A name to my pain
lee
I'm stumped on how to describe this introductory clause...
"Should you need any help, go to the front desk and ask for assistance"
It's the 'should' and it's use at the beginning of the clause that I'm
confused about. I'm not that knowledgable on grammar. I'm pretty sure
it's not inversion...is it an introductory adverbial clause? OK, I'm
stabbing in the dark now. Can anyone offer any wisdom on how I might
describe this introductory clause. Thanks.
CyberCypher
>
> I'm stumped on how to describe this introductory clause...
>
> "Should you need any help, go to the front desk and ask for
> assistance"
>
> It's the 'should' and it's use at the beginning of the clause that
> I'm confused about. I'm not that knowledgable on grammar. I'm
> pretty sure it's not inversion...is it an introductory adverbial
> clause?
No, the first word is a modal auxiliary, "shall/should", a verb, so it
cannot be an adverbial clause.
> OK, I'm stabbing in the dark now. Can anyone offer any
> wisdom on how I might describe this introductory clause. Thanks.
Try "British-English subjunctive". It's a hypothetical because of
"should".
Another way to say it is "Were you to need any help, you might go to
the front desk and ask for assistance"
In American English, it would be "If you need help, please go to the
front desk and ask for assistance", and it would be called a
"conditional clause" or an "if-clause".
--
Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor.
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet.
Anderew
"CyberCypher" <cyber...@19-16-25-13-01-03.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94F453644...@130.133.1.4...
> lee wrote on 24 May 2004:
>
> >
> > I'm stumped on how to describe this introductory clause...
> >
> > "Should you need any help, go to the front desk and ask for
> > assistance"
> >
> > It's the 'should' and it's use at the beginning of the clause that
> > I'm confused about. I'm not that knowledgable on grammar. I'm
> > pretty sure it's not inversion...is it an introductory adverbial
> > clause?
>
adverbial clause. And actually there is inversion working here too: the
inversion of the subject (you) and the auxiliary (should) is what makes the
clause conditional.
> No, the first word is a modal auxiliary, "shall/should", a verb, so it
> cannot be an adverbial clause.
>
Wrong again, Franke. You sure use a lot of big words like "modal",
"auxiliary", "subjunctive", and "hypothetical"... yet as usual you are
totally ignorant of the basic principles of English grammar. You can't even
identify a simple adverbial clause!
> > OK, I'm stabbing in the dark now. Can anyone offer any
> > wisdom on how I might describe this introductory clause. Thanks.
>
> Try "British-English subjunctive". It's a hypothetical because of
> "should".
>
> Another way to say it is "Were you to need any help, you might go to
> the front desk and ask for assistance"
>
> In American English, it would be "If you need help, please go to the
> front desk and ask for assistance", and it would be called a
> "conditional clause" or an "if-clause".
>
Riiiiight... except that "should you need help" is also American English.
Robert Lieblich
>
> "CyberCypher" <cyber...@19-16-25-13-01-03.com> wrote
[ ... ]
> > In American English, it would be "If you need help, please go to the
> > front desk and ask for assistance", and it would be called a
> > "conditional clause" or an "if-clause".
> >
> Riiiiight... except that "should you need help" is also American English.
It's American English, all right, but formal to the point of
stiltedness.
The simplest way to put this in American English is "If you need
help, ask at the front desk."
--
Bob Lieblich
Still American
CyberCypher
> "CyberCypher" <cyber...@19-16-25-13-01-03.com> wrote
>> >
>> > I'm stumped on how to describe this introductory clause...
>> >
>> > "Should you need any help, go to the front desk and ask for
>> > assistance"
>> >
>> > It's the 'should' and it's use at the beginning of the clause
>> > that I'm confused about. I'm not that knowledgable on grammar.
>> > I'm pretty sure it's not inversion...is it an introductory
>> > adverbial clause?
>>
> Yes, it is. Specifically, it's a conditional clause, which is a
> type of adverbial clause.
Well, it seems that you are terminologically right for once:
"Conditional clauses
"Direct and indirect condition"
(Quirk et al., 15.33, p. 1094)
"Inversion may also occur in a somewhat literary style with
subjunctive'were' and tentative 'should'". But "should" is used in BrE
where AmE would use "were".
(Ibid., 15.36, p 1094)
> And actually there is inversion working
> here too: the inversion of the subject (you) and the auxiliary
> (should) is what makes the clause conditional.
>
>> No, the first word is a modal auxiliary, "shall/should", a verb,
>> so it cannot be an adverbial clause.
>>
> Wrong again, Franke. You sure use a lot of big words like "modal",
> "auxiliary", "subjunctive", and "hypothetical"...
And I use them correctly.
> yet as usual you are totally ignorant of the basic
> principles of English grammar.
A gross overgeneralization, but it apparently satisfies your need to
distinguish yourself in public, so be my guest.
> You can't even identify a simple adverbial clause!
I have to plead guilty to a modification of this gross generalization:
"You could not identify the clause in question as an adverbial clause".
>> > OK, I'm stabbing in the dark now. Can anyone offer any
>> > wisdom on how I might describe this introductory clause.
>> > Thanks.
>>
>> Try "British-English subjunctive". It's a hypothetical because of
>> "should".
>>
>> Another way to say it is "Were you to need any help, you might go
>> to the front desk and ask for assistance"
>>
>> In American English, it would be "If you need help, please go to
>> the front desk and ask for assistance", and it would be called a
>> "conditional clause" or an "if-clause".
>>
> Riiiiight... except that "should you need help" is also American
> English.
But not likely to be found anywhere but an American literary society or
Mensa facility.
Dylan Nicholson
Granted, most examples aren't at the beginning of the sentence, as is the
case here, but I'm not sure that marks it as a different mode of expression.
And yes, "if you need help" is far more common, but again, regardless of
region.
Dylan
Anderew
> >> No, the first word is a modal auxiliary, "shall/should", a verb,
> >> so it cannot be an adverbial clause.
> >>
> > Wrong again, Franke. You sure use a lot of big words like "modal",
> > "auxiliary", "subjunctive", and "hypothetical"...
>
> And I use them correctly.
>
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
If you did use them correctly it was only by accident, since you obviously
didn't understand what you were saying. You have NO right to use such a
technical vocabulary if you don't even know what an adverbial clause is. Yet
you asserted your mistaken conclusion so authoritatively! Now you're
struggling hard to save face by quoting Quirk and trying to appear
confident. You haven't learned a thing! You know a lot less than you think,
Franke--but it would cost you a great deal to admit it.
> > yet as usual you are totally ignorant of the basic
> > principles of English grammar.
>
> A gross overgeneralization, but it apparently satisfies your need to
> distinguish yourself in public, so be my guest.
>
> > You can't even identify a simple adverbial clause!
>
> I have to plead guilty to a modification of this gross generalization:
> "You could not identify the clause in question as an adverbial clause".
>
I think you owe the OP an apology.
CyberCypher
> "CyberCypher" <cyber...@19-16-25-13-01-03.com> wrote
>> Anderew wrote on 24 May 2004:
>>>
>> > Riiiiight... except that "should you need help" is also
>> > American English.
>>
>> But not likely to be found anywhere but an American literary
>> society or Mensa facility.
>>
> Seems to be pretty common on the web, with no obvious regional
> bias. Granted, most examples aren't at the beginning of the
> sentence, as is the case here, but I'm not sure that marks it as a
> different mode of expression. And yes, "if you need help" is far
> more common, but again, regardless of region.
Quirk et al call it literary and I agree. It's not run-of-the-mill AmE
and would occur much less frequently than "If you need help" or "If you
should need help" in AmE. In a place with a sign for the public, I
suspect that most people would use something like "Ask for help at the
front desk" or "Go to the front desk for help" or "If you need help. go
to the front desk". For anyone who has read a great deal of literature,
"Should you need help" is normal English", but it's still more BrE than
AmE, and when it is AmE, it sounds a bit pretentious.
rewboss
news:hqCsc.72701$vf7....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
No, I think you owe Franke an apology, not to mention the rest of us who
download your posts only to discover that they contain nothing but personal
insults.
Franke made a mistake. You pointed it out to him (which is fine) but also
used the opportunity to launch a direct attack on him. Franke admitted his
error, but apparently that's not good enough for you, and you now launch yet
another personal attack. Not very impressive behaviour. And any reply along
the lines of "he started it" will result in the total loss of any respect I
have for you, not that you care.
Mike Lyle
> Dylan Nicholson wrote on 24 May 2004:
>
> > "CyberCypher" <cyber...@19-16-25-13-01-03.com> wrote
> >> Anderew wrote on 24 May 2004:
> >>>
> >> > Riiiiight... except that "should you need help" is also
> >> > American English.
> >>
> >> But not likely to be found anywhere but an American literary
> >> society or Mensa facility.
> >>
> > Seems to be pretty common on the web, with no obvious regional
>
> Quirk et al call it literary and I agree. It's not run-of-the-mill AmE
> and would occur much less frequently than "If you need help" or "If you
> should need help" in AmE. In a place with a sign for the public, I
> suspect that most people would use something like "Ask for help at the
> front desk" or "Go to the front desk for help" or "If you need help. go
> to the front desk". For anyone who has read a great deal of literature,
> "Should you need help" is normal English", but it's still more BrE than
> AmE, and when it is AmE, it sounds a bit pretentious.
Cf. 'had he needed help...'. A shade high-flown in BrE, but not
exclusively literary. Not the first time I've questioned Quirk; and,
had I not long ago got rid of his books, it would probably not be the
last.
I don't really like the characterizing of conditional clauses as
adverbial, either. Perhaps it's a matter of taste.
Mike.
Anderew
"Mike Lyle" <mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3fa4d950.04052...@posting.google.com...
> I don't really like the characterizing of conditional clauses as
> adverbial, either. Perhaps it's a matter of taste.
>
They function as adverbs.
Donna Richoux
I may have told this story another time that "should/if" was discussed,
but I'll tell it again. When I was in the last year of elementary school
in California (so this would have been 1966), the vice-principal from
the nearby junior high came to speak to all of us sixth-graders, to let
us know what to expect of junior high life. She had a somewhat pompous
way of talking, she may have been from the East Coast, and she was not
young. At one point she said, speaking very slowly and deliberately,
"Should -- you -- forget -- your -- lunch..." and there was enough time
there for a boy to call out, "No!"
The vice-principal then finished her sentence, "then go to the main
office" or whatever the policy was.
To me, the fact that her "should" was misunderstood and that I noticed
this happening, is an illustration that it was not the usual way to
begin conditional sentences at that time. Yet it is was common enough to
be used.
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
CyberCypher
[...]
Come back when you grow up.
Anderew
[...]
God, it's funny watching you try to save face. You still haven't apologized
to the OP.
CyberCypher
Quirk et al. didn't say "exclusively literary" but "a somewhat literary
style". I use "had he needed help" in formal writing, especially when I
need to do all I can to cut word count.
> I don't really like the characterizing of conditional clauses as
> adverbial, either. Perhaps it's a matter of taste.
We already know that the grammatical terminology for English is based
primarily on the grammatical terminology of Latin and is, therefore,
less that satisfactory. Perhaps one of these decades a really ambitious
team of descriptive linguists will be sufficiently funded to produce an
all-round acceptable and accurate analysis. I haven't got a copy of the
now only newish Pullum and Huddleston _Cambridge Grammar of English_,
but after reading chapters 1 and 2, I'm not convinced that it's any
better. I'll have to ask my department to buy a copy so that I can look
at it up close and personal.
CyberCypher
Yes, but, as you say, it is "a somewhat pompous way of talking".
Pomposity and pretention are fraternal twins at least.
CyberCypher
> [...]
>
> God, it's funny watching you try to save face. You still haven't
> apologized to the OP.
I don't think I need to apologize to the OP. But I will make you a
deal. If you aplogize to the rest of AUE for being such a puerile
asshole, I will apologize to the OP. Fair enough?
Anderew
> Anderew wrote on 25 May 2004:
> > "CyberCypher" wrote in message
> > [...]
> >
> > God, it's funny watching you try to save face. You still haven't
> > apologized to the OP.
>
> I don't think I need to apologize to the OP. But I will make you a
You gave him bad advice out of ignorance, and you don't think he deserves an
apology?
> deal. If you aplogize to the rest of AUE for being such a puerile
I am the one who answered his question correctly, I am the one who actually
contributed to the group. You did nothing but harm the group by spreading
misinformation out of ignorance.
Anderew
>
> We already know that the grammatical terminology for English is based
> primarily on the grammatical terminology of Latin and is, therefore,
> less that satisfactory.
Yes, that is the shibboleth... but can you think of any examples besides the
split infinitive? Didn't think so. The truth is, English grammar has very
little Latin influence. In this case it is completely irrelevant: adverbial
clauses are called adverbial clauses because they have the same function as
an adverb. If an adverbial clause could be replaced by a single word, that
word would be an adverb.
rewboss
Ye gods, Anderew. Cyber admitted he was wrong and retracted his statement,
what more do you want? You're behaving like a troll (and a troll that
seriously needs practice). I don't care what your problem with Franke is,
but if you must have a tantrum, do it somewhere else.
Mike Lyle
That's one interpretation, and I don't happen to be convinced of its
necessity. As I say, perhaps it's a matter of taste.
CyberCypher
>
> "CyberCypher" <cyber...@19-16-25-13-01-03.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns94F5615BF...@130.133.1.4...
>
>>
>> We already know that the grammatical terminology for English is
>> based primarily on the grammatical terminology of Latin and is,
>> therefore, less that satisfactory.
>
> Yes, that is the shibboleth... but can you think of any examples
> besides the split infinitive?
Didn't you read Dylan's latest post? We don't have split infinitives in
English, and, I've read, that there are no split infinitives in Latin
because infinitives are all single words in Latin: "It is worth noting
that it is impossible to split an infinitive in Latin, since the Latin
infinitive is a single word."
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Split_infinitive
I don't remember my Latin well enough to know about that, though. and
there is a self-proclaimed expert on Latin on the Web who claims that
most Latin verbs have 6 infinitives, at least three of which are two
words:
[quote}
Most verbs have six infinitives:
1. Present Active
2. Present Passive
3. Perfect Active
4. Perfect Passive
5. Future Active
6. Future Passive (rare)
First Conjugation
(Present Active) amare (love)
(Pres. Passive) amari
(Perf. Act.) amavisse
(Perf. Pass.) amatus esse
(Fut. Act.) amaturus esse
(Fut. Pass.) amatum iri
[/quote]
http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/latin/qt/latininfinitive.htm
> Didn't think so. The truth is, English grammar has very little
> Latin influence.
Just to reassure you that your knowledge of grammatical terminology and
the facts of English grammar is flawless, I point out the following
etymology from W3NID:
Main Entry:1adverb
Function:noun
Inflected Form:-s
Etymology:Middle French adverbe, from Latin adverbium (translation of
Greek epirrh*ma, literally, that which is said afterwards), from ad- +
-verbium (from verbum word, verb) * more at EPIRRHEMA, WORD
And to add to that, I direct you to the following Web pages,
which have a few words about the non-existent adverbs of Latin:
http://www.orbilat.com/Languages/Latin/Grammar/Latin-Adverbs.html
http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/latin/p/latinadverbs.htm
and after reading a little about these words, you can tell me again how
little English grammar has been influenced by the *terminology* created
by philologists for Latin grammar. I made a very specific claim. Let's
review it, shall we? Quoting myself from a few lines above
"We already know that the grammatical terminology for English is based
primarily on the grammatical terminology of Latin and is, therefore,
less tha[n] satisfactory."
Notice that the 6th and 7th words of my sentence are "grammatical
terminology", and the claim made in the sentence is that the
*terminology* used for English grammar is mostly derived from the
terminology used for Latin grammar, *not* that Latin grammar has had
any influence on English grammar, the straw-man argument you are trying
to saddle me with. Please be precise and not deceptive when you make
claims about what other people have said. Eithe3r you do not understand
the difference between my claim and your inaccurate (false) paraphrase
of my claim, or you are a deliberate misrepresenter. Or else you made
an error of interpretation --- a difficult one to justify, though.
[quote from the ancienthistory.about.com site]
Adverbs as Particles: Adverbs, prepostions, conjunctions, and
interjections are called particles. Adverbs in Latin, as in English,
modify other words in the sentence, especially verbs. Adverbs also
modify adjectives and other adverbs. In English, the ending "-ly,"
added to an adjective, makes it easy to identify many adverbs: He
walked slowly - where slowly modifies the word walked, and where slow
is the adjective.
Regular Formations of Adverbs from Adjectives:
In Latin, some adverbs are formed by adding an ending to an adjective.
For first and second declension adjectives, a long -e replaces the
ending. Instead of the adjective carus, -a, -um (dear), the adverb is
care.
To adjectives from the third declension, ter is added. From the
adjective fortis (brave), the adverb form is fortiter.
The neuter accusative of some adjectives is also the adverb. Multum
(many) becomes multum (much) as an adverb.
The formation of other adverbs is more complicated.
Some Adverbs of Time:
quando? when?
cum when
tum then
mox presently
iam already
dum while
iam pridem long ago
primum first
deinde next after
postremo finally
postquam as soon as
numquam never
saepe often
cotidie every day
nondum not yet
crebro frequently
pridie the day before
semper always
umqam ever
denique at last
Adverbs of Place:
hic here
huc hither
hinc from here
ibi there
eo thither, to there
illic there
quo whither
unde whence
ubi where
undique from everywhere
ibidem in the same place
eodem to the same place
quovis anywhere
usque all the way to
intro inwardly
nusquam nowhere
porro further on
citro to this side
Adverbs of Manner, Degree, or Cause:
quam how, as
tam so
quamvis however much
magis more
paene almost
valde greatly
cur why
quare why
ergo therefore
propterea because, on this account
ita so
sic so
ut as, how
vix hardly
Interrogative Particles:
whether: an, -ne, utrum, utrumne, num
whether not nonne, annon
whether at all numquid, ecquid
Negative Particles:
not non, haud, minime, ne, nec
lest ne
nor neque, nec
not only ... but also non modo ... verum/sed etiam
not only not ... but not even non modo ... sed ne ... quidem
not even ne ... quidem
if not si minus
so as not quo minus, quominus
why not? quin
Comparison of Adverbs: To form the comparative of an adverb (e.g.
slower instead of slowly), take the neuter accusative of the adjectival
form. There are also irregular comparative forms. The superlative is
formed from the superlative of the adjective, ending in -e.
Source: Allen and Greenough's New Latin Grammar
> In this case it is completely irrelevant: adverbial
> clauses are called adverbial clauses because they have the same
> function as an adverb. If an adverbial clause could be replaced
> by a single word, that word would be an adverb.
Okay, Anderew. You are so anxious to demonstrate your grammatical
expertise and claim the mantle of Master Grammarian that I'll give you
the chance to demonstrate your brilliance. Please describe in **your
own** 25 words or less *the* function of an adverb and in another 25
words or less *the* function of an adverbial clause of condition,
either tentative (should-clause) or subjunctive (were-clause).
And then you can apologize to the group for being a puerile asshole and
a fraud to boot.
Colonel Edmund J. Burke
Colonel Edmund J. Burke
(Decorated American War Hero and Philosoher) wrote:
What we have here is another typically faggot Englishman having a
typically English tantrum. The curious thing about this whole mess is
that the French were accused of being homos.
Furthermore, if you cornholes had constructive activities with which
to occupy your days, you could all get off your fat rears. But
instead you all spend your time arguing with one another, to no end.
We shall change the name to alt.pompass.ass.
Thank you.
Mike Lyle
[...]
> Furthermore, if you cornholes had constructive activities with which
> to occupy your days, you could all get off your fat rears. But
> instead you all spend your time arguing with one another, to no end.
I know, I know: it's _so_ much more constructive to sit around sending
insults to about twenty different newsgroups in the present month
alone.
Mike.
Robert Lieblich
>
> "CyberCypher" <cyber...@19-16-25-13-01-03.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns94F5615BF...@130.133.1.4...
>
> > We already know that the grammatical terminology for English is based
> > primarily on the grammatical terminology of Latin and is, therefore,
> > less that satisfactory.
>
> Yes, that is the shibboleth... but can you think of any examples besides the
> split infinitive?
The complex "tense" structure of English, with labels taken from
Latin, when most linguists agree that English has only two actual
tenses -- present and simple past -- marked by their differing
morphologies.
The case system for nouns and pronouns, grafted onto English despite
the lack of any separate forms for nouns but the possessive, and
with a separate nominative and accusative for a very few pronouns --
not to mention that the "wrong" case frequently appears because case
forms carry little if any actual meaning. Have you even seen Eric
Walker carry on at length about dative nouns and pronouns and other
things that have no case markers in English? Another unsatisfactory
attempt to graft the grammatical terminology of Latin onto English.
And then there's the "gerundive."
> Didn't think so. The truth is, English grammar has very
> little Latin influence.
English *syntax* -- the actual structuring of sentences by native
speakers -- has very little Latin influence. English "grammar,"
viewed as the typological analysis of syntactical structures, has a
lot of Latin influence. Or do you mean something different? If so,
what?
> In this case it is completely irrelevant: adverbial
> clauses are called adverbial clauses because they have the same function as
> an adverb. If an adverbial clause could be replaced by a single word, that
> word would be an adverb.
I'll leave this one to Franke, who seems to have already taken a big
bite out of it.
God, Andrew, you're ill-mannered.
--
Bob Lieblich
Getting a bit grumpy himself
Dr Robin Bignall
My ISP seems to have had SMTP server problems (again), so my post in which
I misspelled his name as 'berk' (just to practise my rhyming slang) seems
to have got lost. Pity.
--
wrmst rgrds
Robin Bignall
Hertfordshire
England
CyberCypher
> Anderew wrote:
>> "CyberCypher" wrote
Thank you for pointing out all these borrowings, Bob. You have
contributed a great deal to the Franke Knowledge Fund (hereinafter
"FKF"). I will send you a certified receipt along with an IRS-certified
verification of my non-profit status so that you can deduct this major
contribution from next year's knowledge taxes. And when Ashcroft's
agents corner you and ask about the shadowy Abu Franke Brigade and its
plans for forthcoming deployment of its stockpiles of WMD (that's
"Words of Mis-Description" and *not* what you might have initially
believed it to mean) --- which surely must be hidden in a variable 4th-
dimension wrinkle in the space-time continuum somewhere in the vicinity
of NYC's Port Authority bus terminal --- tell 'em you don't know me, or
that I am merely a wrinkle in cyberspace, or something equally
plausible (clausible?).
>> In this case it is completely irrelevant: adverbial
>> clauses are called adverbial clauses because they have the same
>> function as an adverb. If an adverbial clause could be replaced
>> by a single word, that word would be an adverb.
>
> I'll leave this one to Franke, who seems to have already taken a
> big bite out of it.
>
> God, Andrew, you're ill-mannered.
>
--
AB
> Anderew wrote on 25 May 2004:
>
> >
> > "CyberCypher" <cyber...@19-16-25-13-01-03.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns94F5615BF...@130.133.1.4...
> >
> >>
> >> We already know that the grammatical terminology for English is
> >> based primarily on the grammatical terminology of Latin and is,
> >> therefore, less that satisfactory.
> >
> > Yes, that is the shibboleth... but can you think of any examples
> > besides the split infinitive?
>
> Didn't you read Dylan's latest post? We don't have split infinitives in
> English, and, I've read, that there are no split infinitives in Latin
> because infinitives are all single words in Latin: "It is worth noting
> that it is impossible to split an infinitive in Latin, since the Latin
> infinitive is a single word."
> http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Split_infinitive
>
split infintive"?
>
> > Didn't think so. The truth is, English grammar has very little
> > Latin influence.
>
> Just to reassure you that your knowledge of grammatical terminology and
> the facts of English grammar is flawless, I point out the following
> etymology from W3NID:
>
> Main Entry:1adverb
> Function:noun
> Inflected Form:-s
> Etymology:Middle French adverbe, from Latin adverbium (translation of
> Greek epirrh*ma, literally, that which is said afterwards), from ad- +
> -verbium (from verbum word, verb) * more at EPIRRHEMA, WORD
>
> And to add to that, I direct you to the following Web pages,
> which have a few words about the non-existent adverbs of Latin:
>
> http://www.orbilat.com/Languages/Latin/Grammar/Latin-Adverbs.html
>
> http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/latin/p/latinadverbs.htm
>
> and after reading a little about these words, you can tell me again how
> little English grammar has been influenced by the *terminology* created
> by philologists for Latin grammar. I made a very specific claim. Let's
> review it, shall we? Quoting myself from a few lines above
>
> "We already know that the grammatical terminology for English is based
> primarily on the grammatical terminology of Latin and is, therefore,
> less tha[n] satisfactory."
>
Don't play games, Franke. If you were simply pointing out the obvious
fact that our grammar words are descended from Latin, then I wouldn't
argue with you. That's a matter of simple etymology.
> Notice that the 6th and 7th words of my sentence are "grammatical
> terminology", and the claim made in the sentence is that the
> *terminology* used for English grammar is mostly derived from the
> terminology used for Latin grammar, *not* that Latin grammar has had
> any influence on English grammar,
Sorry, I would have to call bullshit on that one. We all know the
argument you were making; it's been made countless times before; you
were just reiterating it. The argument goes like this: the rules of
Latin grammar were unfairly forced onto English by evil grammarians,
and now English grammar is screwed up because it makes English conform
to Latin rules. Bob Lieblich has provided some evidence for this
argument, which I will respond to shortly.
Now I won't deny that English grammar has been hurt a little bit by
Latin rules: the split infinitive taboo is one example. But I do think
the reports of this effect have been greatly exaggerated. Now it is so
commonplace that people like you, who have little knowledge of
grammar, are crying "Latin!" at every turn.
But let me get back to the point: the designation of conditional
clauses as adverbial has nothing to do with Latin grammar. Honestly, I
don't even think you believed what you said; I think you were just
trying to be nice to Mike Lyle:
>> I don't really like the characterizing of conditional clauses as
>> adverbial, either. Perhaps it's a matter of taste.
> We already know that the grammatical terminology for English is based
AB
>
> The case system for nouns and pronouns, grafted onto English despite
> the lack of any separate forms for nouns but the possessive, and
> with a separate nominative and accusative for a very few pronouns --
> not to mention that the "wrong" case frequently appears because case
> forms carry little if any actual meaning. Have you even seen Eric
> Walker carry on at length about dative nouns and pronouns and other
> things that have no case markers in English? Another unsatisfactory
> attempt to graft the grammatical terminology of Latin onto English.
>
Are you forgetting that English once had all four cases? Maybe the
offender is Old English rather than Latin. (But that kinda takes the
fun out of it, huh?)
CyberCypher
> CyberCypher wrote
>> Anderew wrote on 25 May 2004:
>>
>> > "CyberCypher" <cyber...@19-16-25-13-01-03.com> wrote in
>> > message news:Xns94F5615BF...@130.133.1.4...
>> >
>> >> We already know that the grammatical terminology for English
>> >> is based primarily on the grammatical terminology of Latin and
>> >> is, therefore, less that satisfactory.
>> >
>> > Yes, that is the shibboleth... but can you think of any
>> > examples besides the split infinitive?
>>
>> Didn't you read Dylan's latest post? We don't have split
>> infinitives in English, and, I've read, that there are no split
>> infinitives in Latin because infinitives are all single words in
>> Latin: "It is worth noting that it is impossible to split an
>> infinitive in Latin, since the Latin infinitive is a single
>> word." http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Split_infinitive
>>
> Yes, we all know the story. Did you notice that I said "BESIDES
> the split infintive"?
I noticed, but it meant nothing to me. Do you know if it's possible to
split those three two-word Latin infinitives I posted here? Do you know
that mnuch about Latin? I don't, but you are making the implicit claim
that you are an expert on Latin grammar as well as English grammar. I
know that Prof Lawler is, but are you, Anderew or Andrevv or whatever
your name is? If you want anyone to believe your claim about the non-
effect of Latin grammar on English grammar, then you will have to
demonstrate your expertise and profound knowledge of the grammar of
both languages. Until you can do that, AB, you are strictly talking
through your hat.
And where, pray tell, did you find evidence that I was pointing out
anything but that? Please show me your evidence. I dare you to do that.
>> Notice that the 6th and 7th words of my sentence are "grammatical
>> terminology", and the claim made in the sentence is that the
>> *terminology* used for English grammar is mostly derived from the
>> terminology used for Latin grammar, *not* that Latin grammar has
>> had any influence on English grammar,
>
> Sorry, I would have to call bullshit on that one.
What gives you the right or authority or anything else to "call
bullshit on that one" (whatever "call bullshit on that one" might mean
in idiomatic English)?
> We all know the argument you were making;
I would say that we all do know the argument I was making because it
was very simply stated. I won't repeat it.
> it's been made countless times before; you were just
> reiterating it.
I hope that you can prove this claim. You haven't done too well
demonstrating that you have proof of any other claim you've made so
far.
> The argument goes like this: the
> rules of Latin grammar were unfairly forced onto English by evil
> grammarians, and now English grammar is screwed up because it
> makes English conform to Latin rules.
I don't believe you, AB. I didn't say that. I reiterated no such
argument. I made my own argument. I thanked Bob for stating something
akin to what you say above, but I could not have made that argument
because I either never knew it or I forgot it. Either way, you have
come up with another straw man, so what you have to say is not worth
paying attention to. You are arguing with what you wish I had said.
> Bob Lieblich has provided
> some evidence for this argument, which I will respond to shortly.
>
> Now I won't deny that English grammar has been hurt a little bit
> by Latin rules: the split infinitive taboo is one example. But I
> do think the reports of this effect have been greatly exaggerated.
> Now it is so commonplace that people like you, who have little
> knowledge of grammar, are crying "Latin!" at every turn.
You pretend to know a lot more about me than you actually do. Say, does
that make you "pretentious"? Well, never mind. You are about to
demonstrate how pretentious you really are, and I say that without
having read the rest of your post yet.
> But let me get back to the point: the designation of conditional
> clauses as adverbial has nothing to do with Latin grammar.
Please explain what it has to do with. You talk a lot but say very
little.
> Honestly, I don't even think you believed what you said; I think
> you were just trying to be nice to Mike Lyle:
Me? Be nice to Mike Lyle? Why would I want to do that? He's a friend of
mine, yes, but if Mike makes a gaffe that I recognize, I will call him
on it, just as he will call me on any gaffe I might make.
>>> I don't really like the characterizing of conditional clauses as
>>> adverbial, either. Perhaps it's a matter of taste.
Ah, yes. I see what you are saying. You think that Mike made an error
when he wrote the above sentences. Now, I know he doesn't much care for
Quirk et al., but I'm sure he won't mind if I quote the following from
Quirk et al. [7.46, p. 438]:
"Because of its great heterogenity, the adverb class is the most
nebulous and puzzling of the traditional word classes. Indeed, it is
tempting to say simply that the adverb is an item that does not fit the
definitions for other word classes [by which I understand Quirk et al.
to be saying that the word-class "adverb" is something of a syntactic
garbage can]. As a consequence, some grammarians have removed several
types of items from the class entirely, and established several
additional classes rather than retain these as subsets within a single
adverb class" [by which I understand Quirk et al. to be saying that
"it's a matter of taste", if one can accept that "taste" is a synonym
for "opinion" here].
Now, I did ask you to define "the adverb" in 25 words or less and to
describe "the function of the adverb" in another 25 words or less, but
I haven't seen any evidence that you have finished this assignment. I
don't really have time to read the dozens and dozens and dozens of
pages that Quirk et al. devote to discussing the various shapes and
functions of adverbs, but you seem to have it all down in a nutshell
somewhere inside your pea-brain, so please reveal the truth to all of
us.
>> We already know that the grammatical terminology for English is
>> based primarily on the grammatical terminology of Latin and is,
>> therefore, less that satisfactory.
I think that this statement is a perfectly reasonable and believable
one, and I do believe that what I quoted from Quirk et al. above
demonstrates it is also true. After all, AB, all the word classes we
have in English have the same names as the word classes in Latin. But,
unlike Prof Lawler (I don't really know if he would call himself an
expert on Latin, but whenever he talks about Latin, he sure does seem
to me to know his stuff cold, so I'm making what I believe to be a
justifiable inference here) and other experts on Latin, I cannot tell
you anything about the differences between Latin and English adverbs or
whether the word-class "adverb" in Latin is also a typological garbage
can.
But I am assuming from all your talk about your knowledge of English
grammar and the effect of Latin grammar on English that you can tell us
the truth about these issues. Please, Ab. We are all waiting for your
expert opinions instead of your substanceless attacks.
You have been throwing sticks and stones in a feeble attempt to break
my bones, my boy, but so far the only thing you have done is
demonstrate that I was unable to identify a conditional clause
beginning with "should" as an adverbial clause. It's time for you to
tell me where else I have erred. I don't believe your straw-man
argument above, and I don't believe that you have any idea what you're
talking about when you make all these claims about English and Latin.
I, at least, admit what I don't know, and I usually can prove that I do
know what I say I know. I can provide documentary support for my
arguments, unlike yourself, who seem restricted to the number of
metaphorical db in your ill-mannered prose.
CyberCypher
Is this what you meant about dealing later with what Bob said about
Latin and English? Tell, us, AB, do you also profess to be expert
enough on German grammar to know whether the syntactic analysis of that
language is reasonably based on the realities of German or whether it,
too, was forced into an ill-fitting Latin bed?
What say you, Rey?
Mike Lyle
Actually, his comment is not without interest. But he does seem to
ignore that OE, too, was forced into the Procrustean Latin or Greek
bed when it came to grammatical analysis.
Mike.
CyberCypher
I agree, but in this case, a one-liner is not as good as silence. And
if he had just not added that "Maybe the offender is Old English
rather than Latin", he would have demonstrated a little bit of
knowledge about rhetorical strategy.
> But he does seem to
> ignore that OE, too, was forced into the Procrustean Latin or
> Greek bed when it came to grammatical analysis.
That's why I asked about German, English being a Germanic language
and all and not a Romance language. But my historical knowledge of
these languages is weak at best. I seem to remember --- but it's been
39 years --- that German has 4 cases and lots of case endings, which
is one of the reasons I hated German grammar so much even though I
loved speaking the language whenever I could.
rewboss
news:Xns94F6E8554...@130.133.1.4...
Yep, four cases and three genders, each with its own set of articles; and
endings for adjectives depending on case, gender and article (definite,
indefinite or non-existent). We learned the cases as nominative, accusative,
genitive and dative; German grammarians use the same labels (but in German,
with a capital letter and omitting the final "e"). However, ordinary German
speakers call them "first case", "second case", "third case" and "fourth
case". The difficulty I have with that is that I can't remember which is
which: Germans don't list the cases in the order we learned them.
Russian has six cases (nominative, accusative, genitive, dative,
prepositional and instrumental), plus two or three sub-cases (e.g. the
partitive genitive) and the remains of a vocative case. It has its own words
for them. The accusative case is called "vinitel'ny padezh", and it
literally means "accusative case". The genitive case is "roditel'ny padezh",
from a now obsolete word meaning "father".
Evan Kirshenbaum
> The case system for nouns and pronouns, grafted onto English despite
> the lack of any separate forms for nouns but the possessive,
You can get rid of the "but the possessive". English has a clitic
that attaches to the end of the noun phrase, not the noun. The only
possessive morphology is in the pronouns.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |"Algebra? But that's far too
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |difficult for seven-year-olds!"
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |
|"Yes, but I didn't tell them that
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |and so far they haven't found out,"
(650)857-7572 |said Susan.
CyberCypher
This is just another bit of proof of the importance of the knowledge
of grammatical terminology for understanding how to use a language.
> The difficulty I have with that is that I can't
> remember which is which: Germans don't list the cases in the order
> we learned them.
>
> Russian has six cases (nominative, accusative, genitive, dative,
> prepositional and instrumental), plus two or three sub-cases (e.g.
> the partitive genitive) and the remains of a vocative case. It has
> its own words for them. The accusative case is called "vinitel'ny
> padezh", and it literally means "accusative case". The genitive
> case is "roditel'ny padezh", from a now obsolete word meaning
> "father".
Very interesting stuff. I knew there was a reason that Russian never
attracted me. Now I know what it is.
Robert Lieblich
>
> Robert Lieblich <Robert....@Verizon.net> writes:
>
> > The case system for nouns and pronouns, grafted onto English despite
> > the lack of any separate forms for nouns but the possessive,
>
> You can get rid of the "but the possessive".
Thank you kindly, sir. [separate point:] I almost said "genitive,"
which is probably more accurate when talking about that case.
> English has a clitic
I love it when you talk dirty.
> that attaches to the end of the noun phrase, not the noun. The only
> possessive morphology is in the pronouns.
No, really. Good points. Thanks.
--
Bob Lieblich
Grateful smartass
rban...@shaw.ca
> Robert Lieblich <Robert....@Verizon.net> writes:
>
> > The case system for nouns and pronouns, grafted onto English despite
> > the lack of any separate forms for nouns but the possessive,
>
> You can get rid of the "but the possessive". English has a clitic
> that attaches to the end of the noun phrase, not the noun. The only
> possessive morphology is in the pronouns.
>
Does not the "clitic" indicate a possessive "form" for the noun as
much as for the noun phrase? Can neither "clitic" indicate
"possessive morphology"?
In a word, are you saying Charlie's wrong? He is usually better at
regurgitation!
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote
>> Robert Lieblich <Robert....@Verizon.net> writes:
>>
>> > The case system for nouns and pronouns, grafted onto English
>> > despite the lack of any separate forms for nouns but the
>> > possessive,
>>
>> You can get rid of the "but the possessive". English has a clitic
>> that attaches to the end of the noun phrase, not the noun. The only
>> possessive morphology is in the pronouns.
>>
> The Queen's knickers and the Queen of England's knickers again, eh?
Right. Or, more precisely, "the Queen's knickers of England".
> Does not the "clitic" indicate a possessive "form" for the noun as
> much as for the noun phrase?
It can be argued that it indicates that the noun is genitive, in the
same way that it can be argued that being a direct object indicates
that the noun is accusative. But it doesn't change the "form" of the
noun in any way.
> Can neither "clitic" indicate "possessive morphology"?
"Morphology" pretty much requires change. In exceptional cases, you
can say that "no change" is a type of change, but when no noun
changes, Occam's Razor says that it's not worth invoking. You've got
a word ("'s") that indicates that the noun phrase is genitive. That's
enough.
> In a word, are you saying Charlie's wrong?
I'm not sure which statement I'm supposed to be commenting on.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |If I am ever forced to make a
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |choice between learning and using
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |win32, or leaving the computer
|industry, let me just say it was
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |nice knowing all of you. :-)
(650)857-7572 | Randal Schwartz
Mike Lyle
>
> > The case system for nouns and pronouns, grafted onto English despite
> > the lack of any separate forms for nouns but the possessive,
>
> You can get rid of the "but the possessive". English has a clitic
> that attaches to the end of the noun phrase, not the noun. The only
> possessive morphology is in the pronouns.
I'm sure it's Official, since you use it, but 'clitic' is unpleasant:
we used to have 'enclitic' for Greek, and perhaps there was
'proclitic' too, for the things like 'e-' (but I wasn't a good
student). Liddell and Scott is in a box, so I can't check. Am I being
too old-world about this?
Mike.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> I'm sure it's Official, since you use it, but 'clitic' is
> unpleasant: we used to have 'enclitic' for Greek, and perhaps there
> was 'proclitic' too, for the things like 'e-' (but I wasn't a good
> student). Liddell and Scott is in a box, so I can't check. Am I
> being too old-world about this?
Probably. "Clitic" is apparently a latecomer, being attested by
MWCD11 no earlier than 1946, presumably by linguists who felt that
they needed a term that didn't force them to distinguish between
enclitics (1663) and proclitics (1864). 1946 is sufficiently before
my time, however, that it was just the standard term when I was taking
classes.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Never ascribe to malice that which
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |can adequately be explained by
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |stupidity.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
rban...@shaw.ca
> rban...@shaw.ca writes:
>
> > Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote
> >> Robert Lieblich <Robert....@Verizon.net> writes:
> >>
> >> > The case system for nouns and pronouns, grafted onto English
> >> > despite the lack of any separate forms for nouns but the
> >> > possessive,
> >>
> >> You can get rid of the "but the possessive". English has a clitic
> >> that attaches to the end of the noun phrase, not the noun. The only
> >> possessive morphology is in the pronouns.
> >>
> > The Queen's knickers and the Queen of England's knickers again, eh?
>
> Right. Or, more precisely, "the Queen's knickers of England".
>
Hohoho.
> > Does not the "clitic" indicate a possessive "form" for the noun as
> > much as for the noun phrase?
>
> It can be argued that it indicates that the noun is genitive, in the
> same way that it can be argued that being a direct object indicates
> that the noun is accusative. But it doesn't change the "form" of the
> noun in any way.
Surely, having agreed here that for this purpose
'possessive'='genitive' and that the marker which alerts us to what,
for convenience we must here call the genitive "case", must be called
a 'clitic' by you (and by me an 'apostrophe "s"') then why cannot we
accept that English has a "separate form" for nouns as well as for
noun phrases?
>
> > Can neither "clitic" indicate "possessive morphology"?
>
> "Morphology" pretty much requires change. In exceptional cases, you
> can say that "no change" is a type of change, but when no noun
> changes, Occam's Razor says that it's not worth invoking. You've got
> a word ("'s") that indicates that the noun phrase is genitive. That's
> enough.
Well, exactly! And it is the same form which we use for the noun
alone, and both are demonstrably different in shape from the raw
"nominative".
>
> > In a word, are you saying Charlie's wrong?
>
> I'm not sure which statement I'm supposed to be commenting on.
I do not think it matters; I believe you have said enough to show he
was right.
Mike Lyle
> mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Lyle) writes:
>
> > I'm sure it's Official, since you use it, but 'clitic' is
> > unpleasant: we used to have 'enclitic' for Greek, and perhaps there
> > was 'proclitic' too, for the things like 'e-' (but I wasn't a good
> > student). Liddell and Scott is in a box, so I can't check. Am I
> > being too old-world about this?
>
> Probably. "Clitic" is apparently a latecomer, being attested by
> MWCD11 no earlier than 1946, presumably by linguists who felt that
> they needed a term that didn't force them to distinguish between
> enclitics (1663) and proclitics (1864). 1946 is sufficiently before
> my time, however, that it was just the standard term when I was taking
> classes.
>
merely musing. Just we have 'affix' to embrace both 'prefix' and
'suffix', I think I might have formed 'acclitic' if I'd been asked
(though since I was three at the time, perhaps I wouldn't have). Latin
does have 'acclino' in literal and tropical senses, though _Lewis and
Short_ says it's not pre-Augustan; and 'encliticus' as a direct
borrowing from Greek. 'Clino' is very weaskly represented. Alice's
father and Scott are still boxed.
Mike.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote
>> rban...@shaw.ca writes:
>>
>> > Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote
>> > Does not the "clitic" indicate a possessive "form" for the noun as
>> > much as for the noun phrase?
>>
>> It can be argued that it indicates that the noun is genitive, in
>> the same way that it can be argued that being a direct object
>> indicates that the noun is accusative. But it doesn't change the
>> "form" of the noun in any way.
>
> Surely, having agreed here that for this purpose
> 'possessive'='genitive' and that the marker which alerts us to what,
> for convenience we must here call the genitive "case", must be called
> a 'clitic' by you (and by me an 'apostrophe "s"') then why cannot we
> accept that English has a "separate form" for nouns as well as for
> noun phrases?
Because then we'd have to accept that "Queen" in "The Queen of
England" is a "separate form" from "Queen" in "The Queen of
England's". Or else that the separate form is "'Queen'...followed
somewhat later by <'s>".
>> > Can neither "clitic" indicate "possessive morphology"?
>>
>> "Morphology" pretty much requires change. In exceptional cases,
>> you can say that "no change" is a type of change, but when no noun
>> changes, Occam's Razor says that it's not worth invoking. You've
>> got a word ("'s") that indicates that the noun phrase is genitive.
>> That's enough.
>
> Well, exactly! And it is the same form which we use for the noun
> alone, and both are demonstrably different in shape from the raw
> "nominative".
I don't follow you here. This sounds much like arguing that there's a
separate instrumental form for "Queen" formed by putting "with" in
front of a noun phrase it heads. It's much more straightforward to
treat "'s" as a syntactic postposition.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |I like giving talks to industry,
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |because one of the things that I've
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |found is that you really can't
|learn anything at the Harvard
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |Business School.
(650)857-7572 | Clayton Christensen
| Harvard Business School
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
rb1
> rban...@shaw.ca writes:
>
> > Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote
> >> rban...@shaw.ca writes:
> >>
> >> > Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote
> >> > Does not the "clitic" indicate a possessive "form" for the noun as
> >> > much as for the noun phrase?
> >>
> >> It can be argued that it indicates that the noun is genitive, in
> >> the same way that it can be argued that being a direct object
> >> indicates that the noun is accusative. But it doesn't change the
> >> "form" of the noun in any way.
> >
> > Surely, having agreed here that for this purpose
> > 'possessive'='genitive' and that the marker which alerts us to what,
> > for convenience we must here call the genitive "case", must be called
> > a 'clitic' by you (and by me an 'apostrophe "s"') then why cannot we
> > accept that English has a "separate form" for nouns as well as for
> > noun phrases?
>
> Because then we'd have to accept that "Queen" in "The Queen of
> England" is a "separate form" from "Queen" in "The Queen of
> England's". Or else that the separate form is "'Queen'...followed
> somewhat later by <'s>".
>
mean the same thing as the "Queen of England's present husband" it seems to
me, simple soul that I am, that we are in the dimension of angels dancing on
the heads of pins, especially since "the English Queen's present husband"
also means the same thing, given that there is only one at a time.
> >> > Can neither "clitic" indicate "possessive morphology"?
> >>
> >> "Morphology" pretty much requires change. In exceptional cases,
> >> you can say that "no change" is a type of change, but when no noun
> >> changes, Occam's Razor says that it's not worth invoking. You've
> >> got a word ("'s") that indicates that the noun phrase is genitive.
> >> That's enough.
> >
> > Well, exactly! And it is the same form which we use for the noun
> > alone, and both are demonstrably different in shape from the raw
> > "nominative".
>
> I don't follow you here. This sounds much like arguing that there's a
> separate instrumental form for "Queen" formed by putting "with" in
> front of a noun phrase it heads. It's much more straightforward to
> treat "'s" as a syntactic postposition.
But I do not deny that simplicity is a virtue; I deny that marking a noun
with an "'s" (or in certain cases just an "s" prevents one from saying that
English nouns do not have a possessive form.
>
Evan Kirshenbaum
> But I do not deny that simplicity is a virtue; I deny that marking a
> noun with an "'s" (or in certain cases just an "s" prevents one from
> saying that English nouns do not have a possessive form.
Back when that was what you were doing, it had a possessive form.
That was back when you couldn't say "The man in the street's opinion"
or "The man I spoke to's name". Calling "queen's" a possessive form
of "queen" is like calling "of England" a possessive form of
"England".
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The Elizabethans had so many words
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |for the female genitals that it is
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |quite hard to speak a sentence of
|modern English without inadvertently
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |mentioning at least three of them.
(650)857-7572 | Terry Pratchett
R J Valentine
} "rb1" <rban...@shaw.ca> writes:
}
}> But I do not deny that simplicity is a virtue; I deny that marking a
}> noun with an "'s" (or in certain cases just an "s" prevents one from
}> saying that English nouns do not have a possessive form.
}
} Back when that was what you were doing, it had a possessive form.
} That was back when you couldn't say "The man in the street's opinion"
} or "The man I spoke to's name". Calling "queen's" a possessive form
} of "queen" is like calling "of England" a possessive form of
} "England".
A whole lot like. Did they beat that one out of you in linguist school?
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@smart.net>
Gene Wirchenko
>rban...@shaw.ca writes:
>
>> Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote
>>> Robert Lieblich <Robert....@Verizon.net> writes:
>>>
>>> > The case system for nouns and pronouns, grafted onto English
>>> > despite the lack of any separate forms for nouns but the
>>> > possessive,
>>>
>>> You can get rid of the "but the possessive". English has a clitic
>>> that attaches to the end of the noun phrase, not the noun. The only
>>> possessive morphology is in the pronouns.
>>>
>> The Queen's knickers and the Queen of England's knickers again, eh?
>
>Right. Or, more precisely, "the Queen's knickers of England".
And if she bought some from, say, Italy, then we have
the Queen's Italian knickers of England
[snip]
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.
Gene Wirchenko
[snip]
>Since one may write "England's Queen's present husband" and be understood to
>mean the same thing as the "Queen of England's present husband" it seems to
>me, simple soul that I am, that we are in the dimension of angels dancing on
>the heads of pins, especially since "the English Queen's present husband"
>also means the same thing, given that there is only one at a time.
A queen who is English but is queen of another country would also
be an English queen.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>
> } "rb1" <rban...@shaw.ca> writes:
> }
> }> But I do not deny that simplicity is a virtue; I deny that
> }> marking a noun with an "'s" (or in certain cases just an "s"
> }> prevents one from saying that English nouns do not have a
> }> possessive form.
> }
> } Back when that was what you were doing, it had a possessive form.
> } That was back when you couldn't say "The man in the street's
> } opinion" or "The man I spoke to's name". Calling "queen's" a
> } possessive form of "queen" is like calling "of England" a
> } possessive form of "England".
>
> A whole lot like. Did they beat that one out of you in linguist
> school?
I don't follow. Are you implying that "of England" is a possessive
*form* of the word "England" in the same way that, say, "my" is a
possessive form of "I" or "queens" is a plural form of "queen"? No
beating was required to get us to consider "of England" a
prepositional phrase rather than a form of a noun.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |You gotta know when to code,
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | Know when to log out,
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |Know when to single step,
| Know when you're through.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |You don't write your program
(650)857-7572 | When you're sittin' at the term'nal.
|There'll be time enough for writin'
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | When you're in the queue.
Areff
> R J Valentine <r...@smart.net> writes:
>
>>
>> A whole lot like. Did they beat that one out of you in linguist
>> school?
>
> I don't follow. Are you implying that "of England" is a possessive
> *form* of the word "England" in the same way that, say, "my" is a
> possessive form of "I" or "queens" is a plural form of "queen"? No
> beating was required to get us to consider "of England" a
> prepositional phrase rather than a form of a noun.
Kirsh, isn't, at some point, the distinction between the two an arbitrary
one? Why not consider "of England", the spoken phrase (let's ignore the
written language), a single word, /@ 'vIN gl@nd/ or whatever, the
possessive form of the word /IN gl@nd/? Perhaps that's what Arjay is
getting at.
It's like that chicken and egg thing that you were recently discussing.
You have all these generationally intermediate birds between
"definitely not a chicken" and "definitely a chicken". A language can
evolve in such a way that what was once a prepositional phrase can become
a sort of inflected form of a noun. Who are we to say that we aren't
somewhere between the non-chicken and the chicken?
--
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>> R J Valentine <r...@smart.net> writes:
>>
>>>
>>> A whole lot like. Did they beat that one out of you in linguist
>>> school?
>>
>> I don't follow. Are you implying that "of England" is a possessive
>> *form* of the word "England" in the same way that, say, "my" is a
>> possessive form of "I" or "queens" is a plural form of "queen"? No
>> beating was required to get us to consider "of England" a
>> prepositional phrase rather than a form of a noun.
>
> Kirsh, isn't, at some point, the distinction between the two an
> arbitrary one? Why not consider "of England", the spoken phrase
> (let's ignore the written language), a single word, /@ 'vIN gl@nd/
> or whatever, the possessive form of the word /IN gl@nd/?
The problem is that you then have to decide what to make of "of Merry
Old England". If you can stick arbitrary words in between the parts,
what's going on looks like syntax, not morphology. The alternative
would seem to be to say that it's an affix if it happens to come
immediately before the word it governs and it's a preposition if there
happen to be any words in between, which is a pretty arbitrary
distinction.
> Perhaps that's what Arjay is getting at.
>
> It's like that chicken and egg thing that you were recently discussing.
> You have all these generationally intermediate birds between
> "definitely not a chicken" and "definitely a chicken". A language can
> evolve in such a way that what was once a prepositional phrase can become
> a sort of inflected form of a noun.
True. The "a-" affix for verbs appears to have formed this way. And
an affix can turn into a preposition or postposition, which is what
appears to have happened with "'s".
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Whatever it is that the government
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |does, sensible Americans would prefer
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |that the government do it to somebody
|else.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | P.J. O'Rourke
(650)857-7572
rban...@shaw.ca
> "rb1" <rban...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >Since one may write "England's Queen's present husband" and be understood to
> >mean the same thing as the "Queen of England's present husband" it seems to
> >me, simple soul that I am, that we are in the dimension of angels dancing on
> >the heads of pins, especially since "the English Queen's present husband"
> >also means the same thing, given that there is only one at a time.
>
> A queen who is English but is queen of another country would also
> be an English queen.
>
articles all over the place sort of complicated things and attempted
to get off the head of the pin--where I was beginning to feel
uncomfortable to the point of vertigo.
That does not alter my conviction that English nouns have a possessive
form and that rhe survivors of WW2 managed to create an incredible
legion of jargonists.
Carmen L. Abruzzi
England" is the possessive form of "England", then surely "in England"
is the locative form of "England"; "with England" is the comitative
form; "by England" is both the instrumental and the allative forms, but
not both at the same time ("nearby England" is another allative form, so
perhaps we need to number them); "over England" is the superlative form,
"from England" is the ablative form; "under England" is the sublative
form, "around England" is the circumlative form, "through England" is
the perlative form; and on and on and on...
Evan Kirshenbaum
> But then why would we limit this analysis to "of" forms? If "of
> England" is the possessive form of "England", then surely "in
> England" is the locative form of "England"; "with England" is the
> comitative form; "by England" is both the instrumental and the
> allative forms, but not both at the same time ("nearby England" is
> another allative form, so perhaps we need to number them); "over
> England" is the superlative form, "from England" is the ablative
> form; "under England" is the sublative form, "around England" is the
> circumlative form, "through England" is the perlative form; and on
> and on and on...
How I envy the Finns, with their paltry fifteen cases.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |When you're ready to break a rule,
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |you _know_ that you're ready; you
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |don't need anyone else to tell
|you. (If you're not that certain,
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |then you're _not_ ready.)
(650)857-7572 | Tom Phoenix
Peter Moylan
> A queen who is English but is queen of another country would also
>be an English queen.
In the most recent example of this kind, an Australian woman had to
give up her Australian citizenship in order to join a royal family
elsewhere. As far as I know, that's the norm.
Or do they still refer to Phil the Greek up your way?
--
Peter Moylan peter at ee dot newcastle dot edu dot au
http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au (OS/2 and eCS information and software)
Peter Moylan
>Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>
>>rban...@shaw.ca writes:
>>
>>> Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote
>>> The Queen's knickers and the Queen of England's knickers again, eh?
>>Right. Or, more precisely, "the Queen's knickers of England".
> And if she bought some from, say, Italy, then we have
> the Queen's Italian knickers of England
Give the poor woman some privacy. Whether or not she has a clitic
in her knickers is none of our business.