Re: I saw the street that John lived.
Donna Richoux
> "Don Aitken" <don-a...@freeuk.com> wrote in message ...
> > I agree with everything so far, but I think that it is possible,
> > although perhaps not likely, that a BrE speaker might say (b); it
> > doesn't strike me as an "impossible" construction, although (a) does.
>
> May I ask your reasoning? I don't doubt you, I'm just trying to get my head
> around how that would be grammatically correct or make any sense (as if
> everything in English has to make sense I know <g>). Is it similar to the
> rightpondian construction of "agreeing a contract", for example, where an
> American would insert "on"?
I'll be interested to see what Don says. I, too, felt there was a
difference between "street" and "place" although it was hard to
identify.
Do you agree that you can't say (perhaps looking at photos):
*Here's the street I lived when I came to St. Louis.
but that you can say this?
Here's the place I lived when I came to St. Louis.
It feels vaguely as if "street" is a highly specific word, like "house,"
while "place" is a very general word, like "time," and they use
different idiomatic constructions.
How do these strike you?
It is the first place I lived when I followed my heart to Arkansas
-- Hillary Clinton
There was the place I lived when I first started working on the
Internet, with the office complex only a few hundred feet away.
-- Michael Buffington
It was the first place I lived when I moved to the Bay Area.
-- Joe Garofoli, West County Times, CA
It doesn't turn up in Mastertexts or Literaturepost, and its numbers are
small. It doesn't feel new to me, though.
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
Curious G.
below? If not, why?
(a) I saw the street that John lived.
(b) I saw the place that John lived.
Curious G.
Adrian Bailey
news:1119449330.882d8650f1a9a9c0f93ec046b86c3d83@teranews...
> "CyberCypher" <cyber...@19--16-25-13-01-03.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns967DC3A...@139.175.55.249...
> > Larry G wrote:
> >> "Curious G." <jon...@gmail.com> wrote in message ...
> >>> Do you guys have the same grammatical judgement for the two
> >>> sentences below? If not, why?
> >>>
> >>> (a) I saw the street that John lived.
"...(that) John lived _on/in_." or "..._where_ John lived."
> >>> (b) I saw the place that John lived.
Slangy but I don't think I'd notice it in conversation, "the place (that)"
being (colloquially) equivalent to "where".
> >> Neither is correct, at least in American English. "I saw the
> >> street where John lived" is what I would say. As far as "street"
> >> or "place", either is correct, but "place" would imply a house or
> >> other edifice.
> >
> > I agree with Larry, and I'd add that (a) could be:
> >
> > "I saw the street that John lived on" ("in" for BrE, I believe)
> >
> > and (b) could be:
> >
> > "I saw the place that John lived in".
> >
> > When someone says "John lives in a big place", the speaker isn't
> > referring to San Bernadino County, California, but to John's house.
>
> Then, what about the two sentences below:
>
> (i) You have been some place.
"You've been someplace." - colloquially okay
> (ii) You have been some street.
"..._to/on/down_ some street"
Adrian
Larry G
Neither is correct, at least in American English. "I saw the street where
John lived" is what I would say. As far as "street" or "place", either is
correct, but "place" would imply a house or other edifice.
Larry
Curious George
(i) You have been some place.
(ii) You have been some street.
Are both of them also bad, too?
"CyberCypher" <cyber...@19--16-25-13-01-03.com> wrote in message
news:Xns967DC3A...@139.175.55.249...
> Larry G wrote:
> I agree with Larry, and I'd add that (a) could be:
>
> "I saw the street that John lived on" ("in" for BrE, I believe)
>
> and (b) could be:
>
> "I saw the place that John lived in".
>
> When someone says "John lives in a big place", the speaker isn't
> referring to San Bernadino County, California, but to John's house.
>
>
> --
> Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
> For email, replace numbers with English alphabet.
>
Don Aitken
<cyber...@19--16-25-13-01-03.com> wrote:
>I agree with Larry, and I'd add that (a) could be:
>
>"I saw the street that John lived on" ("in" for BrE, I believe)
>
>and (b) could be:
>
>"I saw the place that John lived in".
>
>When someone says "John lives in a big place", the speaker isn't
>referring to San Bernadino County, California, but to John's house.
I agree with everything so far, but I think that it is possible,
although perhaps not likely, that a BrE speaker might say (b); it
doesn't strike me as an "impossible" construction, although (a) does.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
Larry G
> although perhaps not likely, that a BrE speaker might say (b); it
> doesn't strike me as an "impossible" construction, although (a) does.
May I ask your reasoning? I don't doubt you, I'm just trying to get my head
around how that would be grammatically correct or make any sense (as if
everything in English has to make sense I know <g>). Is it similar to the
rightpondian construction of "agreeing a contract", for example, where an
American would insert "on"?
Larry
CyberCypher
"I saw the street that John lived on" ("in" for BrE, I believe)
and (b) could be:
"I saw the place that John lived in".
When someone says "John lives in a big place", the speaker isn't
referring to San Bernadino County, California, but to John's house.
CyberCypher
> Then, what about the two sentences below:
>
> (i) You have been some place.
A bit stiff, but grammatically fine. Normally, this would be "You've
been somewhere [Adjective], have(n't) you?" or just plain "You've been
somewhere." A not unheard of declaration.
> (ii) You have been some street.
Impossible. A person can never be a street, except, perhaps, in a play,
the way DW is "mashed potatoes" in her kindergarten's "Festival of
Foods" in one of the Marc Brown _Arthur_ stories. You could say,
"You've been {on / to} {Fleet Carnaby} Street, haven't you?"
> Are both of them also bad, too?
Just (ii) is bad.
Wood Avens
wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 10:00:37 -0700, "Larry G" <thela...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>I would be delighted to explain, if there was any reasoning process
>behind it, but there isn't. Just native speaker's intuition, which, of
>course is fallible. Some constructions get an instant mental response
>of "that's impossible", and some don't. That one didn't. I'd be
>interested to know if any other BrE speakers agree. To save looking
>back in the thread, the phrase in question is "the place that John
>lived". The more I look at it the more "normal" it seems.
Well, I agree, and I've been trying to come up with some plausible
reason. I can only think it must simply be irrationally idiomatic.
It wouldn't raise an eyebow here. I'd probably say it myself.
--
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
Larry G
> Here's the place I lived when I came to St. Louis.
Yep, that does make sense, and now that I think about it, if I casually
heard "I saw the place that John lived" casually in conversation, I *might*
not think anything of it. It's hard to say. Of course in spoken language, I
say all sorts of things that have little to do with the written language.
Larry
Don Aitken
wrote:
>"Don Aitken" <don-a...@freeuk.com> wrote in message ...
I would be delighted to explain, if there was any reasoning process
behind it, but there isn't. Just native speaker's intuition, which, of
course is fallible. Some constructions get an instant mental response
of "that's impossible", and some don't. That one didn't. I'd be
interested to know if any other BrE speakers agree. To save looking
back in the thread, the phrase in question is "the place that John
lived". The more I look at it the more "normal" it seems.
--
Skitt
> Curious George wrote:
>> Then, what about the two sentences below:
>>
>> (i) You have been some place.
>
> A bit stiff, but grammatically fine. Normally, this would be "You've
> been somewhere [Adjective], have(n't) you?" or just plain "You've been
> somewhere." A not unheard of declaration.
>
>> (ii) You have been some street.
>
> Impossible. A person can never be a street, except, perhaps, in a
> play, the way DW is "mashed potatoes" in her kindergarten's "Festival
> of Foods" in one of the Marc Brown _Arthur_ stories. You could say,
> "You've been {on / to} {Fleet Carnaby} Street, haven't you?"
>
>> Are both of them also bad, too?
>
> Just (ii) is bad.
Well, (i) has the "some place" problem. It should be "someplace", as
someone already mentioned.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/
Matti Lamprhey
> Don Aitken <don-a...@freeuk.com> wrote:
> >"Larry G" <thela...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>"Don Aitken" <don-a...@freeuk.com> wrote in message ...
> >>> I agree with everything so far, but I think that it is possible,
> >>> although perhaps not likely, that a BrE speaker might say (b); it
> >>> doesn't strike me as an "impossible" construction, although (a)
> >>> does.
> >>
> >>May I ask your reasoning? I don't doubt you, I'm just trying to get
> >>my head around how that would be grammatically correct or make
> >>any sense (as if everything in English has to make sense I know
> >><g>). Is it similar to the rightpondian construction of "agreeing a
> >> contract", for example, where an American would insert "on"?
> >>
> >I would be delighted to explain, if there was any reasoning process
> >behind it, but there isn't. Just native speaker's intuition, which,
> >of course is fallible. Some constructions get an instant mental
> >response of "that's impossible", and some don't. That one didn't.
> >I'd be interested to know if any other BrE speakers agree. To save
> >looking back in the thread, the phrase in question is "the place that
> >John lived". The more I look at it the more "normal" it seems.
>
> Well, I agree, and I've been trying to come up with some plausible
> reason. I can only think it must simply be irrationally idiomatic.
> It wouldn't raise an eyebow here. I'd probably say it myself.
Ooh er. I definitely wouldn't find that at all sayable. I don't think
I've ever heard anyone else saying it either.
Matti
Ian Noble
wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 11:13:53 +0000 (UTC), CyberCypher
I'm BrE, and I'd be quite comfortable saying (b) unmodified, and quite
likely to do so in casual speech. I'd say "where" rather than "that"
in a more formal context.
And, yes, I'd say "...the street IN which John lived" or "...the
street that John lived IN".
Cheers - Ian
Skitt
> Don Aitken wrote:
>> CyberCypher wrote:
>>> Larry G wrote:
>>>>> Do you guys have the same grammatical judgement for the two
>>>>> sentences below? If not, why?
>>>>>
>>>>> (a) I saw the street that John lived.
>>>>> (b) I saw the place that John lived.
>>>>
>>>> Neither is correct, at least in American English. "I saw the
>>>> street where John lived" is what I would say. As far as "street"
>>>> or "place", either is correct, but "place" would imply a house or
>>>> other edifice.
>>>
>>> I agree with Larry, and I'd add that (a) could be:
>>>
>>> "I saw the street that John lived on" ("in" for BrE, I believe)
>>>
>>> and (b) could be:
>>>
>>> "I saw the place that John lived in".
>>>
>>> When someone says "John lives in a big place", the speaker isn't
>>> referring to San Bernadino County, California, but to John's house.
>>
>> I agree with everything so far, but I think that it is possible,
>> although perhaps not likely, that a BrE speaker might say (b); it
>> doesn't strike me as an "impossible" construction, although (a) does.
>
> I'm BrE, and I'd be quite comfortable saying (b) unmodified, and quite
> likely to do so in casual speech. I'd say "where" rather than "that"
> in a more formal context.
>
> And, yes, I'd say "...the street IN which John lived" or "...the
> street that John lived IN".
Change those INs to ONs for Leftpondian usage.
Linz
> I would be delighted to explain, if there was any reasoning process
> behind it, but there isn't. Just native speaker's intuition, which,
> of course is fallible. Some constructions get an instant mental
> response of "that's impossible", and some don't. That one didn't.
> I'd be interested to know if any other BrE speakers agree. To save
> looking back in the thread, the phrase in question is "the place
> that John lived". The more I look at it the more "normal" it seems.
It didn't leap out at me as being impossible either. Not remarkable. I
am pretty sure I would say it but I probably wouldn't write it.
dcw
Don Aitken <don-a...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>I would be delighted to explain, if there was any reasoning process
>behind it, but there isn't. Just native speaker's intuition, which, of
>course is fallible. Some constructions get an instant mental response
>of "that's impossible", and some don't. That one didn't. I'd be
>interested to know if any other BrE speakers agree. To save looking
>back in the thread, the phrase in question is "the place that John
>lived". The more I look at it the more "normal" it seems.
It's impossible to this native BrE speaker's intuition. I think it
gets weirder the longer I look at it, but almost anything does.
David
John Holmes
> I would be delighted to explain, if there was any reasoning process
> behind it, but there isn't. Just native speaker's intuition, which, of
> course is fallible. Some constructions get an instant mental response
> of "that's impossible", and some don't. That one didn't. I'd be
> interested to know if any other BrE speakers agree. To save looking
> back in the thread, the phrase in question is "the place that John
> lived". The more I look at it the more "normal" it seems.
To this AusE speaker, "place that I lived in" implies a house and "place
that I lived" implies a locality. Both are possible.
--
Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au