Phrasal Verbs
Josenildo Marques
In my opinion, phrasal verbs are one of the charms of the English
language, although they may be difficult to learn. To my surprise,
sometime ago I found out that not every native speaker knows what a
phrasal verb is. Then, I came to the conclusion that that shouldn't have
come as a surprise because it is a Linguistics term and only people
acquainted with Linguistics or teachers would know best about these
issues. Nevertheless, I had fun when I used to go out with an American
friend who would ask me now and then: Is this a phrasal verb ? This also
reminds me of an interesting quote by Sir Winston Churchill:
"This is the sort of pedantry up with which I will not put."
JM
(trying to get out of lurking mode)
Cheers !
Lars Eighner
<pan.2004.02.07....@terra.com.br>,
the lovely and talented Josenildo Marques
broadcast on alt.usage.english:
> Hello !
Phrasal verbs are a testament to the Germanic roots of English.
Of course, romance languages also commonly stick preposition on
verbs to make new verbs, but in the case of romance languages,
the prepositional part fuses with the verb and doesn't wander around
in the sentence on its own.
--
Lars Eighner -finger for geek code- eig...@io.com http://www.io.com/~eighner/
Great authors are admirable in this respect: in every generation they make
for disagreement. Through them we become aware of our differences. --Andre Gide
Donna Richoux
> Hello !
>
> In my opinion, phrasal verbs are one of the charms of the English
> language, although they may be difficult to learn. To my surprise,
> sometime ago I found out that not every native speaker knows what a
> phrasal verb is. Then, I came to the conclusion that that shouldn't have
> come as a surprise because it is a Linguistics term and only people
> acquainted with Linguistics or teachers would know best about these
> issues.
Exactly. There are a great many grammatical terms that native speakers
have no use for; they come in handy for adult learners of English as a
foreign language.
>Nevertheless, I had fun when I used to go out with an American
> friend who would ask me now and then: Is this a phrasal verb ? This also
> reminds me of an interesting quote by Sir Winston Churchill:
>
> "This is the sort of pedantry up with which I will not put."
>
> JM
> (trying to get out of lurking mode)
We've never been able to track down the "up with which" story to
something definite. Our FAQ says:
Yes, yes, we've all heard the following anecdotes:
(1) Winston Churchill was editing a proof of one of his books, when
he noticed that an editor had clumsily rearranged one of
Churchill's sentences so that it wouldn't end with a preposition.
Churchill scribbled in the margin, "This is the sort of English up
with which I will not put." (This is often quoted with "arrant
nonsense" substituted for "English", or with other variations. The
Oxford Dictionary of Quotations cites Sir Ernest Gowers' _Plain
Words_ (1948), where the anecdote begins, "It is said that
Churchill..."; so we don't know exactly what Churchill wrote.
According to the Oxford Companion to the English Language,
Churchill's words were "bloody nonsense" and the variants are
euphemisms.)
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
Rudolf Schwarzkopf-Zskai
"Josenildo Marques" <cy...@terra.com.br> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.02.07....@terra.com.br...
> Hello !
>
> In my opinion, phrasal verbs are one of the charms of the English
> language, although they may be difficult to learn. To my surprise,
> sometime ago I found out that not every native speaker knows what a
> phrasal verb is.
You'd be even more surprised if you came to England, where you'd be hard
pushed to find anyone who even knows what a verb is, let alone a phrasal
one.
--
Rudolf - Nottingham UK - www.voguehouse.co.uk
Josenildo Marques
> We've never been able to track down the "up with which" story to
> something definite. Our FAQ says:
>
> Yes, yes, we've all heard the following anecdotes:
>
> (1) Winston Churchill was editing a proof of one of his books, when
> he noticed that an editor had clumsily rearranged one of
> Churchill's sentences so that it wouldn't end with a preposition.
> Churchill scribbled in the margin, "This is the sort of English up
> with which I will not put." (This is often quoted with "arrant
> nonsense" substituted for "English", or with other variations. The
> Oxford Dictionary of Quotations cites Sir Ernest Gowers' _Plain
> Words_ (1948), where the anecdote begins, "It is said that
> Churchill..."; so we don't know exactly what Churchill wrote.
> According to the Oxford Companion to the English Language,
> Churchill's words were "bloody nonsense" and the variants are
> euphemisms.)
From what I've read, the pedantry he was against was the set of rules
according to which English grammar had to be subordinated to Latin
grammar. Among many things, it was said that a sentence could not end with
a preposition and, although this was true to Latin grammar, it is possible
and natural in English. In the example above, he demonstrates that if that
was taken to extremes, lots of ungrammatical sentences would arise, as we
can see. The standard English sentence is - This is something I cannot put
up with -. However, if the rule mentioned would be followed, we would have
his excellent example of an ungrammatical sentence, which teaches a lot.
"Put up with' is, in fact, a kind of verb which we call 'phrasal verb'.
The verb requires the preposition 'with' to come right after it, not
before. They form a single semantic unit, which should not be broken.
Of course, if he had used 'endure' instead of 'put up with', this story
wouldn't have come down to us.
Josenildo Marques
> Phrasal verbs are a testament to the Germanic roots of English. Of
> course, romance languages also commonly stick preposition on verbs to
> make new verbs, but in the case of romance languages, the prepositional
> part fuses with the verb and doesn't wander around in the sentence on
> its own.
Yes, that's right. In my first language, Brazilian Portuguese, there are
many examples of what you say. My impression is that English also sticks
preposition with verbs, so it has both devices. Although 'de' is not an
English preposition, there are words such as 'deinterlace', 'deicing',
etc. Is that correct ?
Josenildo Marques
> You'd be even more surprised if you came to England, where you'd be hard
> pushed to find anyone who even knows what a verb is, let alone a phrasal
> one.
I'd love to go to England one day. As a non-native speaker, I had the
freedom to choose which standard I'd like to follow and I chose BrE. So I
try to speak and write according to standard BrE.
Rolleston
>From what I've read, the pedantry he was against was the set of rules
>according to which English grammar had to be subordinated to Latin
>grammar. Among many things, it was said that a sentence could not end with
>a preposition and, although this was true to Latin grammar, it is possible
>and natural in English.
It might not even be true of Latin. Most prepositions on most
occasions go before the word they modify. But some prepositions
can sometimes occur after, e.g., "tenus" and "palam". I have not
seen a specific rule that outlaws the final position for these. But I
cannot find any examples of that occurring. So, that position may
fall into the class of grammatically possible, but stylistically
undesirable. (But where does style end and grammar begin?)
R.
Josenildo Marques
> It might not even be true of Latin. Most prepositions on most
> occasions go before the word they modify. But some prepositions
> can sometimes occur after, e.g., "tenus" and "palam". I have not
> seen a specific rule that outlaws the final position for these. But I
> cannot find any examples of that occurring. So, that position may
> fall into the class of grammatically possible, but stylistically
> undesirable. (But where does style end and grammar begin?)
>
> R.
Although I studied Latin, I'm not that fluent :-)
I think that it was not adequately put. Latin grammar was a standard to be
followed and its idiossincrasies would be adapted to other languages. So
maybe it didn't have that feature. Thus, people began to think that other
languages should follow the same pattern, even if they had it.
By the way, if you go here
http://www3.flamingtext.com/net-fu/jobs/093907528.html
within one hour, you'll see a Latin sentence in flames.
Rolleston
I think words like "deicing" are probably formed by analogy with
words that in Latin had a prepositional prefix, e.g., "defero".
R.
Donna Richoux
> On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 14:27:42 +0000, Rolleston wrote:
> > It might not even be true of Latin. Most prepositions on most
> > occasions go before the word they modify. But some prepositions
> > can sometimes occur after, e.g., "tenus" and "palam". I have not
> > seen a specific rule that outlaws the final position for these. But I
> > cannot find any examples of that occurring. So, that position may
> > fall into the class of grammatically possible, but stylistically
> > undesirable. (But where does style end and grammar begin?)
>
> Although I studied Latin, I'm not that fluent :-)
> I think that it was not adequately put. Latin grammar was a standard to be
> followed and its idiossincrasies would be adapted to other languages. So
> maybe it didn't have that feature. Thus, people began to think that other
> languages should follow the same pattern, even if they had it.
Can you by any chance direct us to one of more English prescriptivists
who gave Latin and Greek as being the reason why they recommended this
or that? We talked about this a few weeks ago in a.u.e, in regard to a
different question (the "split infinitive") and we couldn't come up with
any evidence of anyone who did. Admittedly, we have limited information,
but it was beginning to look as if this might have been a charge that
was leveled by their (later?) critics, not by the original writers.
I've gotte ahold of the 1866 guide, "The Queen's English," by Henry
Alford, Dean of Canterbury. He very rarely mentions Latin or Greek. Once
he does very apologetically, as an illustrative parallel; he's talking
about "this kind of thing," "these kinds of things," etc, and he says
(Page 76, Para. 95):
And here again my readers must excuse me if I go to
a dead language for my illustration -- not for my
*reason*: the *reason* will be found in the laws of
thought: but it will be best illustrated by citing
the usage of that language in which, more than in
any other, the laws of thought have found their
expression. [Snip actual example of Greek grammar.]
No, Alford is quite on big on citing common sense, usage, logic, whether
any schoolboy could misunderstand, how things are generally done, etc.
When it comes to the prepositions at the ends of sentences, Alford says
[P. 162, Par. 202]:
There is a peculiar use of prepositions, which is allowable in
moderation, but must not be too often resorted to. It is the
placing them at the end of a sentence, as I have just done in the
words "resorted to;" as is done in the command, "Let not your good
be evil spoken of;" and continually in our discourse and writing.
He then goes on for a page and half about why it is sometimes the best
form, as in the sentence "I was going to." He ends:
I know, in saying this, that I am at variance with
the rules taught at very respectable institutions
for enabling young ladies to talk unlike their
elders; but this I cannot help; and I fear this is an
offence of which I have been, and yet may be, very
often guilty.
So whoever may have railed against prepositions at the ends of
sentences, it wasn't Alford.
--
Best - Donna Richoux
Michael Nitabach
news:hvgc20pd230s4il7j...@4ax.com:
> Most prepositions on most
> occasions go before the word they modify. But some prepositions
> can sometimes occur after, e.g., "tenus" and "palam". I have not
> seen a specific rule that outlaws the final position for these.
I punched him in the face, the rules of Latin grammar
notwithstanding.
--
Mike Nitabach
Richard R. Hershberger
wrote:
>Josenildo Marques <cy...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>> Although I studied Latin, I'm not that fluent :-)
>> I think that it was not adequately put. Latin grammar was a standard to be
>> followed and its idiossincrasies would be adapted to other languages. So
>> maybe it didn't have that feature. Thus, people began to think that other
>> languages should follow the same pattern, even if they had it.
>
>Can you by any chance direct us to one of more English prescriptivists
>who gave Latin and Greek as being the reason why they recommended this
>or that? We talked about this a few weeks ago in a.u.e, in regard to a
>different question (the "split infinitive") and we couldn't come up with
>any evidence of anyone who did. Admittedly, we have limited information,
>but it was beginning to look as if this might have been a charge that
>was leveled by their (later?) critics, not by the original writers.
The impression I have is that the early English grammars and usage
manuals didn't explicitly try to impose Latin grammar, but rather than
Latin grammar was the assumed starting point from which English
grammar was modeled. It was a tacit assumption of the sort that,
being unexamined, is particularly insidious.
>
>I've gotte ahold of the 1866 guide, "The Queen's English," by Henry
>Alford, Dean of Canterbury. He very rarely mentions Latin or Greek. Once
>he does very apologetically, as an illustrative parallel; he's talking
>about "this kind of thing," "these kinds of things," etc, and he says
>(Page 76, Para. 95):
>
> And here again my readers must excuse me if I go to
> a dead language for my illustration -- not for my
> *reason*: the *reason* will be found in the laws of
> thought: but it will be best illustrated by citing
> the usage of that language in which, more than in
> any other, the laws of thought have found their
> expression. [Snip actual example of Greek grammar.]
>
>No, Alford is quite on big on citing common sense, usage, logic, whether
>any schoolboy could misunderstand, how things are generally done, etc.
Dean Alford is actually quite reasonable, within his stated
assumptions about what sources he considers authoritative. He has a
bad reputation, in part because he is an early source for the ban on
split infinitives, but he is generally pretty sensible. If you are
collecting 19th century usage manuals, look to Richard Grant White and
Alfred Ayres for the whack jobs.
Richard R. Hershberger
Richard R. Hershberger
<cy...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>Hello !
>
>In my opinion, phrasal verbs are one of the charms of the English
>language, although they may be difficult to learn. To my surprise,
>sometime ago I found out that not every native speaker knows what a
>phrasal verb is. Then, I came to the conclusion that that shouldn't have
>come as a surprise because it is a Linguistics term and only people
>acquainted with Linguistics or teachers would know best about these
>issues.
Even most native English speakers who consider themselves
knowledgeable in grammar don't know about them. Phrasal verbs went
largely unnoticed until the late 20th century, so traditional grammars
ignore them. Only people who teach English as a foreign language or
who have some training (whether formal or informal) in linguistics are
likely to know that such a thing exists. (This is, of course,
entirely distinct from using them correctly.)
Richard R. Hershberger
bob
> From: Josenildo Marques <cy...@terra.com.br>
> Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,alt.language.latin
> Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 12:51:40 -0200
> Subject: Re: Phrasal Verbs
Vade mecum.
Bob
DOYLE60
>before. They form a single semantic unit, which should not be broken.
>Of course, if he had used 'endure' instead of 'put up with', this story
>wouldn't have come down to us.
The second part of the phrasal verb does not have to come directly after the
first part, of course:
"I'm going to knock out my opponent in the second round."
"I'm going to knock my opponent out in the second round."
Matt
DOYLE60
>[P. 162, Par. 202]:
>
> There is a peculiar use of prepositions, which is allowable in
> moderation, but must not be too often resorted to. It is the
> placing them at the end of a sentence, as I have just done in the
> words "resorted to;" as is done in the command, "Let not your good
> be evil spoken of;" and continually in our discourse and writing.
Isn't it quite common in English grammar that advise becomes rules? The same
happened with using less and fewer, no? The same happened with beginning
sentences with "And" or "But." I had one teacher who said that you should
never begin a sentence with "However [comma]." I thought it was a rule for a
long time. But it was just his view and preference.
The less/fewer thing is now an established rule though it really was just some
guy's preference.
Matt
Jerry Friedman
...
> Can you by any chance direct us to one of more English prescriptivists
> who gave Latin and Greek as being the reason why they recommended this
> or that?
...
[Quoting Alford on ending sentences with prepositions]
> I know, in saying this, that I am at variance with
> the rules taught at very respectable institutions
> for enabling young ladies to talk unlike their
> elders; but this I cannot help; and I fear this is an
> offence of which I have been, and yet may be, very
> often guilty.
>
> So whoever may have railed against prepositions at the ends of
> sentences, it wasn't Alford.
The AHD says, "It was John Dryden who first promulgated the doctrine
that a preposition may not be used at the end of a sentence,
*probably* on the basis of a specious analogy to Latin. Grammarians in
the 18th century refined the doctrine, and the rule has since become
one of the most venerated maxims of schoolroom grammar...." Asterisks
mine. <http://www.bartleby.com/61/7/P0530700.html>
I'm not sure that gets us any forwarder, but at least this rule seems
to have a definite origin.
--
Jerry Friedman
Josenildo Marques
> Can you by any chance direct us to one of more English prescriptivists
> who gave Latin and Greek as being the reason why they recommended this
> or that? We talked about this a few weeks ago in a.u.e, in regard to a
> different question (the "split infinitive") and we couldn't come up with
> any evidence of anyone who did. Admittedly, we have limited information,
> but it was beginning to look as if this might have been a charge that
> was leveled by their (later?) critics, not by the original writers.
Donna (beautiful name!)
Unfortunately I do not have a name or definite source from which we could
have a specific name. All I know is what my professors of Linguistics said
in class. I mentioned Milton because, as you know, he was a well-known
Latinist and not a few people have criticised him for writing as if
English were Latin. In his ABC of Reading, Ezra Pound remarks the
following.
<quote>
When Milton writes
'Him who disobeys me disobeys '
he is, quite simply, doing wrong to his mother tongue. He meant
'Who disobeys him, disobeys me.'
It is perfectly easy to understand WHY he did it, but his reasons prove
that Shakespeare and several dozen other men were better poets. Milton did
it because he was chock-a-block with Latin. </quote>
I have found the text below, which is a bit lengthy, but whose quality is,
I think, exceptional.
<quote>
Will I be Arrested if I End a Sentence with a Preposition?
A Southerner stopped a stranger on the Harvard campus and asked,
"Could you please tell me where the library is at?" The stranger
responded, "Educated people never end their sentences with a
preposition." The overly polite Southerner then apologetically
repeated himself: "Could you please tell me where the library is at,
you jerk?"
While editing the proof of one of his books, Winston Churchill spotted
a sentence that had been clumsily rewritten by the editor to eliminate
a preposition at the end. The elder statesman mocked the intention
with a comment in the margin: "This is the sort of English up with
which I will not put."
These two anecdotes reflect an intolerance on both sides of the Atlantic
for the rule prohibiting sentence-final prepositions. So where did the
rule come from, anyway?
Before the science of language, linguistics, schools and universities
taught what is known as 'prescriptive grammar'. Prescriptive grammar is
not grammar (the rules of spoken language) at all but a list of "do's and
don'ts" prescribing the way those in or striving for the upper class
should talk. Because all upper-class private schools of the time
emphasized, if not required Latin, 'good' grammar was presumed to be
grammar that emulated Latin grammar.
The problem is, English is not Latin, an insight lost on prescriptivists.
Latin has cases and every Latin preposition is associated with a case. For
example, the word for "wine" in Latin is vinum. However, the prepositional
phrase corresponding to "in wine" is in vino (as in 'in vino veritas';
'wine brings out the truth') ending on the Ablative case marker, -o,
because in was associated with the Ablative case. So the suffix of vin-o
identifies the noun vin-um as the object of the preposition in and not the
object of any other preposition in the sentence; in short, they go
together.
Because sentences usually contain several prepositional phrases like this
(e.g., "A relative of the fruitfly was doing something like the backstroke
in the wine on the table in the library."), it is important to keep up
with which noun goes with which preposition. The easiest way to do that is
by a rule that prepositions are never separated from their object noun (or
noun phrase if the noun is modified by adjectives). Latin has that rule.
Believing that Latin grammar represents grammatical perfection and
unintimidated by the onerous task of molding English in the image of
Latin, prescriptive grammarians proscribed the use of prepositions
anywhere other than immediately before their object noun. For example, one
should not say "the prescriptivist John clashed with," but rather "the
prescriptivist with whom John clashed", not "the rule John laughed at,"
but "the rule at which John laughed".
The fact of the matter is, however, English simply does not have case
endings on nouns that are objects of prepositions, so the reason for
keeping prepositions and their object nouns together is wholly irrelevant
to English. You may keep them together or not. You'll never spend a night
in jail either way. However, because of the upper-class bias in the rule's
history, its use now makes you sound pretentious: "the chap in whom I
invested my trust". (Is that you? It isn't me; nor was it Winston
Churchill.)
This example teaches us two important lessons about language. First, each
and every language has its own set of grammatical rules and everyone who
speaks that language knows what they are in his or her region. (They do
vary slightly from region to region--big deal.) That is what speech is:
the use of grammatical rules to express oneself. Second, prescriptive
grammar is based on misconceptions about language and causes far more
mischief than good.
</quote>
Josenildo Marques
Matt
I've learnt that native speakers prefer to use short direct objects
between the verb and its particle. If there is a long direct object, it
usually goes after the verb and its particle. However, Trinity came up
with an interesting example that it may vary: "In ten minutes I'll bring
that whole goddamn building down!" What say you ?
I also notice that if we have
"I'll knock him out"
it is OK, but what about
"I'll knock out him" ?
Cheers !
Donna Richoux
> On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 17:04:28 +0100, Donna Richoux wrote:
> > Can you by any chance direct us to one of more English prescriptivists
> > who gave Latin and Greek as being the reason why they recommended this
> > or that? We talked about this a few weeks ago in a.u.e, in regard to a
> > different question (the "split infinitive") and we couldn't come up with
> > any evidence of anyone who did. Admittedly, we have limited information,
> > but it was beginning to look as if this might have been a charge that
> > was leveled by their (later?) critics, not by the original writers.
>
> Donna (beautiful name!)
Josenildo isn't half bad, either.
>
> Unfortunately I do not have a name or definite source from which we could
> have a specific name. All I know is what my professors of Linguistics said
> in class. I mentioned Milton because, as you know, he was a well-known
> Latinist and not a few people have criticised him for writing as if
> English were Latin. In his ABC of Reading, Ezra Pound remarks the
> following.
>
> <quote>
> When Milton writes
>
> 'Him who disobeys me disobeys '
>
> he is, quite simply, doing wrong to his mother tongue. He meant
>
> 'Who disobeys him, disobeys me.'
>
> It is perfectly easy to understand WHY he did it, but his reasons prove
> that Shakespeare and several dozen other men were better poets. Milton did
> it because he was chock-a-block with Latin. </quote>
>
> I have found the text below, which is a bit lengthy, but whose quality is,
> I think, exceptional.
>
> <quote>
[snip]
> Before the science of language, linguistics, schools and universities
> taught what is known as 'prescriptive grammar'. Prescriptive grammar is
> not grammar (the rules of spoken language) at all but a list of "do's and
> don'ts" prescribing the way those in or striving for the upper class
> should talk. Because all upper-class private schools of the time
> emphasized, if not required Latin, 'good' grammar was presumed to be
> grammar that emulated Latin grammar.
>
> The problem is, English is not Latin, an insight lost on prescriptivists.
[snip]
> Believing that Latin grammar represents grammatical perfection and
> unintimidated by the onerous task of molding English in the image of
> Latin, prescriptive grammarians proscribed the use of prepositions
> anywhere other than immediately before their object noun. For example, one
[snip]
> </quote>
Yes, these are examples of the sort of criticisms one can find. Still,
it leaves me wondering whether this all came from analysis and opinion
of the later scholars, or whether any of the "prescriptivists"
themselves actually said, "We think things should be done thus-and-so
because that's the way it is done in Latin."
Possibly, Ezra Pound and company would say that it was unconscious bias.
Which it might have been -- but once you go ascribing motives to the
unconscious, there's no limit on what you can say.
I'll keep looking. I don't know why I care. Maybe because the line of
argument that runs, "These pompous blockheads made up silly rules
because they thought English was Latin," is really insulting to the
so-called dolts, and to everyone who listened to them. I suspect there
is another side to the story.
I have the urge to end this post by saying something in Portuguese, but
I haven't a clue. How close to do you come to "Hasta la vista"?
Do you know Richard Feynman's story about learning Portuguese to go to
Brazil? His first day there, he couldn't remember the ordinary little
word for "so," so he said "Consequentemente..." -- and everyone was
terribly impressed.
Or do you call it Brazilian, when you speak English and refer to your
language?
John Lawler
> Can you by any chance direct us to one of more English prescriptivists
> who gave Latin and Greek as being the reason why they recommended this
> or that? We talked about this a few weeks ago in a.u.e, in regard to a
> different question (the "split infinitive") and we couldn't come up with
> any evidence of anyone who did. Admittedly, we have limited information,
> but it was beginning to look as if this might have been a charge that
> was leveled by their (later?) critics, not by the original writers.
I can't do that, but I can give you an almost contemporary quotation
on the topic.
"Scholars who have made and taught from English grammars were previously
and systematically initiated in the Greek and Latin tongues, so that
they have, without deigning to notice the difference, taken the rules
of the latter and applied them indiscriminately and dogmatically
to the former." -- William Hazlitt 'English Grammar' (1829)
Filling out a form for our curriculum committee the other day about a new
grammar class I'm teaching, I found myself writing the following:
"English grammar is not taught in the American educational system; indeed,
it never has been taught. A century ago Latin was universally studied by
all academically-oriented Anglophone students, and with it went a
serviceable view of grammar that could be applied reasonably to English.
That was it, as far as English grammar education went; English classes were
devoted to literature and composition, as they still are. Thus the
loss of Latin from the curriculum led to a loss of understanding of English
grammar.
"It is a basic principle inherited directly from the origins of the Liberal
Arts that it is necessary to understand grammar in order to understand
language, and it is necessary to understand language in order to understand
*anything*. This becomes clear to a large number of RC[1] students, who
frequently find themselves knowing far more about the grammar of the
language they have just passed Proficiency in[2] than they have ever known
about their native language.
"Hence this class. It is designed for RC students but open to all. It uses
standard linguistic pedagogical methods to teach analysis of English syntax,
and encourages critical examination of the usual catechism of shibboleths
taught in English classes under the rubric of 'grammar', to enable students
to unlearn untruths they may have been taught about grammar. Its goals are
to produce students that understand how grammar works, what its purposes
are, and how it affects meaning, and who are familiar with a wide range of
grammatical phenomena in English; to this end frequent comparison is made
with other languages, so as to enable students to use what they already
know about grammar."
----
[1] RC = Residential College (where I'm offerring the class).
[2] RC students must pass a very thorough 'Proficiency' exam in
one of the languages taught here that guarantees they speak
it fluently.
-John Lawler www.umich.edu/~jlawler Univ of Michigan Linguistics Dept
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I conceive that words are like money, not the worse for being common,
but that it is the stamp of custom alone that gives them circulation
or value." -- William Hazlitt 'On Familiar Style' (1821)
Michael West
"Donna Richoux" wrote:
> Yes, these are examples of the sort of criticisms one can find. Still,
> it leaves me wondering whether this all came from analysis and opinion
> of the later scholars, or whether any of the "prescriptivists"
> themselves actually said, "We think things should be done thus-and-so
> because that's the way it is done in Latin."
Until I see one of these "prescriptivists" actually caught in
the act of "dogmatically" imposing Latin rules on poor helpless
English speakers, I'll suspect that what we have here is chronic,
long-running case of strawman-ism. It sells books, and it
puts an audience at ease to say, "Look, we won't pay any
attention to those silly rules. We're reasonable people, eh?"
--
Michael West
Josenildo Marques
> Yes, these are examples of the sort of criticisms one can find. Still,
> it leaves me wondering whether this all came from analysis and opinion
> of the later scholars, or whether any of the "prescriptivists"
> themselves actually said, "We think things should be done thus-and-so
> because that's the way it is done in Latin."
>
> Possibly, Ezra Pound and company would say that it was unconscious bias.
> Which it might have been -- but once you go ascribing motives to the
> unconscious, there's no limit on what you can say.
>
> I'll keep looking. I don't know why I care. Maybe because the line of
> argument that runs, "These pompous blockheads made up silly rules
> because they thought English was Latin," is really insulting to the
> so-called dolts, and to everyone who listened to them. I suspect there
> is another side to the story.
>
> I have the urge to end this post by saying something in Portuguese, but
> I haven't a clue. How close to do you come to "Hasta la vista"?
That would be "Até logo" or simply "Tchau".
> Do you know Richard Feynman's story about learning Portuguese to go to
> Brazil? His first day there, he couldn't remember the ordinary little
> word for "so," so he said "Consequentemente..." -- and everyone was
> terribly impressed.
Nice story!
He made an excellent choice."Consequentemente" is much more emphatic than
a mere "então", which would be a problem because of its nasal sounds. He
made his audience think he had a good command of the language, whether he
wanted to or not.
> Or do you call it Brazilian, when you speak English and refer to your
> language?
I call it Brazilian Portuguese.
Although examples and comparisons sometimes do not work so well, one could
say the difference between European Portuguese and Brazilian Portuguese
can be contrasted to the differences between AmE and BrE. The Portuguese
themselves say we speak a kind of "sugared Portuguese", i.e., it does not
have so many ups and downs; it is smooth. As someone said about the US and
England, Brazil and Portugal are two countries separated by a common
language. :-) Now it is my turn to end this message with beautiful words
from another "flower of speech", as Joyce puts it. Vaarwel en dank !
The Grammer Genious
> <...> Until I see one of these "prescriptivists" actually caught in
> the act of "dogmatically" imposing Latin rules on poor helpless
> English speakers, I'll suspect that what we have here is chronic,
> long-running case of strawman-ism. <...>
Well, I guess you'll have to keep suspecting, but I don't,
because I had Mr. Kinsey in ninth-grade English, and he
continuously and consistently made just the sort of assumptions
and assertions that you suspect no one actually makes. So I'm a
believer.
\\P. Schultz
Michael West
> Well, I guess you'll have to keep suspecting, but I don't,
> because I had Mr. Kinsey in ninth-grade English, and he
> continuously and consistently made just the sort of assumptions
> and assertions that you suspect no one actually makes. So I'm a
> believer.
>
> \\P. Schultz
I respect your opinion, but I think what your experience
supports is the notion that English teachers are,
by and large, duffers. I can't consider them authoritative.
The sonsabitches can stand up there and say whatever
they want, knowing that no pupil will challenge them to
back up their opinions with learned commentary.
--
Michael West
Jerry Friedman
To take the specific example that Javi brought up, did Mr. Kinsey tell
you that split infinitives were bad grammar for any reason having to
do with Latin?
--
Jerry Friedman
The Grammer Genious
> To take the specific example that Javi brought up, did Mr. Kinsey tell
> you that split infinitives were bad grammar for any reason having to
> do with Latin?
Yup, he did. He was an ex-seminarian and seemed to think Latin
was the basis of all human language. I was taking Latin I at the
time, and had been an altar boy back in the old Latin days, so I
sort of understood where he was coming from. He explained that
the infinitive was a single word in Latin, so it didn't make any
sense to try to take it apart in English or any other language.
How could you? It was impossible. In Latin, it's a *single word*!
It wasn't just English grammar with him. You should hear some of
things he taught us in American Government class.
\\P. Schultz
Bob Cunningham
<schu...@erols.com> said:
[...]
> He explained that
> the infinitive was a single word in Latin, so it didn't make any
> sense to try to take it apart in English or any other language.
> How could you? It was impossible. In Latin, it's a *single word*!
Seems a good time to mention once more that an infinitive in
*English* is a single word.
In a phrase like "to go", the infinitive is not "to go":
It's "go". The "to" is best described as a particle that
often accompanies an infinitive. That's why some respected
grammarians tell us there's no such thing as a split
infinitive in English.
Admittedly, there's a pervasive fallacy that "to go" is
itself an infinitive. There are also people who believe the
Earth is flat.
R J Valentine
So how would _you_ translate the Latin infinitive "ire" into English?
How about the Latin imperative "i"?
There are of course those who insist that "to" is not part of an
infinitive, but the term "split infinitive" presupposes that it is. If
you want to argue from what can't be split in Latin, why not argue from
that part of the German infinitive that gets so split it barely latches on
to the caboose.
English infinitives are either the naked present subjunctive verb form
preceded by "to" or the same verb form without the "to" as part of another
construct (which eliminates the need for the "to" as an infinitive flag).
All on its lonesome, a to-less "infinitive" is more likely taken as an
imperative.
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@smart.net>
How about the Latin thing "re"?
The Grammer Genious
> } It's "go". The "to" is best described as a particle that
> } often accompanies an infinitive.
>
Well, in the sentence "Ire potest" I would translate it as "He
can go."
Your point?
\\P. Schultz
Rolleston
>So how would _you_ translate the Latin infinitive "ire" into English?
In some circumstances as "going". (nominal)
Just to be clear: not in all circumstances, just in
some. How it is translated will depend on the best
idiomatic English translation you can come up with.
There is not necessarily any one-to-one correspondence
with English. It will sometimes be rendered as "to go",
on other occasions as "go", and so on.
R.
Jerry Friedman
> Jerry Friedman wrote:
>
> > To take the specific example that Javi brought up, did Mr. Kinsey tell
> > you that split infinitives were bad grammar for any reason having to
> > do with Latin?
>
> Yup, he did. He was an ex-seminarian and seemed to think Latin
> was the basis of all human language. I was taking Latin I at the
> time, and had been an altar boy back in the old Latin days, so I
> sort of understood where he was coming from. He explained that
> the infinitive was a single word in Latin, so it didn't make any
> sense to try to take it apart in English or any other language.
> How could you? It was impossible. In Latin, it's a *single word*!
A sighting in the wild! Thanks.
--
Jerry Friedman