.
This one is very rare in America, and comes mostly with RP vowels.
I like it, and use it in speech (with Midwestern vowels), but then
I'm a linguistics professor and we talk weird.
In American English, "do" in this context needs an object, typically "it",
though one could also use "that" or something else, but that's not general
or simple or short enough to make a really good enclitic suffix.
I'm guessing that Truly's original "would've" would most likely have a
fairly full epenthetic syllabic vowel, quite possibly about the same as a
Brit might say "have" in many contexts. This is pretty natural. On the
one hand, the /h/ is often dropped, even when one is aiming for "have"
and not "-'ve" in speech. On the other, it's pretty hard to say /dv/ at
the end of a final stressed syllable in English.
Separated by a common orthography, we are. Though a truly common
orthography would probably have it spelled "would of", the way it's
most often pronounced.
-John Lawler http://www.lsa.umich.edu/ling/jlawler/ U Michigan Linguistics
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Language is the most massive and inclusive art we know, a - Edward Sapir
mountainous and anonymous work of unconscious generations." Language (1921)
Don Livingston
In article <34ab6b78...@news3.ibm.net>,
My idiolect of AmE allows something similar, come to think of it:
If I'd tried hard enough, I would've.
Larry Krakauer
Bob Cunningham wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Jan 1998 22:41:53 GMT, fredd...@tcp.co.uk (Markus Laker)
> said:
>
> >tru...@ibm.net (Truly Donovan):
>
> [ . . . ]
>
> >following would come more naturally to me:
> >
> >
> > If I tried hard enough, I would've done.
>
> You were thinking about contractions when you wrote those two
> statements. If you had been thinking about tense concord, wouldn't you
> have written:
>
> If I had tried hard enough, I would've done.
>
> As you wrote them, and as Ms Donovan wrote her similar statement, the
> tenses seem to clash.
But let's go back to the contractions: once again, English grammar
astounds me. I thought we had just concluded that you can't contract
a verb if it is at the end of a sentence. Thus, if asked, "Has anyone
got a pencil?", one can answer:
"I have."
but one cannot say:
* "I've."
But now, I think that if someone were to say "He wouldn't do that",
I might reply by saying either:
"I would have."
or
"I would've."
That is, the latter, a contracted verb at the end of a sentence, seems
perfectly fine to me. "I've." is no good, but "I would've." seems fine.
But good grief, *WHY?* I haven't a clue.
By the way, I have *never* heard an American say "I would have done."
or "I would've done.". That "done" is virtually never used without
an object. That is, we say "I would have." or "I would have done it.",
but *never* "I would have done.". I have heard it from UK speakers,
and understand it, but it sounds odd.
Strict quoting was used for clarity above; hence the doubled periods.
--
Larry Krakauer (lar...@kronos.com)
Gerald B Mathias
Markus Laker (fredd...@tcp.co.uk) wrote:
: tru...@ibm.net (Truly Donovan):
: > If I tried hard enough, I would've.
: Interesting! My British dialect doesn't allow that.
: In my dialect, as I posted yesterday, no form of 'be', 'have', 'will' or
: 'would' can be contracted at the end of a sentence. I think.
I came up with almost exactly the same list, but I can't claim being
British as an excuse. "Could've." "Would've." "Should've." All
sound fine to my American ears. I guess even "Will've" and "may've."
I seem to draw the line, finally, at "can't've."
Bart Mathias
Matola
Bob Cunningham wrote:
>Markus Laker said:
>
>>tru...@ibm.net (Truly Donovan):
>
>[ . . . ]
>
>>> If I tried hard enough, I would've.
>
>>Interesting! My British dialect doesn't allow that. Either of the
>>following would come more naturally to me:
<snip>
>As you wrote them, and as Ms Donovan wrote her similar statement, the
>tenses seem to clash.
John Berger wrote of Henri Matisse:
"Nobody who has not painted themselves can fully appreciate what lies behind
Matisse's mastery of color. . . . He clashed his colors together like cymbals
and the effect was like a lullaby."[1]
Michael Matola
[1] John Berger, "Henri Matisse, 1869-1954," _The New Statesman and Nation_,
November 13, 1954. Reprinted in _Matisse: A Retrospective_, edited by Jack
Flam, New York: Wings Books, 1988, pp. 384-386.
Bob Cunningham
On 3 Jan 1998 05:34:49 GMT, mat...@aol.com (Matola) said:
[ . . . ]
>John Berger wrote of Henri Matisse:
>
>"Nobody who has not painted themselves can fully appreciate
Now there's an intriguing confluence of words!
My immediate reaction was that there was something wrong with it. How
can nobody not paint something? After thinking about it a bit I still
think there's something wrong with it, but I can't say for sure what it
is. Removing the subordinate clause leaves 'Nobody can fully
appreciate', and there's certainly nothing wrong with that. If John
Berger had said 'Anyone who has not painted themselves', that would have
given me no problem.
But then the 'can' has to be changed to 'cannot'. That leads to 'Anyone
who has not painted themselves cannot fully appreciate [...]'. This
seems okay -- ignoring for the moment the clangorous jarring of the word
'themselves' against the singular 'anyone' -- but it contains three
negatives instead of the original two, and so demands effort on the part
of the reader to unscramble the meaning.
At this point I want to rephrase John Berger's words to a form that says
what he seems to have wanted to say but says it in clearer form:
Those who have not painted themselves cannot fully
appreciate what lies behind Matisse's mastery of color.
With that much of the mess cleared away it becomes clear that there is a
remaining problem with 'painted themselves'. The reader may consider
momentarily the possibility that Mr Berger was thinking of those who
execute self portraits. That flaw could be removed by rephrasing to:
Those who have not themselves painted [...]
But it would be simpler to just say:
Those who have not painted cannot fully appreciate [...]
And it would be better still to eliminate the double negative by saying:
Only those who have painted can fully appreciate what lies
behind Matisse's mastery of color.
>what lies behind
>Matisse's mastery of color. . . . He clashed his colors together like
>cymbals and the effect was like a lullaby."[1]
John Berger crashed his words together like trash cans and the effect
was far from being like a lullaby.
> [1] John Berger, "Henri Matisse, 1869-1954," _The New Statesman
> and Nation_, November 13, 1954. Reprinted in _Matisse: A
> Retrospective_, edited by Jack Flam, New York: Wings Books, 1988,
> pp. 384-386.
--
Markus Laker
This is a reposting of an article that seems not to have got beyond my
ISP's servers when I sent it on 31-12-97. Please accept my apologies if
you've already seen it.
bro...@deviant.com.spam (browse):
> PS: A search in Yahoo for "FAQ alt usage english" was futile. This is a
> shame, really, since the answer to this question is probably already
> covered in the FAQ. Someone should add the URL to Yahoo. If someone
> sends me the URL, I'll do it.
<http://homepages.tcp.co.uk/~laker/aueFAQfront.html>
This page has links to both the original flat-ASCII FAQ and an HTML
translation.
Markus Laker
This is a reposting of an article that seems not to have got beyond my
ISP's servers when I sent it on 31-12-97. Please accept my apologies if
you've already seen it.
"robert d. owens" <rdo...@gte.net>:
> This is what I am looking for. Will someone point me to the reference that
> states the constraints of contractions?
I don't know of such a reference. Here are some guidelines knocked up
by a native speaker:
1. Don't use contractions in formal writing. Exception: feel free to
use genitives with "'s" and "s'" wherever you would in speech: hence
"the school's governing body" but "the end of the pier".
In informal writing, such as on a.u.e, you can and should use
contractions almost as often as you would in speech, because they aid
readability.
2. Avoid double contractions such as "he'd've" unless you're aiming for
an extremely informal style. You may also want to avoid contracting
forms of "be", "will", "have" and "would" when they following anything
other than a pronoun, as in:
Peter'll be along in a minute.
She told me Markus'd seen them.
Exception: "'s" is acceptable, as in
Peter's due any minute.
Peter's got to be on time tonight.
3. Forms of "be", "will", "have" and "would" can't be contracted when
they're stressed (and hence can't be contracted at the end of a
sentence). So you can contract:
I'm late.
You're late.
I've been later than this before.
I'd be on time if I were you.
But not:
I am.
You are.
I have.
You would.
Do you realise how late you are?
4. Forms of "will", "have" and "would" (but not "be") can be contracted
only when they act as auxiliary verbs, like this:
I'll be late.
I've never arrived on time.
I'd like to be on time.
Many dialects forbid some or all of the following:
I've a book for you.
I've no time for this.
I've to be on time in future.
If any of these sounds wrong to you, your dialect forbids it. It's as
simple as that. My own dialect (Southern English) allows the second and
possibly the first. Some Northern dialects allow the third. All
English dialects, as far as I know, forbid you to contract this --
Come earlier, if you will
-- because in this sentence "will" means "wish", rather than acting as
an auxiliary.
Subject to rule 3, forms of "is" can be contracted whether the verb is
acting as an auxiliary or not:
He's a painter.
Mark's one of our oldest contributors.
5. Contractions of 'not' don't follow rule 3, so you can write:
He isn't.
He's not.
He won't.
He wouldn't.
Most dialects, though, forbid:
He'll not.
Now, can anyone expand or correct these guidelines?
Frances Kemmish
Bob Cunningham wrote:
>
> Those who have not painted themselves cannot fully
> appreciate what lies behind Matisse's mastery of color.
>
> With that much of the mess cleared away it becomes clear that there is a
> remaining problem with 'painted themselves'. The reader may consider
> momentarily the possibility that Mr Berger was thinking of those who
> execute self portraits. That flaw could be removed by rephrasing to:
>
I didn't think 'self-portraits', I envisaged people daubed with paint.
Fran
Mark Barton
On Thu, 1 Jan 1998 14:41, Markus Laker <mailto:fredd...@tcp.co.uk> wrote:
>tru...@ibm.net (Truly Donovan):
>
>> On 1 Jan 1998 01:05:15 GMT, "Gwen Lenker" <gale...@worldnet.att.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I tried to think of an example in which the contraction at the end of
>> >the sentence isn't a contraction of "not" -- but I couldn't.
>>
>
>Interesting! My British dialect doesn't allow that. Either of the
>following would come more naturally to me:
>
>
> If I tried hard enough, I would've done.
>
>In my dialect, as I posted yesterday, no form of 'be', 'have', 'will' or
I'm not really clear in my own mind whether I allow "would've" at the end
of a sentence. I think my brain outputs "would have" but listening
carefully there is no difference between that spoken quickly and
"would've", whereas there is such a difference for "I am" and "I'm". I
wouldn't normally add "done".
What my dialect definitely doesn't allow is the first half of the sentence.
The subjunctives would have to be balanced:
"If I'd tried hard enough I would have."
or
"If I tried hard enough I would."
Cheers,
Mark B.
----------------
Please remove the spam filter (both bits) from my address before replying.
This reply was posted and possibly (if you receive it by email, definitely)
also emailed. I generally CC if I'm answering a request for information or
if I severely criticise something. Please make your preferences known.
Truly Donovan
On 3 Jan 98 13:42:40 -0800, "Mark Barton"
<mba...@icrr.no.u-tokyo.spam.ac.jp> wrote:
>
>What my dialect definitely doesn't allow is the first half of the sentence.
>The subjunctives would have to be balanced:
>
> "If I'd tried hard enough I would have."
>or
> "If I tried hard enough I would."
Since so many people seem to be preoccupied with this, I guess I ought
to point out that my dialect doesn't either. It was a tupo.
Anonys
John M. Lawler wrote:
>
> Bob Cunningham <radi...@lafn.org> writes:
> >fredd...@tcp.co.uk (Markus Laker) writes:
> >>tru...@ibm.net (Truly Donovan) writes:
>
> -John Lawler http://www.lsa.umich.edu/ling/jlawler/ U Michigan Linguistics
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can't you write simple English?????????
You answer is more intriguing than the original question.
Truly Donovan
On Sun, 04 Jan 1998 15:48:23 +0500, Anonys <ano...@mailcity.com>
wrote:
Are you suggesting that intrigue in an answer is somehow undesirable?
Josh Leighton
Get him going? I should have thought it would finish him off!;)
--
jlei...@FNORDtcp.co.uk
Vivu la revolucio,
Josxvo
P.S.: Ne vidu la fnordon. Se vi ne vidas la fnordon, gxi ne povas vin
mangxi.
Mimi Kahn wrote in message <34b11580...@news.mindspring.com>...
>On Sun, 04 Jan 1998 00:34:53 GMT, tru...@ibm.net (Truly Donovan)
>wrote:
>
>>On 3 Jan 98 13:42:40 -0800, "Mark Barton"
>><mba...@icrr.no.u-tokyo.spam.ac.jp> wrote:
>>
<SNIP>It was a tupo.
>
>As long as it wasn't a tup, which would get Brian going again.
>
>
>--
>Mimi
>
>http://www.merriewood.com
>
>(to respond via e-mail, call me anything but spamfree)
>
Petra
On Fri, 02 Jan 1998 14:00:27 -0500, Larry Krakauer <lar...@kronos.com>
wrote:
>But let's go back to the contractions: once again, English grammar
>astounds me. I thought we had just concluded that you can't contract
>a verb if it is at the end of a sentence. Thus, if asked, "Has anyone
>got a pencil?", one can answer:
>
> "I have."
>
>but one cannot say:
>
> * "I've."
>
>But now, I think that if someone were to say "He wouldn't do that",
>I might reply by saying either:
>
> "I would have."
>
>or
>
> "I would've."
>
>That is, the latter, a contracted verb at the end of a sentence, seems
>perfectly fine to me. "I've." is no good, but "I would've." seems fine.
>But good grief, *WHY?* I haven't a clue.
Isn't it that "I've" is equivalent to "I'd have" (I would have)? And
"I would've" is just a representation of a very casual and rapid way
of saying "I would have"?
If my idea is correct, the rule that in English you cannot contract a
verb at the end of the sentence still holds, I think.
You wouldn't say "He wouldn't do that" - "I'd have", would you?