" I find it incredulous..." is substandard English??
Herbert F. W. Stahlke
demonstrates incontrovertably, to people who care about such things, that
the user is an ignorant boob. The only thing that makes this one
interesting is that the user used it in an otherwise sneeringly
prescriptive diatribe on the misuse of participles as gerunds, a
distinction the language gave up centuries ago, although our prescriptive
peers haven't noticed. For one of that bent to commit such a plebeian
misuse should be mortifying.
Herb Stahlke
moonshadow wrote:
> Bernie Hayden wrote:
> moonshadow wrote in message <36EF04F2...@geocities.com>...
>
> > I find it incredulous that you should even bother to bring that up.
>
> > Mmm.. rather strange use of the word incredulous - some may call it
> > 'sub
> > standard'.
>
> Really? I don't think so. Let all the guys out there be the judge
> then...
moonshadow
"Herbert F. W. Stahlke" wrote:
> This use of "incredulous" is a typical shibboleth, a marker that
> demonstrates incontrovertably, to people who care about such things, that
> the user is an ignorant boob. The only thing that makes this one
Except that the MW online dictionary http://www.m-w.com/netdict.htm
does say "incredulous" can mean "incredible" :
"usage Sense 2 ( incredible )
has been REVIVED in this century after a couple of centuries of disuse."
As objectionable as the word may seem to be for many people here, using the
word to mean incredible cannot be construed as wrong, according to the
definition.
> interesting is that the user used it in an otherwise sneeringly
> prescriptive diatribe on the misuse of participles as gerunds, a
> distinction the language gave up centuries ago, although our prescriptive
> peers haven't noticed. For one of that bent to commit such a plebeian
> misuse should be mortifying.
Not so fast.
" I object to you smoking " is the matter in issue here.
Let's see what some of the world's renowned grammarians,
other than some dim-witted professor, have to say about
"object to" and other prepositional gerund phrases, for that matter.
*****************************************************
Quirk&Greenbaum in A Comprehensive Grammar of the English
Language: ( 1985 edition )
p.1063 on "-ing clauses":
" If the -ing clause has a subject, the item realizing the subject may be
in the genitive case or otherwise in the objective case. ( for pronouns
having a distinctive objective case ) In general, the GENITIVE IS
PREFERRED if the item is a pronoun, the noun phrase has personal
reference, and the STYLE IS FORMAL:
I intend to voice my OBJECTIONS TO THEIR receiving an invitation
to our meeting.
*********************************************************
Strunk&White in The Elements of Style:
p.12
" Gerunds usually require the possessive case."
Mother OBJECTED TO OUR driving on the icy road.
***********************************************************
Fowler called the form a "fused particple" p.215-218
***********************************************************
Edward Johnson's The Handbook of Good English ( 1991 edition )
p27.
" She approves of the teacher handling out extra homework as
punishment.
...a usage that is unlikely to be misunderstood is not necessarily
a usage that should be accepted as correct. At least, in principle,
the example is JUST AS WRONG AS
She approves of the teacher DISCIPLINE.
in which the gerund phrase has been replaced by a noun
The subject of a gerund 'owns' the action of the gerund,
and owning is expressed by the possessive case.
She approves of the TEACHER'S handling out ...
is therefore PREFERABLE."
*************************************************************
Good Word Guide--"A Fowler for our time" ( 1988 edition, edited by Martin H.
Manser )
-ing forms:
"The ing form of a verb may be a past.participle or a gerund. Problems of
usage
arise when the gerund has its own subject:
She DISAPPROVES OF YOUR using the car.
The substitution OF "YOU" FOR "YOUR" would be
UNACCEPTABLE to many users, EVEN IN INFORMAL
CONTEXTS.According to grammatical convention, the
possessive form should always be used in such cases."
*************************************************************
Robert Bryan Lipton
moonshadow wrote in message <36F7031B...@geocities.com>...
>
>
>"Herbert F. W. Stahlke" wrote:
>
>> This use of "incredulous" is a typical shibboleth, a marker that
>> demonstrates incontrovertably, to people who care about such things, that
>> the user is an ignorant boob. The only thing that makes this one
>
> Except that the MW online dictionary http://www.m-w.com/netdict.htm
> does say "incredulous" can mean "incredible" :
> "usage Sense 2 ( incredible )
> has been REVIVED in this century after a couple of centuries of disuse."
> As objectionable as the word may seem to be for many people here, using
the
>
> word to mean incredible cannot be construed as wrong, according to the
>definition.
However
When one wishes to discuss issues of Standard, Formal or Proper English, one
is, of necessity, in the realm of the Prescriptivists. To cite current
Merriam Webster Standards is to cite no standards at all, for they have
given way completely to the Descriptivists. You can use Merriam Webtser to
support any usage whatsoever, and I call that slop. One might as well go to
the Oxford English Dictionary and note that John Webster or my great-uncle
Hymie used it. What has that got to do with the way that current,
well-educated native English speakers use it? Hint: nothing.
RHUD2, a dictionary I purchased with a view towards owning a prescriptivist
American English dictionary does not even note your suggested usage. I
suggest, therefore, that you deposit your 'standards' where they belong,
along with pineapple-covered pizza, Deep Fried Creme Eggs and Budweiser.
Bob
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
<moonsh...@geocities.com> wrote:
> Except that the MW online dictionary http://www.m-w.com/netdict.htm
> does say "incredulous" can mean "incredible" :
> "usage Sense 2 ( incredible )
> has been REVIVED in this century after a couple of centuries of disuse."
> As objectionable as the word may seem to be for many people here, using the
>
> word to mean incredible cannot be construed as wrong, according to the
>definition.
>
Come now. 'Credulous' has never meant 'credible' as far as I can
determine, and although the negative was once thus used at a time
when English was groping its way to modernity about four (not "a
couple") of centuries ago that is not grounds for "revival", even
though the usage seems to have survived into the middle of the
18th century.
I like obsolete words myself when they seem to fit a gap in the
language and are readily understandable but it seems silly to
regard today's resururrection (if it is that) of the late 16th
and early 17th century use of 'incredulous' to mean 'incredible'
as anything but confused and substandard English. The "online"
dictionary's editors ought to be ashamed of themselves unless
they mark the usage as "widely regarded as substandard".
I have not looked and do not mean to.
Bernie Hayden
> " I object to you smoking " is the matter in issue here.
> Let's see what some of the world's renowned grammarians,
> other than some dim-witted professor, have to say about
> "object to" and other prepositional gerund phrases, for that matter.
Well for a start if you're referring to Swan he's not a professor as far as
I'm aware, and I would hesitate to call him dim-witted. The original
question was about students in an EFL class, where I think the so-called
'dim-witted professor' will be of more use than 'the world's renowned
grammarians'.
It can be informative to pull one's head out of a grammar book occasionally
and observe how the language is actually being used.
Bernie
Raymot
>
>"Herbert F. W. Stahlke" wrote:
>
>> This use of "incredulous" is a typical shibboleth, a marker that
>> demonstrates incontrovertably, to people who care about such things, that
>> the user is an ignorant boob. The only thing that makes this one
>
> does say "incredulous" can mean "incredible" :
> "usage Sense 2 ( incredible )
> has been REVIVED in this century after a couple of centuries of disuse."
> As objectionable as the word may seem to be for many people here, using the
>
> word to mean incredible cannot be construed as wrong, according to the
>definition.
Now now, moonshadow. You can't move the goalposts. You specifically
suggested that other members of the forum could be your judge.
A significant majority have judged you guilty of using the word
wrongly. An honest person would either accept this, or would not
have issued the challenge in the first place.
Raymot
[[[[[[[[[
moonshadow
Bernie Hayden wrote:
> moonshadow wrote in message <36F7031B...@geocities.com>...
> > Not so fast.
> > " I object to you smoking " is the matter in issue here.
> > Let's see what some of the world's renowned grammarians,
> > other than some dim-witted professor, have to say about
> > "object to" and other prepositional gerund phrases, for that matter.
>
> Well for a start if you're referring to Swan he's not a professor as far as
> I'm aware, and I would hesitate to call him dim-witted. The original
You're totally confused. I was talking about this jerk Herbert F. W. Stahlke,
not Swan.
>
> question was about students in an EFL class, where I think the so-called
> 'dim-witted professor' will be of more use than 'the world's renowned
> grammarians'.
huh??
>
> It can be informative to pull one's head out of a grammar book occasionally
> and observe how the language is actually being used.
Even more so to observe that a prepositional clause like " I object to you
smoking" is condemned by most grammarians. Practice what you preach,
dude.
>
>
> Bernie
Ian Staples
moonshadow <moonsh...@geocities.com> wrote:
>Even more so to observe that a prepositional clause like " I object to
>you smoking" is condemned by most grammarians.
Wouldn't it depend on what is "understood"? Or perhaps my ears are
just wrong on this one.
If I said "I object to you smoking" [and I wouldn't, I'd say "Do you
have to bloody well smoke in here!" :-) ] then it would be "understood"
that words were missing, such as "near me" or "in here", etc.
As I say, "I object to you smoking in here" sounds okay to me. But I've
been wrong before.
Cheers, Ian S.
Bill McCray
That should be "I object to your smoking."
Try diagramming "I object to you smoking." When I try it, I can't
figure out where to put "smoking".
Bill McCray
Lexington, KY
jan...@mailexcite.com
>
>
> That should be "I object to your smoking."
>
> Try diagramming "I object to you smoking." When I try it, I can't
> figure out where to put "smoking".
>
> Bill McCray
> Lexington, KY
Present active participle modifying the pronoun "you."
jane
jane
Aaron J. Dinkin
wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Mar 1999 19:31:32 +1000, ia...@refer.to.signature.au (Ian
> Staples) wrote:
>
> >In article <36F9B512...@geocities.com>,
> >moonshadow <moonsh...@geocities.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Even more so to observe that a prepositional clause like " I object to
> >>you smoking" is condemned by most grammarians.
> >
> >Wouldn't it depend on what is "understood"? Or perhaps my ears are
> >just wrong on this one.
> >
> >If I said "I object to you smoking" [and I wouldn't, I'd say "Do you
> >have to bloody well smoke in here!" :-) ] then it would be "understood"
> >that words were missing, such as "near me" or "in here", etc.
> >
> >As I say, "I object to you smoking in here" sounds okay to me. But I've
> >been wrong before.
>
> That should be "I object to your smoking."
That means something different.
> Try diagramming "I object to you smoking." When I try it, I can't
> figure out where to put "smoking".
Assuming you mean traditional Thistlebottomian sentence diagrams:
I | object you | smok
---|-------- -----|----|ing
| \ | | ------
\to |
\ / \
--------------
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
(I welcome e-mailed copies of replies.)
Bob Cunningham
Dinkin) said:
>In article <36fa4627...@netnews.mis.net>, tob...@mis.net (Bill McCray)
>wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 25 Mar 1999 19:31:32 +1000, ia...@refer.to.signature.au (Ian
>> Staples) wrote:
>> >In article <36F9B512...@geocities.com>,
>> >moonshadow <moonsh...@geocities.com> wrote:
>> >>Even more so to observe that a prepositional clause like " I object to
>> >>you smoking" is condemned by most grammarians.
>> >Wouldn't it depend on what is "understood"? Or perhaps my ears are
>> >just wrong on this one.
>> >If I said "I object to you smoking" [and I wouldn't, I'd say "Do you
>> >have to bloody well smoke in here!" :-) ] then it would be "understood"
>> >that words were missing, such as "near me" or "in here", etc.
>> >As I say, "I object to you smoking in here" sounds okay to me. But I've
>> >been wrong before.
>> That should be "I object to your smoking."
>That means something different.
Not really. 'I object to you smoking' is just a substandard way of
saying 'I object to your smoking.' If you know of a usage guide that
would approve of 'I object to you smoking,' please tell us about it.
>> Try diagramming "I object to you smoking." When I try it, I can't
>> figure out where to put "smoking".
>Assuming you mean traditional Thistlebottomian sentence diagrams:
> I | object you | smok
>---|-------- -----|----|ing
> | \ | | ------
> \to |
> \ / \
> --------------
To even attempt to make logical sense of 'I object to you smoking,'
you have two choices: you can make 'you' the object of 'to', or you
can make 'smoking' the object of 'to'. If you make 'you' the object
of 'to', then it's hard to see what can be done with 'smoking'. If
you make 'smoking' the object of 'to', then what can you do with
'you'? It doesn't make sense to call it an adjective modifying
'smoking'.
The acceptable version, 'I object to your smoking,' is easy to
diagram. 'Smoking is the object of the preposition 'to', and 'your'
is an adjective modifying 'smoking'.
I | object
----|----------
| \
\ to
\
\ smoking
-------
\
\ your
------
I fail to see how your diagram makes any sense at all. You have the
preposition 'to' with no object, and you have the strange assortment
of lines under 'smoking' that is like nothing I've ever seen before.
Sean Holland
>Not really. 'I object to you smoking' is just a substandard way of
>saying 'I object to your smoking.' If you know of a usage guide that
>would approve of 'I object to you smoking,' please tell us about it.
>
I object to people smoking. I object to Bob smoking. I object to you smoking.
--
Sean
Due to spam filtering, mail from prodigy will not reach me.
Bertie Wooster
>... 'I object to you smoking' is just a substandard way of
>saying 'I object to your smoking.' If you know of a usage guide that
>would approve of 'I object to you smoking,' please tell us about it.
I think both forms are valid and that a distinction can be made.
"I object to your smoking" is objecting to the smoking itself, where the
smoker is incidental to the objection.
"I object to you (when you are) smoking" makes you the object (!) of the
objection, giving your smoking as the primary reason.
I expect you'll object to me making this distinction "without a difference"
perhaps?
Bertie
Daniel James
> I think both forms are valid and that a distinction can be made.
>
> "I object to your smoking" is objecting to the smoking itself, where the
> smoker is incidental to the objection.
>
> "I object to you (when you are) smoking" makes you the object (!) of the
> objection, giving your smoking as the primary reason.
>
I'd agree with that. The second form is more a personal conemnation of the
smoker than of the act of smoking, and I think most people would want to
be more polite than to put it that way. I usually assume that anyone who
does not use the first form either a) doesn't understand the difference;
or b) understands the difference perfectly well but thinks the smoker
won't, and is enjoying the opportunity to say "I object to you" to the
smoker without the real meaning being understood.
Cheers,
Daniel.
moonshadow
Sean Holland wrote:
> I object to people smoking. I object to Bob smoking. I object to you smoking.
Here we go again. And I thought the "-ing" thread was over with...
" I object to you smoking" and the like, clauses with a prepositional gerund
phrase
taking the objective case, are commonly found in colloquial speech or even in
magazine
periodicals. Most contemporary grammarians, however, just do not sanction, or at
least
do not recommend, this kind of sentence pattern. This is especially true when the
form is
employed in formal writing:
>
> *****************************************************
> Quirk&Greenbaum in A Comprehensive Grammar of the English
> Language: ( 1985 edition )
> p.1063 on "-ing clauses":
> " If the -ing clause has a subject, the item realizing the subject may be
> in the genitive case or otherwise in the objective case. ( for pronouns
> having a distinctive objective case ) In general, the GENITIVE IS
> PREFERRED if the item is a pronoun, the noun phrase has personal
> reference, and the STYLE IS FORMAL:
>
> I intend to voice my OBJECTIONS TO THEIR receiving an invitation
> to our meeting.
>
> *********************************************************
>
> Michael Swan in his "Practical English Usage" says
> " the form is used in an INFORMAL style"
>
> ***********************************************************
> "The ing form of a verb may be a past participle or a gerund. Problems of
Karl Charles
<<Try diagramming "I object to you smoking." When I try it, I can't figure
out where to put "smoking".>>
I can. It's an adjective (a present active participle, to be precise), so
it can modify "you". As a participle, it is allowed to follow the word it
modifies. It is even possible to say, "I object to you smoking cigars,"
since, as a verb, it can have a direct object.
I'm not sure how to diagram the participle, modifying "you" (as an
adjective) and having a direct object (as a verb), but that shows faulty
diagramming, not faulty grammar.
--
Respond by email to STEVEMACGREGOR at INFICAD dot COM
(or just reply to have your message deleted before reading)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stamp out, eliminate, and abolish redundancy!
Karl Charles
<<I think both forms are valid and that a distinction can be made.
"I object to your smoking" is objecting to the smoking itself, where the
smoker is incidental to the objection.
"I object to you (when you are) smoking" makes you the object (!) of the
objection, giving your smoking as the primary reason.>>
You are correct. In the first, "smoking" is a gerund, the direct object
of the verb. "Your" is an adjective modifying it. In the second, "smoking"
is a participle, an adjective that modifies "you".
Remember that gerunds (verbal nouns) and active participles (verbal
adjectives) are identical in form.
--
jan...@mailexcite.com
> I can. It's an adjective (a present active participle, to be precise), so
> it can modify "you". As a participle, it is allowed to follow the word it
> modifies. It is even possible to say, "I object to you smoking cigars,"
> since, as a verb, it can have a direct object.
> I'm not sure how to diagram the participle, modifying "you" (as an
> adjective) and having a direct object (as a verb), but that shows faulty
> diagramming, not faulty grammar.
I THINK it goes like this.
I / object
t
o you
s
m
o
k
i
n
g [cigars]
jane
JS
I object to your smoking of cigars.??
jan...@mailexcite.com
>
> >I THINK it goes like this........................>>>>>
> I object to your smoking of cigars.??
No "of."
jane
JS
>
>> I object to your smoking of cigars.??
>
>No "of."
>
maybe the cigars are not smoking
so if " I object to your smoking cigars" then "smoking" can be deemed an
adjective!
is like " I object to your brown cigars"
so maybe need "of"
jan...@mailexcite.com
Right. If you look at my earlier post, you'll see that the
diagram contained the word "you" not "your."
YOU
s
m
o
k
i
n
g [cigars]
Smoking indeed functions as an adjective. It modifies the
pronoun "you." Cigars is the object of the smoking. The verb
"to smoke" in English takes a direct object and does not require
a prepositional phrase. The phrase "your smoking cigars" can
mean either a) your act of smoking cigars or b) your cigars that
are smoking. You must rely on the context to decide which is
meant.
I have to admit I am at a loss about this entire thread. Of
course "your smoking" (gerund + possessive pronoun) is a
perfectly grammatical construction in English. I just can't
imagine where people got the idea that there is something
"wrong" with using "you smoking," the pronoun/participle
construction. Where do people get this idea?
I watched him eating pizza.
I photographed them laughing.
I object to you smoking.
An earlier poster explained that you can object to either the
smoking itself or to the person while they are smoking. Say
whichever you mean to say.
jane
Daniel James
I see a difference between "I object to your smoking cigars" and "I
object to your smoking cigars".
The former is what we've been discussing here: it means "I object to
your smoking, and the things that you happen to be smoking are cigars".
The latter means "I object to the way you're treating those cigars:
what do you mean by /smoking/ them?"
It may seem a strange thing to say, but that's what I think it
suggests.
Cheers,
Daniel.
JS
Daniel James wrote in message ...
>In article <7djgi5$8fq$1...@scotty.tinet.ie>, Js wrote:
>> I object to your smoking of cigars.??
>>
>
>I see a difference between "I object to your smoking cigars" and "I
>object to your smoking cigars".
>
Daniel James
> >I see a difference between "I object to your smoking cigars" and "I
> >object to your smoking cigars".
> >
> are you sure?
>
Yes. Clearly, the second sentence has the word "of" omitted in error
after "smoking", the first does not. <smile>
Oops!
Cheers,
Daniel