Neither he nor I am going
mm
I know that with "or" the subject closest to the verb determines the
number of the verb, but is that true with "nor" also? I presume so.
The bigger question, is that true with the person of the verb too?
--
Posters should say where they live, and for which area
they are asking questions. I have lived in
Western Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis 7 years
Chicago 6 years
Brooklyn, NY 12 years
Baltimore 28 years
Stephen
> Neither he nor I am going to second-guess the ref's ruling.
>
>
> I know that with "or" the subject closest to the verb determines the
> number of the verb, but is that true with "nor" also? I presume so.
>
> The bigger question, is that true with the person of the verb too?
My natural instinct is to change "is" to "are" in the above.
Analysis is not much help, since rearranging the sentence gives
"Neither of us is going to second-guess..."
in which "are" sounds wrong.
And we can't say
Neither he nor I is going to second-guess..."
My suggestion would be to recast the sentence.
"Neither he nor I will second-guess..."
--
Stephen
Ballina, NSW
Eric Walker
> Neither he nor I am going to second-guess the ref's ruling.
>
> I know that with "or" the subject closest to the verb determines the
> number of the verb, but is that true with "nor" also? I presume so.
What you "know" is not quite so. The best rule in such cases is to
recast the sentence, not fall between two stools.
> The bigger question, is that true with the person of the verb too?
The sample sentence is just asking more of the English language than it
is capable of. It, too, needs wholesale recasting. Since the referent
for 'he" must already be obvious to the reader or listener, one might use:
Neither of us is going to second-guess the ref's ruling.
If the context does not suffice to clearly define the components of "us",
a different and fuller recasting is wanted. ("Neither" is elliptical for
"neither one".)
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
mm
<em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 06 Apr 2011 23:27:43 -0400, mm wrote:
>
>> Neither he nor I am going to second-guess the ref's ruling.
>>
>> I know that with "or" the subject closest to the verb determines the
>> number of the verb, but is that true with "nor" also? I presume so.
>
>What you "know" is not quite so. The best rule in such cases is to
>recast the sentence, not fall between two stools.
Recasting is a big step in place of something which is just not quite
so.
>> The bigger question, is that true with the person of the verb too?
>
>The sample sentence is just asking more of the English language than it
>is capable of. It, too, needs wholesale recasting.
I hate recadsting.
> Since the referent
>for 'he" must already be obvious to the reader or listener, one might use:
>
> Neither of us is going to second-guess the ref's ruling.
That doesn't have quite the same connotation and wouldn't have made
the point I wanted to make.
>
>If the context does not suffice to clearly define the components of "us",
>a different and fuller recasting is wanted. ("Neither" is elliptical for
>"neither one".)
--
Dominic Bojarski
You presume wrong. Neither verb is correct, because the construction
is impossible in standard English (it's also hideously ugly). The
correct form would be: "He isn't going to second-guess the ref's
ruling, and neither am I".
Dominic
Marius Hancu
> On 7/04/2011 1:27 PM, mm wrote:
>
> > Neither he nor I am going to second-guess the ref's ruling.
>
> > I know that with "or" the subject closest to the verb determines the
> > number of the verb, but is that true with "nor" also? I presume so.
>
> > The bigger question, is that true with the person of the verb too?
>
> My natural instinct is to change "is" to "are" in the above.
This is what the majority does, according to this book:
---
Traditional English grammar and beyond
Norman Francis Blake - 1988 - 155 pages - Snippet view
But this sentence feels awkward to most speakers of the language, and
colloquially it would almost certainly appear as "Neither he nor I are
going." In writing the awkwardness is best avoided by rewriting.
http://tinyurl.com/3z3fae3
----
GB confirms somehow their assertion:
"Neither he nor I are"
About 678 results
"Neither he nor I am"
About 271 results
This other book however goes for the original "am":
---
The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation: An Easy-to-Use Guide with
Clear ...
By Jane Straus
http://tinyurl.com/3ghzxby
p. 80, solution at p. 121
---
as do:
---
Elementary English composition:
designed for use in the highest grammar grade and the lower high
school grades
Tuley Francis Huntington
http://tinyurl.com/44cvnuq
---
---
A study of English for upper primary grades: Volume 2
John William Jones - 1915 - Snippet view
When Pronouns of different Persons connected by "or" or "nor" are used
as the Subject, the Verb takes the form to agree with the one next to
it. "Neither he nor I am going."
http://tinyurl.com/3l3nb5x
---
---
Barron's ACT 36: Aiming for the Perfect Score - Page 27
Anne Summers, Krista L. McDaniel, Alexander Spare - 2009 - 308 pages -
Preview
Neither he nor I are waiting for someone to ask us to the dance; we
are going to ask someone ourselves.
[Correction to "am" at item 4 on the same page (27)]
http://tinyurl.com/3d993fe
-----
This grammar offers the best solution IMO:
"Neither is he going, nor am I"
---
An unconventional English grammar - Page 162
F. A. White - 1883 - Full view
Thus, " Neither he nor I are satisfied," though a violation of the Law
of Ellipsis, is colloquially admissible ; but strict grammar requires,
" Neither is he satisfied nor am I ;
http://tinyurl.com/3dp3f8v
---
Anyway, an inexhaustible subject for 200 years:-)
Marius Hancu
Marius Hancu
>
> > Neither he nor I am going to second-guess the ref's ruling.
>
> > I know that with "or" the subject closest to the verb determines the
> > number of the verb, but is that true with "nor" also? I presume so.
>
> > The bigger question, is that true with the person of the verb too?
>
> My natural instinct is to change "is" to "are" in the above.
BTW, this respected modern resource doesn't recommend that:
---
neither ... nor
This construction takes a singular verb when the alternatives are
singular or when the 2nd alternative is singular
Garner, Modern American Usage, 2003
p. 546
---
and, I, for one, would take its recommendation.
Marius Hancu
Peter Moylan
>
> ---
> A study of English for upper primary grades: Volume 2
> John William Jones - 1915 - Snippet view
>
> When Pronouns of different Persons connected by "or" or "nor" are used
> as the Subject, the Verb takes the form to agree with the one next to
> it. "Neither he nor I am going."
> http://tinyurl.com/3l3nb5x
I can imagine that being taught to learners, but it's not something a
native speaker would say.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Leslie Danks
> Marius Hancu wrote:
>>
>> ---
>> A study of English for upper primary grades: Volume 2
>> John William Jones - 1915 - Snippet view
>>
>> When Pronouns of different Persons connected by "or" or "nor" are used
>> as the Subject, the Verb takes the form to agree with the one next to
>> it. "Neither he nor I am going."
>> http://tinyurl.com/3l3nb5x
>
> I can imagine that being taught to learners, but it's not something a
> native speaker would say.
Indeed. One solution would be "Neither he nor I will go" (apologies if
someone has already suggested this).
--
Les
(BrE)
Marius Hancu
I agree with your solution (and I supported something similar in the
above), however Garner, Modern American Usage, staunchly defends the
"am":
----
Moreover, the verb should precisely match the form mandated by the
second of the alternatives. E.g.:
"_Neither_ Barton _nor_ I _am_ saying that equities aren't a great
long-term place to be," Fortune 1997.
Of course, there are several possible variations, among them these:
Neither you nor I _am_ right.
Neither she nor I _am_ right.
Garner, Modern American Usage, 2003
p. 546
---
and Garner is a reference of great recognition here in North America,
definitely not something "for learners." And he's definitely a native
speaker:-)
Marius Hancu
Garrett Wollman
Dominic Bojarski <dominic...@gmail.com> wrote:
>You presume wrong. Neither verb is correct, because the construction
>is impossible in standard English (it's also hideously ugly). The
>correct form would be: "He isn't going to second-guess the ref's
>ruling, and neither am I".
Utter nonsense!
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Jerry Friedman
> On Apr 7, 12:36 am, Stephen <calder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 7/04/2011 1:27 PM, mm wrote:
>
> > > Neither he nor I am going to second-guess the ref's ruling.
>
> > > I know that with "or" the subject closest to the verb determines the
> > > number of the verb, but is that true with "nor" also? I presume so.
>
> > > The bigger question, is that true with the person of the verb too?
>
> > My natural instinct is to change "is" to "are" in the above.
>
> This is what the majority does, according to this book:
> ---
> Traditional English grammar and beyond
> Norman Francis Blake - 1988 - 155 pages - Snippet view
>
> But this sentence feels awkward to most speakers of the language, and
> colloquially it would almost certainly appear as "Neither he nor I are
> ----
>
> GB confirms somehow their assertion:
>
> "Neither he nor I are"
> About 678 results
>
> "Neither he nor I am"
> About 271 results
"Neither he nor I is"
About 184 results
A lot of those are from grammar books discussing the construction.
If I committed myself to this form, I'd probably end up with "is", the
minority possibility. But I agree with Eric Walker, Leslie Danks, and
Dominic Bojarski: Start over. "Neither of us is going to..."
"Neither he nor I will..." "He is not going to... and neither am I."
--
Jerry Friedman
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Marius Hancu wrote:
>>
>> ---
>> A study of English for upper primary grades: Volume 2
>> John William Jones - 1915 - Snippet view
>>
>> When Pronouns of different Persons connected by "or" or "nor" are used
>> as the Subject, the Verb takes the form to agree with the one next to
>> it. "Neither he nor I am going."
>> http://tinyurl.com/3l3nb5x
>
> I can imagine that being taught to learners, but it's not something a
> native speaker would say.
I'm not so sure. "Am" was actually my first reflex on hearing the
question, though on further reflection I think I'd be more likely to
go with "are".
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |Marge: You liked Rashomon.
SF Bay Area (1982-) |Homer: That's not how *I* remember
Chicago (1964-1982) | it.
Mike Lyle
wrote:
>Neither he nor I am going to second-guess the ref's ruling.
>
>
>I know that with "or" the subject closest to the verb determines the
>number of the verb, but is that true with "nor" also? I presume so.
>
>The bigger question, is that true with the person of the verb too?
For me, the bigger question is what "second-guess" means. It always
seem to me to refer to a /first/ guess. (I may have asked before and
forgotten the answer, as it's bothered me for years: if so, my apols,
but please tell me again.)
--
Mike.
Bertel Lund Hansen
> For me, the bigger question is what "second-guess" means.
The "second" part has to do with having an oppinion about
something that some person has already judged/ruled/thought
of/whatever.
> It always seem to me to refer to a /first/ guess.
It's a bit like a second oppinion. For (example) the doctor being
asked it's of course his first oppinion, but it's the second in
the case.
--
Bertel, Denmark
Glenn Knickerbocker
> I'm not so sure. "Am" was actually my first reflex
It's certainly my first impulse, but probably only because Mrs. Petty
was so insistent on it. Most of the time, I'd use another wording to
avoid making the choice.
ŹR
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
The OED defines it. I suspect that it is used with other meanings.
second-guess, v.
colloq. (orig. and chiefly N. Amer.).
1. trans. To anticipate the action of (a person), to out-guess; to
predict or foresee (an event), to apprehend (simultaneously or
beforehand) by guess-work.
1941 Broadcasting 22 Dec. 11/2 Do not try to second-guess or
master-mind our military officials. Leave this for established
military analysts and experts, who are experienced enough to await
the facts before drawing conclusions.
....
2. To subject (a person or his action, esp. a decision) to criticism
after the result of the action is known; to judge, question, or
reconsider by hindsight. Also refl. and absol. or intr.
1946 [see second-guessing n. at Derivatives].
1950 Sun (Baltimore) 27 Jan. 2/8 Second-guessing the conduct of
Pacific war, Admiral Frederick C. Sherman points..to a whole series
of lost chances.
....
I can't cite anything but I have a feeling that I've met the phrase used
in the context of imputing a different reason or motivation to the
person being second-guessed.
As in:
"He appears to be doing X for the reason he has given, but I think his
actual reason is different".
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Stephen
The prescriptivists of old -- such as Jones -- were trying to press the
language into moulds it would not fit, giving the kind of ugly
correctness displayed in White's advice.
--
Stephen
Ballina, NSW
Stephen
I would take Garner's advice in formal or written situations -- but
surely there are better ways to put this if the writer has time to think
about it.
Colloquially, people don't do the analysis and just say what's natural,
which is in many cases not what the grammarians would say is accepted usage.
Is the "neither" really necessary?
You're wrong, and so am I (is she).
If "neither" must be kept:
You're not (she's not) right, and neither am I.
--
Stephen
Ballina, NSW
Cora Fuchs
Right. He isn't going, and neither am I.
Cora Fuchs
(Garrett Wollman) wrote:
>In article <289b3a81-9caa-4134...@w36g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
>Dominic Bojarski <dominic...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>You presume wrong. Neither verb is correct, because the construction
>>is impossible in standard English (it's also hideously ugly). The
>>correct form would be: "He isn't going to second-guess the ref's
>>ruling, and neither am I".
>
>Utter nonsense!
>
>-GAWollman
I wouldn't go so far as to say that the original is "impossible," but
Dominic's version is certainly the one I hear and say, myself.
Robert Bannister
My first thought was to try it out in another language. With German, I
feel happy with a plural verb, but I'm not so sure about French.
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
I suppose "neither" really calls for the dual form. Unfortunately, we
seem to have scrapped that a very long time ago.
--
Robert Bannister
Lanarcam
Mike Lyle
I'm afraid I'm none the wiser. The expression remains a mystery to me.
But thanks.
--
Mike.
mm
What's the dual form? Maybe I can bring it back!
mm
<inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>Marius Hancu wrote:
>>
>> ---
>> A study of English for upper primary grades: Volume 2
>> John William Jones - 1915 - Snippet view
>>
>> When Pronouns of different Persons connected by "or" or "nor" are used
>> as the Subject, the Verb takes the form to agree with the one next to
>> it. "Neither he nor I am going."
>> http://tinyurl.com/3l3nb5x
Thank you. This is right on point.
>
>I can imagine that being taught to learners, but it's not something a
>native speaker would say.
It was probably taught to me in public school, probably more than
once, with nothing but native speakers. But the example I was given
was only about number. Or maybe it did include person and that's why
it sounded okay to me.
The one that still sounds funny is "It is I who am hosting the party".
Does anyone object to that?
R H Draney
>
>On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 09:15:09 +0800, Robert Bannister
><rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>
>>I suppose "neither" really calls for the dual form. Unfortunately, we
>>seem to have scrapped that a very long time ago.
>
>What's the dual form? Maybe I can bring it back!
It's in the attic with the ashes and thorns....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
mm
<evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Peter Moylan <inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> writes:
>
>> Marius Hancu wrote:
>>>
>>> ---
>>> A study of English for upper primary grades: Volume 2
>>> John William Jones - 1915 - Snippet view
>>>
>>> When Pronouns of different Persons connected by "or" or "nor" are used
>>> as the Subject, the Verb takes the form to agree with the one next to
>>> it. "Neither he nor I am going."
>>> http://tinyurl.com/3l3nb5x
>>
>> I can imagine that being taught to learners, but it's not something a
>> native speaker would say.
>
>I'm not so sure. "Am" was actually my first reflex on hearing the
>question, though on further reflection I think I'd be more likely to
>go with "are".
Are! and you're not the only one to say it. But both pronouns are
singulare and neither takes "are".
Neither Bob nor Jim is going to to second-guess the ref.
mm
<No...@bestweb.net> wrote:
>On 04/07/2011 04:35 PM, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>> I'm not so sure. "Am" was actually my first reflex
>
>It's certainly my first impulse, but probably only because Mrs. Petty
Who is Mrs. Petty? I'd like to meet her.
>was so insistent on it. Most of the time, I'd use another wording to
>avoid making the choice.
>
>¬R
Stephen
> On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 00:03:25 +1000, Peter Moylan
> <inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Marius Hancu wrote:
>>>
>>> ---
>>> A study of English for upper primary grades: Volume 2
>>> John William Jones - 1915 - Snippet view
>>>
>>> When Pronouns of different Persons connected by "or" or "nor" are used
>>> as the Subject, the Verb takes the form to agree with the one next to
>>> it. "Neither he nor I am going."
>>> http://tinyurl.com/3l3nb5x
>
> Thank you. This is right on point.
>>
>> I can imagine that being taught to learners, but it's not something a
>> native speaker would say.
>
> It was probably taught to me in public school, probably more than
> once, with nothing but native speakers. But the example I was given
> was only about number. Or maybe it did include person and that's why
> it sounded okay to me.
>
> The one that still sounds funny is "It is I who am hosting the party".
>
> Does anyone object to that?
Yes of course, it's silly. Hypercorrect.
--
Stephen
Ballina, NSW
Stephen
Joke of the week. You wynn.
--
Stephen
Ballina, NSW
Robert Bannister
>
> The one that still sounds funny is "It is I who am hosting the party".
>
> Does anyone object to that?
I hate it. If I think my listener won't like "It's me" then I switch to
"I'm the one who is...".
--
Robert Bannister
mm
"Neither he nor I am going " was objected to on the grounds it was
incorrect. Do either of you think "It is I who am hosting the party"
is incorrect. Stephen thinks it's hypercorrect, so I guess he doesn't
think it's incorrect.
What about in a place where formal English is required? Maybe it's not
a party but a seminar or experiment that is going to happen?
Skitt
> Robert Bannister wrote:
>> mm wrote:
>>> The one that still sounds funny is "It is I who am hosting the party".
>>>
>>> Does anyone object to that?
>>
>> I hate it. If I think my listener won't like "It's me" then I switch to
>> "I'm the one who is...".
>
> "Neither he nor I am going " was objected to on the grounds it was
> incorrect. Do either of you think "It is I who am hosting the party"
> is incorrect. Stephen thinks it's hypercorrect, so I guess he doesn't
> think it's incorrect.
Hypercorrect = incorrect
> What about in a place where formal English is required? Maybe it's not
> a party but a seminar or experiment that is going to happen?
It is not incorrect, just very stilted and probably something no one
would ever say. A much simpler "I am the one who is hosting the party"
is what I would say or write.
--
Skitt (SF Bay Area)
http://come.to/skitt
Evan Kirshenbaum
> On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 13:35:47 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
> <evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Peter Moylan <inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> Marius Hancu wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> A study of English for upper primary grades: Volume 2
>>>> John William Jones - 1915 - Snippet view
>>>>
>>>> When Pronouns of different Persons connected by "or" or "nor" are
>>>> used as the Subject, the Verb takes the form to agree with the
>>>> one next to it. "Neither he nor I am going."
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/3l3nb5x
>>>
>>> I can imagine that being taught to learners, but it's not
>>> something a native speaker would say.
>>
>>I'm not so sure. "Am" was actually my first reflex on hearing the
>>question, though on further reflection I think I'd be more likely to
>>go with "are".
>
> Are! and you're not the only one to say it. But both pronouns are
> singulare and neither takes "are".
Yeah. Funny language, isn't it?
> Neither Bob nor Jim is going to to second-guess the ref.
That one could go either way, too, but I suspect that I'd be more
likely to go with "are" there as well.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |You may hate gravity, but gravity
SF Bay Area (1982-) |doesn't care.
Chicago (1964-1982) | Clayton Christensen
mm
Okay, but that was just the first sentence that came to mind which
used the phrase "who am". There are other sentences that people
wouldn't think are stilted, so would they they object to sentences
just because they used "I who am"?
You guys are know more English than I do. Do you have some other
senetnces that use "...I who am...." or perchance "myself who am"?
Stephen
> On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 18:17:48 -0700, Skitt<ski...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> mm wrote:
>>> Robert Bannister wrote:
>>>> mm wrote:
>>
>>>>> The one that still sounds funny is "It is I who am hosting the party".
>>>>>
>>>>> Does anyone object to that?
>>>>
>>>> I hate it. If I think my listener won't like "It's me" then I switch to
>>>> "I'm the one who is...".
>>>
>>> "Neither he nor I am going " was objected to on the grounds it was
>>> incorrect. Do either of you think "It is I who am hosting the party"
>>> is incorrect. Stephen thinks it's hypercorrect, so I guess he doesn't
>>> think it's incorrect.
>>
>> Hypercorrect = incorrect
I may have overstated he case. Yes, it's strictly correct, but in such a
pedantic, school-ma'am way that it demands recasting to avoid prissiness.
>>
>>> What about in a place where formal English is required? Maybe it's not
>>> a party but a seminar or experiment that is going to happen?
>>
>> It is not incorrect, just very stilted and probably something no one
>> would ever say. A much simpler "I am the one who is hosting the party"
>> is what I would say or write.
>
> Okay, but that was just the first sentence that came to mind which
> used the phrase "who am". There are other sentences that people
> wouldn't think are stilted, so would they they object to sentences
> just because they used "I who am"?
>
> You guys are know more English than I do. Do you have some other
> senetnces that use "...I who am...." or perchance "myself who am"?
>
I, I who having nothing
I, I who am no-one
Adore you
Sounds okay when Shirley sings it.
Yes, there may be other occasions when "I who am" might be used. But
most of us would rephrase.
--
Stephen
Ballina, NSW
Eric Walker
> On 9/04/2011 8:12 AM, mm wrote:
>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 00:03:25 +1000, Peter Moylan
>> <inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
[...]
>> The one that still sounds funny is "It is I who am hosting the party".
>>
>> Does anyone object to that?
>
> Yes of course, it's silly. Hypercorrect.
Rubbish.
--
Eric Walker
Eric Walker
[...]
> It is not incorrect, just very stilted and probably something no one
> would ever say. A much simpler "I am the one who is hosting the party"
> is what I would say or write.
In a letter or other written expression, that is certainly so. But often
in lively conversation a speaker will start a sentence then realize mid-
stream that he has only two ways of finishing it: incorrectly or hyper-
correctly. Or the sentence can be abandoned and started anew, but that
also is not a savory choice.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
mm
>mm wrote:
>> Robert Bannister wrote:
>>> mm wrote:
>
>>>> The one that still sounds funny is "It is I who am hosting the party".
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone object to that?
>>>
>>> I hate it. If I think my listener won't like "It's me" then I switch to
>>> "I'm the one who is...".
>>
>> "Neither he nor I am going " was objected to on the grounds it was
>> incorrect. Do either of you think "It is I who am hosting the party"
>> is incorrect. Stephen thinks it's hypercorrect, so I guess he doesn't
>> think it's incorrect.
>
>Hypercorrect = incorrect
I thought hypocorrect was incorrect, and hypercorrect was even better
than correct.
>
>> What about in a place where formal English is required? Maybe it's not
>> a party but a seminar or experiment that is going to happen?
>
>It is not incorrect, just very stilted and probably something no one
>would ever say. A much simpler "I am the one who is hosting the party"
>is what I would say or write.
--
R H Draney
>
>In a letter or other written expression, that is certainly so. But often
>in lively conversation a speaker will start a sentence then realize mid-
>stream that he has only two ways of finishing it: incorrectly or hyper-
>correctly. Or the sentence can be abandoned and started anew, but that
>also is not a savory choice.
"If I was a sculptor, but then again no."
- Bernie Terrapin
Stephen
I'll take that as a comment on one of my previous replies.
Actually, you're right. It's not strict;y true but an example of hyberbole.
Seriously, do you know anyone who could say "It is I who am hosting the
party" and make it sound natural and unpretentious? You can't say it's
wrong, but it's very stuffy.
--
Stephen
Ballina, NSW
Eric Walker
[...]
> Seriously, do you know anyone who could say "It is I who am hosting the
> party" and make it sound natural and unpretentious? You can't say it's
> wrong, but it's very stuffy.
First, that depends in part on who is speaking to whom. I cannot offer
authority, but I suspect no one in the Algonquin circle would have batted
a lash at it. "Stuffy", like a lot of other adjectives thrown at
grammatically correct sentences, derives chiefly from what one is
accustomed to rather than what is felicitous. Even that favorite
descriptive bugaboo "It is I" is only "odd" because not commonly heard
(as opposed to the correct yet unexceptionable "I am").
Second, as I mentioned elsethread, in lively conversation, even the most
fluent speaker will occasionally start a sentence that he or she only
realizes mid-stream, so to speak, can only end one of three ways: by
being abandoned midway and re-started; by being ended incorrectly (as to
grammar); or by being ended correctly if infelicitously. Given a choice,
I for one would opt for the correct version.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
James Hogg
Listeners who don't like "It's me" might prefer "I am the one who am..."
--
James
James Hogg
> On Sat, 09 Apr 2011 08:10:41 +0800, Robert Bannister
> <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/04/11 6:12 AM, mm wrote:
>>
>>> The one that still sounds funny is "It is I who am hosting the party".
>>>
>>> Does anyone object to that?
>> I hate it. If I think my listener won't like "It's me" then I switch to
>> "I'm the one who is...".
>
> "Neither he nor I am going " was objected to on the grounds it was
> incorrect. Do either of you think "It is I who am hosting the party"
> is incorrect. Stephen thinks it's hypercorrect, so I guess he doesn't
> think it's incorrect.
>
> What about in a place where formal English is required? Maybe it's not
> a party but a seminar or experiment that is going to happen?
I just searched for the phrase "Neither he nor I am" at Google Books.
Interestingly, the first few pages of hits were all from books
discussing the grammar of this construction. It took a while before I
came to actual examples of use, mostly from the 19th century, e.g. in a
translation of "Don Quixote": "neither he nor I am worthy".
And there's a grammar of French from 1837 with this quotation that might
interest Athel:
"Ni lui ni moi ne sommes coupables, Neither he nor I am guilty."
--
James
James Hogg
The same applies to "me who am". At Google Books you will find examples,
mostly from old religious literature, such as:
"I am arguing on your behalf, to prevent you from sinning against God by
condemning me who am his gift to you."
At the other end of the scale, we have this wonderful comment posted on
the website of a crap poet by an admirer:
"You are a most wonderful writer, and an definite inspiration to I, who
is a mere short novelist and poet."
--
James
Jerry Friedman
Si por algo me llevaran preso te estaría adorando desde mi prisión
En mi celda escribiré tu nombre con la misma sangre de mi corazón
Si la muerte me la dieras tú
Con desprecio de tu corazón
Si la muerte me la dan tus brazos no habría prisionero mas feliz que
yo.
Literal-ish translation:
If they took me prisoner for something, I would be adoring you from my
prison.
In my cell I will write your name with the very blood of my heart.
If you gave me death
With scorn of your heart,
If your arms give me death, there will be no prisoner happier than I.
It's too much work to try to figure out who wrote that.
--
Jerry Friedman
CDB
YouTube: "escribiría tu nombre" and "no habrá prisionero". Mexican
pop got bongos!
>>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6m1z4LB9Og4&feature=related
Evan Kirshenbaum
> On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 18:17:48 -0700, Skitt <ski...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>mm wrote:
>>> Robert Bannister wrote:
>>>> mm wrote:
>>
>>>>> The one that still sounds funny is "It is I who am hosting the
>>>>> party".
>>>>>
>>>>> Does anyone object to that?
>>>>
>>>> I hate it. If I think my listener won't like "It's me" then I
>>>> switch to "I'm the one who is...".
>>>
>>> "Neither he nor I am going " was objected to on the grounds it was
>>> incorrect. Do either of you think "It is I who am hosting the
>>> party" is incorrect. Stephen thinks it's hypercorrect, so I guess
>>> he doesn't think it's incorrect.
>>
>>Hypercorrect = incorrect
>
> I thought hypocorrect was incorrect, and hypercorrect was even
> better than correct.
No, a hypercorrection is a change made due to a mistaken believe that
a correct form doesn't follow some rule that it's supposed to.
According to MWUD:
an alteration of a speech habit on the basis of a false analogy
(as when _between you and I_ is used by one who is substituting
_it is I_ for _it is me_ or when ['fIN@(r)] is used for _finger_
by one who is attempting to rid himself of pronunciations like
['sINg@(r)] for _singer_)
Their sense two for "hypercorrect" is "of, characterized by, or
constitutiong hypercorrection". So it's incorrect, due to an
unnecessary attempt to correct.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |Sometimes I think the surest sign
SF Bay Area (1982-) |that intelligent life exists
Chicago (1964-1982) |elsewhere in the universe is that
|none of it has tried to contact us.
evan.kir...@gmail.com | Calvin
Skitt
Or "I am the one who is ...".
mm
Even if it were stuffy and pretentious, I am usually so far to the
other end, that I could benefit from some stuff and pretention to
balance out my image.
mm
wrote:
This is good. Thank you.
I've been living in the 1950's for a while. I think I will find it
pleasing in the 1830's. And if I can't write Don Quixote, at least
I can imitate its translator.
And thanks to everyone.
Mike Lyle
I notice, on my favourite TV programme, /Time Team/, that the
excellent and well-educated Tony Robinson always says "Me and Xxx.."
If I thought it came naturally, I wouldn't really mind much, but I
just can't escape the thought that he's doing it on purpose to show
he's right down 'ere wiv fickoes like what I are, innit...you know,
the typical /Time Team/ demographic. As I frequently moan to anybody
who'll listen, taking care not to patronise people is annoyingly
patronising.
--
Mike.
Skitt
I wonder about the permanently uninflected "you and I" phenomenon. What
causes it? Is it really just ignorance, or is there something else in play?
The same question applies to the forming of the past participle of some
verbs by using the simple past form, as in "we had went to the store".
I rarely hear the correct form anymore.
Is our language usage actually changing, or is it just the spoken word
drifting ever further away from edited prose?
mm
<mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sat, 09 Apr 2011 09:25:16 -0700, Skitt <ski...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>James Hogg wrote:
>>> Robert Bannister wrote:
>>>> On 9/04/11 6:12 AM, mm wrote:
>>
>>>>> The one that still sounds funny is "It is I who am hosting the party".
>>>>>
>>>>> Does anyone object to that?
>>>>
>>>> I hate it. If I think my listener won't like "It's me" then I switch to
>>>> "I'm the one who is...".
>>>
>>> Listeners who don't like "It's me" might prefer "I am the one who am..."
>>>
>>
>>Or "I am the one who is ...".
>
>I notice, on my favourite TV programme, /Time Team/, that the
>excellent and well-educated Tony Robinson always says "Me and Xxx.."
AIUI, "me" only comes first when it preceded Bobby McGee.
>If I thought it came naturally, I wouldn't really mind much, but I
>just can't escape the thought that he's doing it on purpose to show
>he's right down 'ere wiv fickoes like what I are, innit...you know,
Fickoes?
>the typical /Time Team/ demographic. As I frequently moan to anybody
>who'll listen, taking care not to patronise people is annoyingly
>patronising.
--
Robin Bignall
When it occurs naturally, part of it must be due to a lack of education
that appears to have become almost a dialect, maybe because many young
people don't want to sound different from their peers. Different equals
elitist, and we can't have that.
But when people such as Tony Blair* adopt glottal stops to sound like
one of the boys, one has to wonder who is fooling whom. Do 'the boys'
have to sound as though they are deliberately ignorant?
* Educated at Fettes, a public school (in American terms, read 'private
and expensive'.)
--
Robin Bignall
(BrE)
Herts, England
James Hogg
Here's some edited prose from 1698:
http://books.google.com/books?id=9r8sAAAAYAAJ
Go to page 83 for "After he had went through the whole course of his
studies."
The verb "go" is an anomaly. Even in Old English it didn't have its own
past tense form. They used a completely different verb, "eode", for the
past tense. In the 15th century people stopped saying "yode" and instead
used the past tense of a completely different verb, "wend". I suppose
there were people back then who said "I rarely hear the correct form
'yode' any more."
It's hardly surprising that people started using "went" not only for the
past tense but for the perfect tense as well. Since then, the two forms
"have gone" and "have went" have existed side by side, but only one of
them became accepted as "correct". It could easily have gone the other way.
--
James
James Hogg
> On 9/04/2011 8:14 AM, R H Draney wrote:
>> mm filted:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 09:15:09 +0800, Robert Bannister
>>> <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I suppose "neither" really calls for the dual form. Unfortunately, we
>>>> seem to have scrapped that a very long time ago.
>>>
>>> What's the dual form? Maybe I can bring it back!
>>
>> It's in the attic with the ashes and thorns....r
>>
>>
>
>
> Joke of the week. You wynn.
Would a little yoghurt?
--
James
Jerry Friedman
> Stephen wrote:
> > On 9/04/2011 8:14 AM, R H Draney wrote:
> >> mm filted:
>
> >>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 09:15:09 +0800, Robert Bannister
>
> >>>> I suppose "neither" really calls for the dual form. Unfortunately, we
> >>>> seem to have scrapped that a very long time ago.
>
> >>> What's the dual form? Maybe I can bring it back!
>
> >> It's in the attic with the ashes and thorns....r
>
> > Joke of the week. You wynn.
>
> Would a little yoghurt?
Ethel doesn't think so.
--
Jerry Friedman
Jerry Friedman
> On Sat, 09 Apr 2011 21:46:07 +0100, Mike Lyle
...
> >I notice, on my favourite TV programme, /Time Team/, that the
> >excellent and well-educated Tony Robinson always says "Me and Xxx.."
>
> AIUI, "me" only comes first when it preceded Bobby McGee.
>
> >If I thought it came naturally, I wouldn't really mind much, but I
> >just can't escape the thought that he's doing it on purpose to show
> >he's right down 'ere wiv fickoes like what I are, innit...you know,
>
> Fickoes?
...
The way free-fourfs of English people pronounce "thickoes". (Invented
statistic.)
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
>Here's some edited prose from 1698:
>http://books.google.com/books?id=9r8sAAAAYAAJ
>
>Go to page 83 for "After he had went through the whole course of his
>studies."
>
>The verb "go" is an anomaly. Even in Old English it didn't have its own
>past tense form. They used a completely different verb, "eode", for the
>past tense. In the 15th century people stopped saying "yode" and instead
>used the past tense of a completely different verb, "wend". I suppose
>there were people back then who said "I rarely hear the correct form
>'yode' any more."
>
>It's hardly surprising that people started using "went" not only for the
>past tense but for the perfect tense as well. Since then, the two forms
>"have gone" and "have went" have existed side by side, but only one of
>them became accepted as "correct". It could easily have gone the other way.
Or "It could easily have went the other way".
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Skitt
Well, it seems to be going the other way, and not only for the verb "go".
Skitt
Right, but is this going to be a permanent thing or only a passing fad
of the educationally deficient?
musika
Mike Lyle <mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk> typed:
>
> I notice, on my favourite TV programme, /Time Team/, that the
> excellent and well-educated Tony Robinson always says "Me and Xxx.."
> If I thought it came naturally, I wouldn't really mind much, but I
> just can't escape the thought that he's doing it on purpose to show
> he's right down 'ere wiv fickoes like what I are, innit...you know,
> the typical /Time Team/ demographic. As I frequently moan to anybody
> who'll listen, taking care not to patronise people is annoyingly
> patronising.
Perhaps he got it from Baldrick and forgot to give it back.
--
Ray
UK
musika
Jerry Friedman <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> typed:
cf Firty fousan' feavers on a frushes froa'.
--
Ray
UK
Jerry Friedman
This site credits it to Felipe Valdés Leal:
http://music.aol.com/song/pastor-lopez/prisionero-de-tus-brazos/2785058
> There is what may be a corrected version on
> YouTube: "escribir a tu nombre" and "no habr prisionero".
Which makes my translation "will be no prisoner" correct
retroactively.
> Mexican pop got bongos!
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6m1z4LB9Og4&feature=related
Just to try another way of getting the accented characters in there:
Si por algo me llevaran preso te estaría adorando desde mi prisión
En mi celda escribiría tu nombre con la misma sangre de mi corazón
Si la muerte me la dieras tú
Con desprecio de tu corazón
Si la muerte me la dan tus brazos no habrá prisionero más feliz que
yo.
--
Jerry Friedman
Stephen
"Stuffy" to me is old-fashioned, old-school grammar espoused by those so
enthusiastic for correctness that they run to their books to check that
everything they said was shipshape.
Meanwhile, the language remains vigorously in favour of "It's me", to
the point where "It is I" is, as you say, not commonly heard.
--
Stephen
Ballina, NSW
Stephen
It took me about three seconds. Ah, yes, 30,000 feathers on a thrush's
throat.
--
Stephen
Ballina, NSW
Robert Bannister
> On Sat, 09 Apr 2011 08:10:41 +0800, Robert Bannister
> <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/04/11 6:12 AM, mm wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The one that still sounds funny is "It is I who am hosting the party".
>>>
>>> Does anyone object to that?
>>
>> I hate it. If I think my listener won't like "It's me" then I switch to
>> "I'm the one who is...".
>
> incorrect. Do either of you think "It is I who am hosting the party"
> is incorrect. Stephen thinks it's hypercorrect, so I guess he doesn't
> think it's incorrect.
Not incorrect in the sense that it does not offend against any rules of
grammar written a century ago. Incorrect in the sense that it jars the
ear of any present day speaker of English. The kindest thing I can say
about it is that it is old-fashioned and remind you that this form was
already dying out in the 19th century.
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
If it had been "have wended", I wouldn't even complain.
--
Robert Bannister
Peter Moylan
> On Sat, 09 Apr 2011 21:46:07 +0100, Mike Lyle
> <mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I notice, on my favourite TV programme, /Time Team/, that the
>> excellent and well-educated Tony Robinson always says "Me and Xxx.."
>
> AIUI, "me" only comes first when it preceded Bobby McGee.
Or you and a dog named Blue.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
R H Draney
>
>mm wrote:
>> On Sat, 09 Apr 2011 21:46:07 +0100, Mike Lyle
>> <mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> I notice, on my favourite TV programme, /Time Team/, that the
>>> excellent and well-educated Tony Robinson always says "Me and Xxx.."
>>
>> AIUI, "me" only comes first when it preceded Bobby McGee.
>
>Or you and a dog named Blue.
"Me" precedes Mrs Jones according to Billy Paul, but follows *Mr* Jones
according to Counting Crows....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
Jerry Friedman
Chivalry is dead.
--
Jerry Friedman
Eric Walker
[...]
> "Stuffy" to me is old-fashioned, old-school grammar espoused by those so
> enthusiastic for correctness that they run to their books to check that
> everything they said was shipshape.
>
> Meanwhile, the language remains vigorously in favour of "It's me", to
> the point where "It is I" is, as you say, not commonly heard.
I'd have a care with phrases like "the language". "The language" is not
a sentient entity, and is thus unable to be in favor of or opposed to
anything: only those who use it can be. And those who use it are about
as far as can be from a monolith. There remain good numbers of
intelligent, knowledgeable users of English to whom "It's me" is
anathema. It may be "commonly heard", but so are many other undoubted
vulgarisms. Soundness of English has never (save latterly to the Merriam
company) been a matter of sheer nose counts.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Eric Walker
[...]
> Right, but is this going to be a permanent thing or only a passing fad
> of the educationally deficient?
Red alert! Red alert! You mean "the scholastically disadvantaged."
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Peter Moylan
Ideally we should be able to distinguish between those who had no access
to a good education, and those who had the access but wasted it.
Perhaps it's not politically acceptable to make the distinction, but
it's clear that they are separate cases.
Both of my parents were scholastically disadvantaged. They lived in
towns that didn't have high schools, so they never got past grade 8.
They weren't educationally deficient, though, because they found ways to
compensate for their lack of schooling. My mother read a lot. My
father found a job with an organisation that did in-house training of
technicians. They *acted* educated.
I've seen other people who have had been to very good schools, but are
still basically uneducated.
Skitt
> Skitt wrote:
> [...]
>
>> Right, but is this going to be a permanent thing or only a passing fad
>> of the educationally deficient?
>
> Red alert! Red alert! You mean "the scholastically disadvantaged."
Hmm. <thinks> Naah, I think my term might be more applicable. It
refers to the result, not the circumstances of things.
Mike Lyle
wrote:
>
>The verb "go" is an anomaly. Even in Old English it didn't have its own
>past tense form. They used a completely different verb, "eode", for the
>past tense. In the 15th century people stopped saying "yode" and instead
>used the past tense of a completely different verb, "wend". I suppose
>there were people back then who said "I rarely hear the correct form
>'yode' any more."
>
>It's hardly surprising that people started using "went" not only for the
>past tense but for the perfect tense as well. Since then, the two forms
>"have gone" and "have went" have existed side by side, but only one of
>them became accepted as "correct". It could easily have gone the other way.
But "gaed" is still(?) available in Northumbrian: I've now forgotten
all of a ballad but the line "Whiles I gaed, and whiles I sat".
--
Mike.
Mike Lyle
[...]
>
>I wonder about the permanently uninflected "you and I" phenomenon. What
>causes it? Is it really just ignorance, or is there something else in play?
I think it's more complex. Teachers and parents have usually to teach
children to put their personal pronoun last in a list, as putting
oneself first is considered rude in our language community (though
it's normal in others). At the same time, they usually have to stop
children using "me" instead of "I". The two requirements clash, so
that many grow up with an ineradicable sense that "you and me" is
wrong in all cases.
>
>The same question applies to the forming of the past participle of some
>verbs by using the simple past form, as in "we had went to the store".
>I rarely hear the correct form anymore.
>
>Is our language usage actually changing, or is it just the spoken word
>drifting ever further away from edited prose?
Tricky question. Of course change is inevitable and in itself no
problem; but you must by now be familiar with my hobby-horse about how
political and commercial *short-term* interests find it suits them
down to the ground if most people's view of language is cloudy.
Educational institutions also benefit from grade inflation...
--
Mike.
James Hogg
Yes, I passed over the Scottish approach to the problem, that of turning
it into a regular verb.
--
James
Eric Walker
[...]
> Tricky question. Of course change is inevitable and in itself no
> problem; but you must by now be familiar with my hobby-horse about how
> political and commercial *short-term* interests find it suits them down
> to the ground if most people's view of language is cloudy. Educational
> institutions also benefit from grade inflation...
"Change" is neither desirable nor undesirable: changes have to be
evaluated individually. We know that many undesirable changes will
eventually be adopted, and not a few desirable ones never really catch
on; all we can do is soldier for our choices as occasions arise.
The value to power manipulators of cloudy language has been developed
many times in fiction, from _1984_ to _The Languages of Pao_ (Jack Vance--
much recommended).
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Robert Bannister
> On Sat, 09 Apr 2011 14:06:04 -0700, Skitt<ski...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> [...]
>>
>> I wonder about the permanently uninflected "you and I" phenomenon. What
>> causes it? Is it really just ignorance, or is there something else in play?
>
> I think it's more complex. Teachers and parents have usually to teach
> children to put their personal pronoun last in a list, as putting
> oneself first is considered rude in our language community (though
> it's normal in others). At the same time, they usually have to stop
> children using "me" instead of "I". The two requirements clash, so
> that many grow up with an ineradicable sense that "you and me" is
> wrong in all cases.
Is this really what teachers teach now, or is what we were taught? I
have a sneaking suspicion that today's teachers wouldn't even know.
--
Robert Bannister
Stephen
Tradition is on your side. Those who want to hold the line against
barbarism and vulgarism have been waging the battle long, but the people
who use the language, even when they are divided, are the determiners.
--
Stephen
Ballina, NSW
Eric Walker
[...]
> Tradition is on your side. Those who want to hold the line against
> barbarism and vulgarism have been waging the battle long, but the people
> who use the language, even when they are divided, are the determiners.
That's the fallacy again: that "people who use the language" is a
monolith. Nose counts do matter, but only if the noses being counted
belong to people who, by training and inclination, have an intimate
acquaintance with the subtleties and powers of the tongue. That is why
the AHD, for an example, has a "Usage Panel", drawn from a rather broad
spectrum but all practiced users of the tongue. What such folk hold to
be sound English will often differ from what is heard down at the Dew
Drop Inn.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Dr Nick
> I wonder about the permanently uninflected "you and I" phenomenon.
> What causes it? Is it really just ignorance, or is there something
> else in play?
Catching myself using one of these recently, and then wondering if I was
right and having to manually dissect it to check that I was, I gave it
some thought.
I think part of it is the missing "inclusive/exclusive 'we'" in English.
Most of the time we use "you and me", or "him and me" (and versions with
'I') where we'd naturally use "we" or "us" but are needing to make it
clear to the speaker whether they are included or not. That encourages
us to treat "you-and-I" as a single pronoun, and - as has been discussed
before - English seems to be evolving to treat these groups as single
words and infect them differently (hence the original question where
"he-joiner-I" is seen as a single, plural, item even if it turns out to
be singular.
My bent farthing's worth, anyway.
--
Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu
Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk