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
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
> 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.
In article <687eok$3e...@gte1.gte.net>, Bob Owens <rdow...@gte.net> wrote: > 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
jacobi <books...@pandore.qc.ca> wrote: >Bob Owens <rdow...@gte.net> wrote in article <687erg$3e...@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
>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 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".
This did come up here a few months ago, and was comprehensively answered by John Lawler, I seem to recall. -- John Davies (j...@redwoods.demon.co.uk)
> >> 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.)
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!"
In article <687eok$3e...@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 >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 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.
In article <687eok$3e...@gte1.gte.net>, "Bob Owens" <rdow...@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.)
> In article <687eok$3e...@gte1.gte.net>, "Bob Owens" <rdow...@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
>In article <687eok$3e...@gte1.gte.net>, Bob Owens <rdow...@gte.net> >writes [snip] >>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. [snip] >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."
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.
>Bob Owens <rdow...@gte.net> wrote in article <687erg$3e...@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
On Sun, 28 Dec 1997 22:09, Bob Owens <mailto:rdow...@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.
>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.
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 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:
jacobi wrote: > SLHinton17 <slhinto...@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... > > "Who's hungry?" "_I_ am." > --------------------- > 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 wrote: > > SLHinton17 <slhinto...@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... > > > "Who's hungry?" "_I_ am." > > --------------------- > > 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
----------------------- 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?
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
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.
> 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
------------------
In a nutshell, Bob Owens asked: Is "I'm" a technically correct sentence?
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."
|
