English syntax(?)
António Marques
1. The promise THAT I made
2. There's a gentleman here THAT wants to see you
In both cases, it would seem that THAT is facultative. In case 1 it is
usually ommitted, in case 2 it is usually present.
A. Are 1 and 2 analogous, or different phenomena, similar only on the
surface?
B. Is there any other such situation (analogous or not) I'm missing?
C. Is there any general rule predicting why ommission is more frequent
in 1?
D. Which if any is the pragmatical value of 'that'?
What say you?
--
am
laurus : rhodophyta : brezhoneg : smalltalk : stargate
Ruud Harmsen
sci.lang:
>1. The promise THAT I made
>2. There's a gentleman here THAT wants to see you
>
>In both cases, it would seem that THAT is facultative.
No.
>In case 1 it is usually ommitted, in case 2 it is usually present.
Always. In case 2 it is required, not optional. And "who" is probably
better.
(L2 language intuition, please correct me if I'm wrong).
>A. Are 1 and 2 analogous, or different phenomena, similar only on the
>surface?
In 1) "that" is accusative case, in case 2), "who" is in the
nominative. Could that be the essential difference?
Cf. "The goods that arrived" with "The goods (that) I ordered".
Ruud Harmsen
<realema...@rudhar.com.invalid>: in sci.lang:
>Wed, 06 Sep 2006 09:35:45 +0100: António Marques <m....@sapo.pt>: in
>sci.lang:
>
>>1. The promise THAT I made
>>2. There's a gentleman here THAT wants to see you
The book "A Practical English Grammar" by Thomson and Martinet uses
some 8 pages to cover this issue (who/which/that, when optional,
etc.), so it isn't really simple.
Peter T. Daniels
António Marques wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> 1. The promise THAT I made
> 2. There's a gentleman here THAT wants to see you
>
> In both cases, it would seem that THAT is facultative. In case 1 it is
> usually ommitted, in case 2 it is usually present.
>
> A. Are 1 and 2 analogous, or different phenomena, similar only on the
> surface?
>
> B. Is there any other such situation (analogous or not) I'm missing?
>
> C. Is there any general rule predicting why ommission is more frequent
> in 1?
>
> D. Which if any is the pragmatical value of 'that'?
>
> What say you?
? Your English is better than that!
(1) has a subordinating conjunction, (2) has a relative pronoun, though
only in special circumstances would you dehumanize the visitor by not
using "who."
John Atkinson
> António Marques wrote:
>> 1. The promise THAT I made
>> 2. There's a gentleman here THAT wants to see you
>>
>> In both cases, it would seem that THAT is facultative. In case 1 it is
>> usually ommitted, in case 2 it is usually present.
>>
>> A. Are 1 and 2 analogous, or different phenomena, similar only on the
>> surface?
>>
>> B. Is there any other such situation (analogous or not) I'm missing?
>>
>> C. Is there any general rule predicting why ommission is more frequent
>> in 1?
>>
>> D. Which if any is the pragmatical value of 'that'?
>>
>> What say you?
> ? Your English is better than that!
Eh? "What say you?" is an extremely common expression. (Or is that so only
in British English?)
> (1) has a subordinating conjunction, (2) has a relative pronoun,
Hmm. By me, either they're both relative pronouns, or neither is. This
depends on what one's definition of the term "relative pronoun" is. The
first book I found with something on this (Comrie's "Language Universals
...") distinguishes "relative pronouns", which are case-marked to indicate
their role in the relative clause (e.g., "who/whom", for speakers who have
accusative "whom") from "conjunctions", which aren't ("that", "which").
As someone already said, "that" can't be omitted (in formal speech, in most
dialects) if the referent of the relative clause corresponds to its
subject, as opposed to its object. In less formal British (and Australian)
English, however, the "that" in 2 is often omitted.
> though
> only in special circumstances would you dehumanize the visitor by not
> using "who."
Though it's often stated by the grammar mavens that "that" isn't "correct"
when referring to humans, I'm certain the vast majority of English speakers
don't have this rule at all (unlike the case with "which"). I certainly
don't have it.
John.
António Marques
>>> 1. The promise THAT I made
>>> 2. There's a gentleman here THAT wants to see you
>>>
>>> In both cases, it would seem that THAT is facultative. In case 1 it is
>>> usually ommitted, in case 2 it is usually present.
>>>
>>> A. Are 1 and 2 analogous, or different phenomena, similar only on the
>>> surface?
>>>
>>> B. Is there any other such situation (analogous or not) I'm missing?
>>>
>>> C. Is there any general rule predicting why ommission is more frequent
>>> in 1?
>>>
>>> D. Which if any is the pragmatical value of 'that'?
>>>
>>> What say you?
>
>> ? Your English is better than that!
>
> Eh? "What say you?" is an extremely common expression. (Or is that so
> only in British English?)
I suppose Peter was baffled by my query.
Syntax is one of the things I never learned a satisfying theory of (I
don't mean perfect or very good, just satisfying).
>> (1) has a subordinating conjunction, (2) has a relative pronoun,
>
> Hmm. By me, either they're both relative pronouns, or neither is. This
> depends on what one's definition of the term "relative pronoun" is.
> The first book I found with something on this (Comrie's "Language
> Universals ...") distinguishes "relative pronouns", which are
> case-marked to indicate their role in the relative clause (e.g.,
> "who/whom", for speakers who have accusative "whom") from
> "conjunctions", which aren't ("that", "which").
Now these is the sort of discussion I hoped for. I'm a little vexed that
Greg Lee didn't come in.
> As someone already said, "that" can't be omitted (in formal speech, in
> most dialects) if the referent of the relative clause corresponds to
> its subject, as opposed to its object. In less formal British (and
> Australian) English, however, the "that" in 2 is often omitted.
Both examples were taken from literature, just to be insured, only they
_didn't have_ 'THAT'. I inserted it to economise on explanations, my
original message was written quite in a hurry.
2 is a housekeeper speaking, Scotland, 18th century (James Hogg, *The
Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner*), but similar
examples can be found everywhere. I assume this is either formulaic, or
the unmarked version in some contexts.
To use Ruud's example, I suppose the THAT just can't be elided in 'the
goods that arrived', no matter who, when or how. Is it the fact that the
sentence is to big to be unambiguous that allows it in 2?
>> though
>> only in special circumstances would you dehumanize the visitor by not
>> using "who."
>
> Though it's often stated by the grammar mavens that "that" isn't
> "correct" when referring to humans, I'm certain the vast majority of
> English speakers don't have this rule at all (unlike the case with
> "which"). I certainly don't have it.
Isn't 'who' as a relative pronoun a recent (as in geologically recent)
phenomenon in english (not that that necessarily matters)?
Peter T. Daniels
John Atkinson wrote:
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote...
>
> > António Marques wrote:
>
> >> 1. The promise THAT I made
> >> 2. There's a gentleman here THAT wants to see you
> >>
> >> In both cases, it would seem that THAT is facultative. In case 1 it is
> >> usually ommitted, in case 2 it is usually present.
> >>
> >> A. Are 1 and 2 analogous, or different phenomena, similar only on the
> >> surface?
> >>
> >> B. Is there any other such situation (analogous or not) I'm missing?
> >>
> >> C. Is there any general rule predicting why ommission is more frequent
> >> in 1?
> >>
> >> D. Which if any is the pragmatical value of 'that'?
> >>
> >> What say you?
>
> > ? Your English is better than that!
>
> Eh? "What say you?" is an extremely common expression. (Or is that so only
> in British English?)
?? Does it occur outside sentinel situations -- "What say you, friend
or foe?" -- and I don't even know where I dredged that up from!
I was not questioning his "What say you," but his use of "that" for
"who" and his calling them the same thing.
> > (1) has a subordinating conjunction, (2) has a relative pronoun,
>
> Hmm. By me, either they're both relative pronouns, or neither is. This
> depends on what one's definition of the term "relative pronoun" is. The
> first book I found with something on this (Comrie's "Language Universals
> ...") distinguishes "relative pronouns", which are case-marked to indicate
> their role in the relative clause (e.g., "who/whom", for speakers who have
> accusative "whom") from "conjunctions", which aren't ("that", "which").
Of course he wasn't playing fair, as (1) is a NP that I obviously
completed differently from you, and (2) is a sentence.
> As someone already said, "that" can't be omitted (in formal speech, in most
> dialects) if the referent of the relative clause corresponds to its
> subject, as opposed to its object. In less formal British (and Australian)
> English, however, the "that" in 2 is often omitted.
>
> > though
> > only in special circumstances would you dehumanize the visitor by not
> > using "who."
>
> Though it's often stated by the grammar mavens that "that" isn't "correct"
> when referring to humans, I'm certain the vast majority of English speakers
> don't have this rule at all (unlike the case with "which"). I certainly
> don't have it.
"Our Father, Who art in Heaven"
?"Our Father, Which art in Heaven" (but it's the English prayerbook
form)
*"Our Father, That art in Heaven"
Brian M. Scott
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote in
<news:1157573328.0...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
> John Atkinson wrote:
[...]
>> Eh? "What say you?" is an extremely common expression.
>> (Or is that so only in British English?)
> ?? Does it occur outside sentinel situations -- "What say you, friend
> or foe?" -- and I don't even know where I dredged that up from!
Yes, of course. 'It's been proposed that we adjourn to the
pub; what say you all?'
[...]
>> Though it's often stated by the grammar mavens that
>> "that" isn't "correct" when referring to humans, I'm
>> certain the vast majority of English speakers don't have
>> this rule at all (unlike the case with "which"). I
>> certainly don't have it.
> "Our Father, Who art in Heaven"
> ?"Our Father, Which art in Heaven" (but it's the English prayerbook
> form)
> *"Our Father, That art in Heaven"
Lord Dunsany, in 'The Hashish Man': 'The man that I met at
dinner told me many things which I must omit.'
Ambrose Bierce, in 'A Man with Two Lives': 'The first man
that I met was a sergeant named William Briscoe, whom I knew
very well.'
And about 16,200 other hits on "man that I met" (e.g., 'I am
currently in a wonderful relationship with a man that I met
through your site 3 months ago').
Brian
António Marques
>>>> What say you?
>>> ? Your English is better than that!
>> Eh? "What say you?" is an extremely common expression. (Or is that so only
>> in British English?)
>
> ?? Does it occur outside sentinel situations -- "What say you, friend
> or foe?" -- and I don't even know where I dredged that up from!
It's certainly common and not only in mimmicking archaic speech. Cf.
'Best field center...what say you?', a newsgroup subject. I suppose it
can be an inexpensive way of asking 'what are your substantiated musings
on this particular matter, o ones whose opinions I find interesting?'.
> I was not questioning his "What say you," but his use of "that" for
> "who" and his calling them the same thing.
Which is undeserved since I didn't call them the same thing. I asked if
they were analogous.
>>> (1) has a subordinating conjunction, (2) has a relative pronoun,
>> Hmm. By me, either they're both relative pronouns, or neither is. This
>> depends on what one's definition of the term "relative pronoun" is. The
>> first book I found with something on this (Comrie's "Language Universals
>> ...") distinguishes "relative pronouns", which are case-marked to indicate
>> their role in the relative clause (e.g., "who/whom", for speakers who have
>> accusative "whom") from "conjunctions", which aren't ("that", "which").
>
> Of course he wasn't playing fair, as (1) is a NP that I obviously
> completed differently from you, and (2) is a sentence.
1. There's the promise | I made.
2. There's a gentleman | wants to see you.
António Marques
> Lord Dunsany, in 'The Hashish Man': 'The man that I met at dinner
> told me many things which I must omit.'
See, how was I to find about Mr. Plunkett if not for this thread?
Certainly not through HP 'something so dreadful happened that it cannot
be described and if it comes to be no one will be able to follow the
bloody description' Lovecraft.
> Ambrose Bierce, in 'A Man with Two Lives': 'The first man that I met
> was a sergeant named William Briscoe, whom I knew very well.'
Where for me the first ('that') means simple 'which' and the second
('whom') means 'the personal details / persona of which'.
António Marques
> "Our Father, Who art in Heaven"
> ?"Our Father, Which art in Heaven" (but it's the English prayerbook form)
> *"Our Father, That art in Heaven"
In apostrophe I find 'who' mandatory, elsewhere I favour 'that', 'which'
sounds almost always very strange. Somehow that's how I've structured my
L2, and it's certainly not an influence from L1, where _que_ 'that/what'
performs all the miracles (in some cases _qual_ 'which' is expected;
galician accepts _que_ throughout).
Joe Fineman
> Though it's often stated by the grammar mavens that "that" isn't
> "correct" when referring to humans, I'm certain the vast majority of
> English speakers don't have this rule at all (unlike the case with
> "which").
Indeed, the arch-grammar-maven H. W. Fowler wrote [MEU, 1927,
s.v. which)(that)(who]:
(A) of _which_ & _that_, _which_ is appropriate to non-defining &
_that_ to defining clauses; (B) of _which_ & _who_, _which_
belongs to things, and _who_ to persons; (C) of _who_ & _that_,
_who_ suits particular persons, & _that_ generic persons.
As examples of point (C), he gives "_You who are a walking
dictionary_, but _He is a man that is never at a loss_".
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
||: Truth is not stranger than fiction. It is sillier. :||
Greg Lee
...
> > (1) has a subordinating conjunction, (2) has a relative pronoun,
>
> Hmm. By me, either they're both relative pronouns, or neither is. This
> depends on what one's definition of the term "relative pronoun" is. The
> first book I found with something on this (Comrie's "Language Universals
> ...") distinguishes "relative pronouns", which are case-marked to indicate
> their role in the relative clause (e.g., "who/whom", for speakers who have
> accusative "whom") from "conjunctions", which aren't ("that", "which").
Since "which" can be object of a preposition in a relative clause,
it's obvious it can't always be a conjunction, even though
it doesn't inflect. In this respect, it differs from "that". So
much for Comrie.
The earliest analysis in TG took "that" in relative clauses
to be a relative pronoun, as Peter said above. A later
idea was that "that" is a complementizer (or subordinate
conjunction I suppose you could say) and only the wh-words
are relative pronouns. IIRC, Langendoen and McCawley proposed
the latter. I don't see what difference it makes, since neither
analysis makes much sense of the facts of usage.
Greg
John Atkinson
> John Atkinson wrote:
> ...
>> > (1) has a subordinating conjunction, (2) has a relative pronoun,
>>
>> Hmm. By me, either they're both relative pronouns, or neither is. This
>> depends on what one's definition of the term "relative pronoun" is.
>> The
>> first book I found with something on this (Comrie's "Language Universals
>> ...") distinguishes "relative pronouns", which are case-marked to
>> indicate
>> their role in the relative clause (e.g., "who/whom", for speakers who
>> have
>> accusative "whom") from "conjunctions", which aren't ("that", "which").
>
> Since "which" can be object of a preposition in a relative clause,
> it's obvious it can't always be a conjunction, even though
> it doesn't inflect. In this respect, it differs from "that". So
> much for Comrie.
Don't blame Comrie! AFAIKS, he never specifically mentions "which" in that
book -- I just assumed (without thinking too hard about it) that it was more
like "that" than "who". What you're saying shows this is perhaps not the
case.
> The earliest analysis in TG took "that" in relative clauses
> to be a relative pronoun, as Peter said above. A later
> idea was that "that" is a complementizer (or subordinate
> conjunction I suppose you could say) and only the wh-words
> are relative pronouns. IIRC, Langendoen and McCawley proposed
> the latter. I don't see what difference it makes, since neither
> analysis makes much sense of the facts of usage.
Agreed. You once said "I don't do definitions." A sensible position, in
this case.
John.
Peter T. Daniels
Brian M. Scott wrote:
> On 6 Sep 2006 13:08:48 -0700, "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in
> <news:1157573328.0...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
> in sci.lang:
>
> > John Atkinson wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> Eh? "What say you?" is an extremely common expression.
> >> (Or is that so only in British English?)
>
> > ?? Does it occur outside sentinel situations -- "What say you, friend
> > or foe?" -- and I don't even know where I dredged that up from!
>
> Yes, of course. 'It's been proposed that we adjourn to the
> pub; what say you all?'
Obvious quasi-legal/formal jocularity.
> >> Though it's often stated by the grammar mavens that
> >> "that" isn't "correct" when referring to humans, I'm
> >> certain the vast majority of English speakers don't have
> >> this rule at all (unlike the case with "which"). I
> >> certainly don't have it.
>
> > "Our Father, Who art in Heaven"
> > ?"Our Father, Which art in Heaven" (but it's the English prayerbook
> > form)
> > *"Our Father, That art in Heaven"
>
> Lord Dunsany, in 'The Hashish Man': 'The man that I met at
> dinner told me many things which I must omit.'
archaizing; the use of "which" in the restrictive relative is contrary
to prescriptivism and thus must also have been done for effect; but
Dunsany is another of those I found unreadable even though Lin Carter
thought him worthy of placing beside other "modern fantasists" after
the first wave of Tolkien faddism.
> Ambrose Bierce, in 'A Man with Two Lives': 'The first man
> that I met was a sergeant named William Briscoe, whom I knew
> very well.'
odd to have any relativizer there at all
> And about 16,200 other hits on "man that I met" (e.g., 'I am
> currently in a wonderful relationship with a man that I met
> through your site 3 months ago').
And the reason you don't give the figure(s) for "who" (and "whom")?
Peter T. Daniels
António Marques wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >>>> What say you?
> >>> ? Your English is better than that!
> >> Eh? "What say you?" is an extremely common expression. (Or is that so only
> >> in British English?)
> >
> > ?? Does it occur outside sentinel situations -- "What say you, friend
> > or foe?" -- and I don't even know where I dredged that up from!
>
> It's certainly common and not only in mimmicking archaic speech. Cf.
> 'Best field center...what say you?', a newsgroup subject. I suppose it
> can be an inexpensive way of asking 'what are your substantiated musings
> on this particular matter, o ones whose opinions I find interesting?'.
I don't know what that quoted bit is supposed to mean; the question
looks like a way of avoiding typing three characters.
> 1. There's the promise | I made.
> 2. There's a gentleman | wants to see you.
(2) is Brit, and if I encountered it in a text I was editing, I would
certainly fix it.
Levi's
understand what you truly mean even when the grammar is not correct.
John Atkinson
>> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> > John Atkinson wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>
>> >> Though it's often stated by the grammar mavens that
>> >> "that" isn't "correct" when referring to humans, I'm
>> >> certain the vast majority of English speakers don't have
>> >> this rule at all (unlike the case with "which"). I
>> >> certainly don't have it.
>>
>> > "Our Father, Who art in Heaven"
>> > ?"Our Father, Which art in Heaven" (but it's the English prayerbook
>> > form)
>> > *"Our Father, That art in Heaven"
>>
>> Lord Dunsany, in 'The Hashish Man': 'The man that I met at
>> dinner told me many things which I must omit.'
>
> archaizing; the use of "which" in the restrictive relative is contrary
> to prescriptivism and thus must also have been done for effect; but
> Dunsany is another of those I found unreadable even though Lin Carter
> thought him worthy of placing beside other "modern fantasists" after
> the first wave of Tolkien faddism.
>
>> Ambrose Bierce, in 'A Man with Two Lives': 'The first man
>> that I met was a sergeant named William Briscoe, whom I knew
>> very well.'
>
> odd to have any relativizer there at all
>
>> And about 16,200 other hits on "man that I met" (e.g., 'I am
>> currently in a wonderful relationship with a man that I met
>> through your site 3 months ago').
>
> And the reason you don't give the figure(s) for "who" (and "whom")?
Because if anyone wants to know, it would take them just 20 seconds to look
it up for themself?
Being a sucker for punishment, I did just this. The results were pretty
much as expected. The most interesting thing I noticed was that, of the
hits for "the man whom I met" eight of the first ten were examples in
discussions of the grammar of relative clauses. (Of the other two, one was
a D.H.Lawrence book, and just one was in a passage of ordinary non-literary
English.)
John.
Brian M. Scott
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote in
<news:1157598776.3...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
> Brian M. Scott wrote:
>> On 6 Sep 2006 13:08:48 -0700, "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in
>> <news:1157573328.0...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
>> in sci.lang:
>>> John Atkinson wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> Eh? "What say you?" is an extremely common expression.
>>>> (Or is that so only in British English?)
>>> ?? Does it occur outside sentinel situations -- "What say you, friend
>>> or foe?" -- and I don't even know where I dredged that up from!
>> Yes, of course. 'It's been proposed that we adjourn to the
>> pub; what say you all?'
> Obvious quasi-legal/formal jocularity.
I suspect that it's obvious only because you're looking for
reasons to disqualify the example. I could just as well
have written 'Thad wants to knock off and head for the pub;
what say you all?', which does not have the same overtones
at all.
>>>> Though it's often stated by the grammar mavens that
>>>> "that" isn't "correct" when referring to humans, I'm
>>>> certain the vast majority of English speakers don't have
>>>> this rule at all (unlike the case with "which"). I
>>>> certainly don't have it.
>>> "Our Father, Who art in Heaven"
>>> ?"Our Father, Which art in Heaven" (but it's the English prayerbook
>>> form)
>>> *"Our Father, That art in Heaven"
Wycliffe, from Matthew, Ch 6: '... ellis ye schulen haue no
meede at youre fadir that is in heuenes' and 'And thus ye
schulen preye, Oure fadir that art in heuenes, ...'.
>> Lord Dunsany, in 'The Hashish Man': 'The man that I met at
>> dinner told me many things which I must omit.'
> archaizing;
Not particularly, no.
> the use of "which" in the restrictive relative is contrary
> to prescriptivism and thus must also have been done for
> effect;
Again, I see no particular reason to think so; Dunsany was
too good a stylist to be absolutely bound by prescriptivism.
[...]
>> Ambrose Bierce, in 'A Man with Two Lives': 'The first man
>> that I met was a sergeant named William Briscoe, whom I knew
>> very well.'
> odd to have any relativizer there at all
Not to me; I tend not to drop them.
>> And about 16,200 other hits on "man that I met" (e.g., 'I am
>> currently in a wonderful relationship with a man that I met
>> through your site 3 months ago').
> And the reason you don't give the figure(s) for "who" (and
> "whom")?
I was not trying to demonstrate that 'who' and 'whom' are
possible in that construction. In fact "man whom I met"
gets only about 9750 hits, and "man who I met" only about
596; unsurprisingly, "man I met" gets about 176,000.
I quoted those two examples because their authors are likely
to be familiar, but one need only browse through the Google
hits to see that the construction is freely used by
reasonably literate people.
Brian
Peter T. Daniels
Brian M. Scott wrote:
> On 6 Sep 2006 20:12:56 -0700, "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in
> <news:1157598776.3...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
> in sci.lang:
>
> > Brian M. Scott wrote:
>
> >> On 6 Sep 2006 13:08:48 -0700, "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in
> >> <news:1157573328.0...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
> >> in sci.lang:
>
> >>> John Atkinson wrote:
>
> >> [...]
>
> >>>> Eh? "What say you?" is an extremely common expression.
> >>>> (Or is that so only in British English?)
>
> >>> ?? Does it occur outside sentinel situations -- "What say you, friend
> >>> or foe?" -- and I don't even know where I dredged that up from!
>
> >> Yes, of course. 'It's been proposed that we adjourn to the
> >> pub; what say you all?'
>
> > Obvious quasi-legal/formal jocularity.
>
> I suspect that it's obvious only because you're looking for
> reasons to disqualify the example. I could just as well
> have written 'Thad wants to knock off and head for the pub;
> what say you all?', which does not have the same overtones
> at all.
By your own testimony, you're disqualified from pronouncing on
colloquial American usage! "Pub" in the first place marks it as Brit,
so why would there be any inconcinnity in using a Brit-style question
after it?
Brian M. Scott
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote in
<news:1157651121....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
[...]
> "Pub" in the first place marks it as Brit,
No, it doesn't. It hasn't in quite some time.
[...]
Brian
António Marques
> Brian M. Scott wrote:
>
>> I suspect that it's obvious only because you're looking for
>> reasons to disqualify the example. I could just as well
>> have written 'Thad wants to knock off and head for the pub;
>> what say you all?', which does not have the same overtones
>> at all.
>
> By your own testimony, you're disqualified from pronouncing on
> colloquial American usage! "Pub" in the first place marks it as Brit,
(You know, Brit too is English.)
> so why would there be any inconcinnity in using a Brit-style question
> after it?
There may be another issue; it seems that all instances of the question
take the specific meaning of 'should we favour one option or the
other?', rather than the more general purpose I expressed yesterday. If
so, it would be inadequate for the use I put it to.
António Marques
>> 1. There's the promise | I made.
>> 2. There's a gentleman | wants to see you.
>
> (2) is Brit, and if I encountered it in a text I was editing, I would
> certainly fix it.
That's all very well, but still no theory why OOH it is possible at all
and OTOH less common than (1) - their difference has been stated, but
why does that difference have that effect is not yet certain - maybe it
just can't be ascertained?
John Atkinson
"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote...
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Brian M. Scott wrote:
>
>>> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
Something wierd here! Yesterday, as it happened, I searched for "the man
that I met" etc, with added "the": My results:
"the man that I met" 37 600 hits
"the man who I met" 55 100
"the man whom I met" 1140
"the man I met" 26 000
Which, as I said in my previous post, seems to be about what I would expect
(in my own dialect, certainly).
Just now, doing what Brian did, I got essentially the same results as Brian
did:
"man that I met" 15 900
"man who I met" 600
"man whom I met" 9 720
"man I met" 176 000
which is completely different. In particular, leaving out "the" makes the
count is much *less* in three of the four.
Anyone know how Google really works?
Anyway if googlestats are worth anything at all, here's some more:
"a man that I met" 44 000
"a man who I met" 15 900
"a man whom I met" 1240
"a man I met" 64 800
Note the reduced incidence of "who"with the indefinite article, and
increased incidence of "that" and "(blank)", compared with the figures with
the definite article. Just possibly, this supports Antonio's idea, viz:
>>... for me the first ('that') means simple 'which' and the second
>> ('whom') means 'the personal details / persona of which'.
or, maybe, it supports Peter's apparent contention, that "who(m)" is
favoured more (prescriptively at least) in restrictive relative clauses.
John.
Brian M. Scott
<john...@bigpond.com> wrote in
<news:o43Mg.25069$rP1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au> in
sci.lang:
> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote...
>> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> Brian M. Scott wrote:
[...]
>>>> And about 16,200 other hits on "man that I met" (e.g., 'I am
>>>> currently in a wonderful relationship with a man that I met
>>>> through your site 3 months ago').
>>> And the reason you don't give the figure(s) for "who" (and
>>> "whom")?
>> I was not trying to demonstrate that 'who' and 'whom' are
>> possible in that construction. In fact "man whom I met"
>> gets only about 9750 hits, and "man who I met" only about
>> 596; unsurprisingly, "man I met" gets about 176,000.
> Something wierd here! Yesterday, as it happened, I searched for "the man
> that I met" etc, with added "the": My results:
> "the man that I met" 37 600 hits
> "the man who I met" 55 100
> "the man whom I met" 1140
> "the man I met" 26 000
But if you actually page through, you'll find that "the man
that I met" actually gets only 136 hits (with the 'very
similar' ones omitted); "the man who I met" gets 46, "the
man whom I met" gets 91, and "the man I met" gets 729.
Without the article, in the same order: 604, 335, 567, 790.
With <a>: 186, 74, 132, 715.
Something's clearly wrong with the routine that returns the
approximate total number of hits.
[...]
Brian
Paul J Kriha
John Atkinson <john...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:o43Mg.25069$rP1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
This just highlights the fact that after many upgrades to
improve our *web searching experience* Google stats
are NOT real stats of string occurrences and shouldn't
be quoted as such.
When I try
"the man that I met" "the man", I get 36,000
"the man that I met" also comes back with 36,000
as one would expect (the second string shouldn't make
any difference),
BUT
"man that I met" "the man" returns just 967 hits!!! :-((((((
So, what happened to more than 35,000 pages with
"the man that I met" in them? Suddenly Google fails
to find "man that I met" and "the man" in them? :-0
pjk
Paul J Kriha
Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in message
news:9capvjd4t8hs$.3xqeagppqqqo.dlg@40tude.net...
It's probably counting pages that are pointed to by pages
containing the specified string or strings.
pjk
John Atkinson
news:45013801$1...@clear.net.nz...
>
> Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> ...
I thought of that too. But that theory doesn't work -- as I already showed,
and as you verified in your other post, shortening a string by leaving out
the first word (which must produce a superset of the pages previously
obtained) often *reduces* the figure Google comes up with.
No, it's nothing that simple.
John
António Marques
> When I try
> "the man that I met" "the man", I get 36,000
> "the man that I met" also comes back with 36,000
> as one would expect (the second string shouldn't make
> any difference),
> BUT
> "man that I met" "the man" returns just 967 hits!!! :-((((((
>
> So, what happened to more than 35,000 pages with
> "the man that I met" in them? Suddenly Google fails
> to find "man that I met" and "the man" in them? :-0
As Brian explained, they were never there. All the high numbers
presented are based on an estimate that includes 'similar' hits. The
engines are based on indexes, and they certainly don't count every hit
before sending them to you. As such, only the small numbers are
meaningful. From altavista:
* a the
0 171000 71000 15600
that 2620 440 531
whom 1510 312 145
who 762 156 75
From google (Brian):
* a the
0 790 715 729
that 604 186 136
whom 567 132 91
who 335 74 46
1. I think the 0 numbers can't be trusted, but there's little to gain
from them as w'all know they're dominant by orders of magnitude.
Google's numbers seem strange here, even if 790 were > 715+729.
2. _whom_ is more common than _who_, even if some of the hits are
discussions of grammar - they'll be for one as well as for the other.
3. _that_ is globally on a par with who + whom.
4. after _the_, the most common alternative may be _that_ (in apparent
contradiction with what I'd assumed).
Go figure.
António Marques
> "man that I met" (...)
And then, of course, it dawned on me that that _met_ is doing nothing
there besides skewing and bottlenecking the results. But I can't bring
myself to run the queries ending in _I_ for the life of me, lazy sloth I am.
Paul J Kriha
news:YVeMg.25536$rP1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Yes, I didn't say so but I do realize there are also other factors
involved. Returning hit pages that are pointed to by pages containing
the specified string definitely happens but it's not the only thing
that they do in their 'highly sophisticated proprietary search logic'.
For example, when you search for earl gray (unquoted)
one of the returned early hits is
www.englishteastore.com/earlgreytea.html - 46k - Cached - Similar pages
If you select Cached rather than the page's URL you get the page
content supplied from the Google's cache (which is sometimes
faster, also it may be the only way to get at the content if the original
site is down or no more in existence). It is displayed with a Google
preamble. At the end of the preamble Google says explicitely:
These search terms have been highlighted: earl
These terms only appear in links pointing to this page: gray
Well, lahdydah... I wish Google installed an option which
when selected would disable all their sophisticated artificial
intelligence logic.
pjk
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> John Atkinson wrote:
> > Though it's often stated by the grammar mavens that "that" isn't "correct"
> > when referring to humans, I'm certain the vast majority of English speakers
> > don't have this rule at all (unlike the case with "which"). I certainly
> > don't have it.
>
> "Our Father, Who art in Heaven"
> ?"Our Father, Which art in Heaven" (but it's the English prayerbook
> form)
> *"Our Father, That art in Heaven"
Does this owe to early modern English grammar or does it owe to "our
father" having been perceived as an "it" (i.e., as a genderless
non-human)? Another peculiarity, that doesn't seem to owe to grammar,
is that Christians' second person form of address to God (thou in
English and ni: in Malayalam) is a form that would have been
disrespectful if used for addressing humans senior to oneself .
Don Phillipson
news:1157826355.7...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> > "Our Father, Who art in Heaven"
> > ?"Our Father, Which art in Heaven" (but it's the English prayerbook
> > form)
> > *"Our Father, That art in Heaven"
>
> Does this owe to early modern English grammar or does it owe to "our
> father" having been perceived as an "it" (i.e., as a genderless
> non-human)?
1. Not before the 20th century did any Christian interpret "God
the Father" as genderless (or any important non-Christian
other than Spinoza.)
2. The language of the Anglican Prayer Book (late 16th cent.)
and King James Bible (early 17th) was deliberately archaic
(cf. Simon Winchester's history: the Book of Common Prayer
was used mandatorily before the Bible editors assembled.)
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Peter T. Daniels
ranjit_...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > John Atkinson wrote:
>
> > > Though it's often stated by the grammar mavens that "that" isn't "correct"
> > > when referring to humans, I'm certain the vast majority of English speakers
> > > don't have this rule at all (unlike the case with "which"). I certainly
> > > don't have it.
> >
> > "Our Father, Who art in Heaven"
> > ?"Our Father, Which art in Heaven" (but it's the English prayerbook
> > form)
> > *"Our Father, That art in Heaven"
>
> Does this owe to early modern English grammar or does it owe to "our
> father" having been perceived as an "it" (i.e., as a genderless
"Father" by definition is not genderless. "Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit" are often now called "Creator, Sustainer, and Holy Redeemer,"
but even the most committed Christian feminist will not deny that Mary
conceived when she was "overshadowed by the power of the Most High."
> non-human)? Another peculiarity, that doesn't seem to owe to grammar,
> is that Christians' second person form of address to God (thou in
> English and ni: in Malayalam) is a form that would have been
> disrespectful if used for addressing humans senior to oneself .
"Thou" today has no meaning whatsoever outside this usage, which has
almost entirely disappeared; but when it was the normal way of
addressing 2sg., that's what it was; English is not German (or
Malayalam?).
If English did briefly pass though a stage when a formal you sg.
contrasted with an intimate thou, thou was maintained in addressing God
to emphasize the Christian's intimacy with God.
Skitt
> "Father" by definition is not genderless. "Father, Son, and Holy
> Spirit" are often now called "Creator, Sustainer, and Holy Redeemer,"
> but even the most committed Christian feminist will not deny that Mary
> conceived when she was "overshadowed by the power of the Most High."
I recall Big Daddy, Junior, and the Spook?
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
Alan Jones
Someone pointed out recently that the English translators were simply using
an English singular to translate a singular in Greek (and, I assume) Hebrew,
which languages, for all I know, may not have the "deferential plural".
Alan Jones.
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> ranjit_...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Father ... not genderless
I'm not so sure. James Watt may be called the father of the steam
engine in a genderless sense since he didn't sire a steam engine.
> > non-human)? Another peculiarity, that doesn't seem to owe to grammar,
> > is that Christians' second person form of address to God (thou in
> > English and ni: in Malayalam) is a form that would have been
> > disrespectful if used for addressing humans senior to oneself .
>
> "Thou" today has no meaning whatsoever outside this usage, which has
> almost entirely disappeared; but when it was the normal way of
> addressing 2sg., that's what it was; English is not German (or
> Malayalam?).
>
> If English did briefly pass though a stage when a formal you sg.
> contrasted with an intimate thou, thou was maintained in addressing God
> to emphasize the Christian's intimacy with God.
This 2nd peculiarity that I brought up is not animate vs, inanimate; it
is respectful 2nd person pronoun vs. respectless 2nd person pronoun.
Christians use a respectless (or disrespectful) 2nd pronoun to address
God - thou in the KJV and [n[i:] in Malayalam Bibles.
>From a play around 1638, a master berates an apprentice "How dare you
thou a gentleman."
http://www.quaker.org/thee-thou.html
Similarly, in Malayalam, the riff-raff may not address a mover/ shaker
as [n[i:].
The peculiarity is that the English and Malayalis decided to address
God as thou and [n[i:].
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
Joe Fineman wrote:
> "John Atkinson" <john...@bigpond.com> writes:
>
> > Though it's often stated by the grammar mavens that "that" isn't
> > "correct" when referring to humans, I'm certain the vast majority of
> > English speakers don't have this rule at all (unlike the case with
> > "which").
>
> s.v. which)(that)(who]:
>
> (A) of _which_ & _that_, _which_ is appropriate to non-defining &
> _that_ to defining clauses; (B) of _which_ & _who_, _which_
> belongs to things, and _who_ to persons; (C) of _who_ & _that_,
> _who_ suits particular persons, & _that_ generic persons.
>
> As examples of point (C), he gives "_You who are a walking
> dictionary_, but _He is a man that is never at a loss_".
How can "he" in this example refer to generic persons? "He that is
never at a loss" might conceivably allude to generic persons but "He is
a man that is never at a loss" would seem to have to allude to a
particular person.
Sadly, Fowler's tome on modern English usage doesn't seem to have found
its way to Project Gutenberg:
http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/f#a1998
> --- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
>
> ||: Truth is not stranger than fiction. It is sillier. :||
John Atkinson
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> Father ... not genderless
>
> I'm not so sure. James Watt may be called the father of the steam
> engine in a genderless sense since he didn't sire a steam engine.
Have you ever heard Marie Curie called the father of atomic physics?
John.
Paul J Kriha
<ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1157849613.1...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > ranjit_...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Father ... not genderless
>
> I'm not so sure. James Watt may be called the father of the steam
> engine in a genderless sense since he didn't sire a steam engine.
That doesn't make sense. You are confusing sex with
grammatical gender.
English is one of many languages in which nouns have
one of three possible genders. Therefore, by definition
it is impossible for "father" or any other English noun
to be genderless. Every E. noun is he, she or it.
pjk
Paul J Kriha
Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1157836928.3...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
AFAIK, a deliberate decision was made to always translate
addresses to God using familiar 2nd sg. in all languages.
It's been rigidly translated that way even in the countries
where family members address their fathers using formal
2nd person. The Lord's prayer then feels like talking to
an intimate father friend, one's close body, not just one's
real life father. On the other hand it could sound a bit rude
and lacking proper respect. But, hey, who does actually
think about how one says that in centuries old prayers?
pjk
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote ...
> > Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > ranjit_...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > > Father ... not genderless
> >
> > I'm not so sure. James Watt may be called the father of the steam
> > engine in a genderless sense since he didn't sire a steam engine.
>
> That doesn't make sense. You are confusing sex with
> grammatical gender.
>
> English is one of many languages in which nouns have
> one of three possible genders. Therefore, by definition
> it is impossible for "father" or any other English noun
> to be genderless. Every E. noun is he, she or it.
Is a mother tongue or daughter language a he, she or it?
Joachim Pense
Let's switch to the other gender. I wonder if a hypothetical man who
gives birth to a baby (the embryo might have been implanted before,
etc) deserves to be called a mother?
Joachim
Peter T. Daniels
ranjit_...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Sadly, Fowler's tome on modern English usage doesn't seem to have found
> its way to Project Gutenberg:
> http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/f#a1998
There are now "pirated" editions, so its copyright has expired, so
you're free to prepare the text for their use.
Peter T. Daniels
Joe Fineman wrote:
> Indeed, the arch-grammar-maven H. W. Fowler
How dare youi insult Fowler by lumping him with Safire and his ilk?
Peter T. Daniels
> > If English did briefly pass though a stage when a formal you sg.
> > contrasted with an intimate thou, thou was maintained in addressing God
> > to emphasize the Christian's intimacy with God.
>
> This 2nd peculiarity that I brought up is not animate vs, inanimate; it
> is respectful 2nd person pronoun vs. respectless 2nd person pronoun.
> Christians use a respectless (or disrespectful) 2nd pronoun to address
> God - thou in the KJV and [n[i:] in Malayalam Bibles.
How did you manage to confuse "intimate" and "inanimate"?
Why do you think thou is "respectless"?
andrew...@hotmail.com
Paul J Kriha wrote:
> AFAIK, a deliberate decision was made to always translate
> addresses to God using familiar 2nd sg. in all languages.
Not necessarily in French, at least among Catholics (I think
Protestants were more likely to use 'tu'); "Notre pere qui etes aux
cieux" still gets respectable numbers of hits; and, if we move down to
the saints, 'Je vous salue Marie' is a standard form for 'Ave Maria'.
> It's been rigidly translated that way even in the countries
> where family members address their fathers using formal
> 2nd person. The Lord's prayer then feels like talking to
> an intimate father friend, one's close body, not just one's
> real life father. On the other hand it could sound a bit rude
> and lacking proper respect. But, hey, who does actually
> think about how one says that in centuries old prayers?
>
> pjk
What is very noticeable is that many Bible translations and associated
religious texts avoid the whole issue of polite forms of the 2nd
person, preferring just to translate the singular/plural distinction,
and thereby making everything 'informal'. This can be problematic, as
some conversations between humans in the Bible are most definitely
polite and formal (conversations involving God might be held to be
special cases); I suppose, though, that no one is sure where to draw
the line in the marginal cases.
Colin Fine
> "Thou" today has no meaning whatsoever outside this usage, which has
> almost entirely disappeared; but when it was the normal way of
> addressing 2sg., that's what it was; English is not German (or
> Malayalam?).
>
> If English did briefly pass though a stage when a formal you sg.
> contrasted with an intimate thou, thou was maintained in addressing God
> to emphasize the Christian's intimacy with God.
>
I have always remembered reading, as a child, an account of the life of
William Penn, which contained the (to a modern child) paradoxical
instruction from his father "Me shalt thou not thou!"
I have not found a reference for this quotation.
Colin
Colin Fine
First, insofar as there is a gender distinction in English, it relates
to what the noun denotes, not the noun itself (eg 'the chairman' may be
'he' or 'she').
Secondly, two speakers may use the same noun with the same reference,
but not assign the same gender. This can occur in cases of lack of
knowledge - one speaker may refer to a baby as 'it', and another refer
to the same baby as 'she' - but also in cases where individuals classify
differently - the owner of a boat may call it 'she' whereas somebody
else will call it 'it'!
Colin
Joachim Pense
It implies less distance.
Joachim
Joe Fineman
> Joe Fineman wrote:
>> Indeed, the arch-grammar-maven H. W. Fowler wrote [MEU, 1927,
>> s.v. which)(that)(who]:
>>
>> (A) of _which_ & _that_, _which_ is appropriate to non-defining &
>> _that_ to defining clauses; (B) of _which_ & _who_, _which_
>> belongs to things, and _who_ to persons; (C) of _who_ & _that_,
>> _who_ suits particular persons, & _that_ generic persons.
>>
>> As examples of point (C), he gives "_You who are a walking
>> dictionary_, but _He is a man that is never at a loss_".
>
> How can "he" in this example refer to generic persons? "He that is
> never at a loss" might conceivably allude to generic persons but "He
> is a man that is never at a loss" would seem to have to allude to a
> particular person.
"He" means a particular person, but "man" (the antecedent of "that")
means a generic one. "A" picks out the one for him to be.
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
||: Liberty subverts equality & fraternity, because its costs :||
||: are largely borne by the weak. :||
Joe Fineman
> Joe Fineman wrote:
>
>> Indeed, the arch-grammar-maven H. W. Fowler
>
> How dare you insult Fowler by lumping him with Safire and his ilk?
I'm sorry; I did not realize that the term had a narrow technical
meaning.
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
||: The lower middle class sacrifices the most for :||
||: respectability, and benefits the least from it. :||
Paul J Kriha
<ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1157874799.6...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
The answer depends on language, dialect, and ideolect.
Which one did you have in mind?
In my English ideolect it's usually it. But whatever it is
it's never genderless.
pjk
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
Joe Fineman wrote:
> "ranjit_...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > Joe Fineman wrote:
>
> >> Indeed, the arch-grammar-maven H. W. Fowler wrote [MEU, 1927,
> >> s.v. which)(that)(who]:
> >>
> >> (A) of _which_ & _that_, _which_ is appropriate to non-defining &
> >> _that_ to defining clauses; (B) of _which_ & _who_, _which_
> >> belongs to things, and _who_ to persons; (C) of _who_ & _that_,
> >> _who_ suits particular persons, & _that_ generic persons.
> >>
> >> As examples of point (C), he gives "_You who are a walking
> >> dictionary_, but _He is a man that is never at a loss_".
> >
> > How can "he" in this example refer to generic persons? "He that is
> > never at a loss" might conceivably allude to generic persons but "He
> > is a man that is never at a loss" would seem to have to allude to a
> > particular person.
>
> "He" means a particular person, but "man" (the antecedent of "that")
> means a generic one. "A" picks out the one for him to be.
Ah; "man that is never at a loss" is a noun clause referring
generically to men who are never at a loss, effectively meaning the
class of men who are never at a loss!
So, "He is a man who is never at a loss" would mean something
different: that he is never at a loss and there might or might not be
other men who are never at a loss, or a class of men who are never at a
loss, right?
Paul J Kriha
Colin Fine <ne...@kindness.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ee1nou$7m1$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
Something like that does happen in other languages too.
For example, some Russian toponyms may be assigned
different genders in different dialects/idoelects.
What I meant was, if something is refered to as "it",
it doesn't mean it's genderless.
pjk
Paul J Kriha
news:1157910621.8...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> Paul J Kriha wrote:
>
> > AFAIK, a deliberate decision was made to always translate
> > addresses to God using familiar 2nd sg. in all languages.
>
> Not necessarily in French, at least among Catholics (I think
I didn't know that.
I expected old Catholic translations to be especially
consistent in all different languages.
> Protestants were more likely to use 'tu'); "Notre pere qui etes aux
> cieux" still gets respectable numbers of hits; and, if we move down to
> the saints, 'Je vous salue Marie' is a standard form for 'Ave Maria'.
>
> > It's been rigidly translated that way even in the countries
> > where family members address their fathers using formal
> > 2nd person. The Lord's prayer then feels like talking to
> > an intimate father friend, one's close body, not just one's
> > real life father. On the other hand it could sound a bit rude
> > and lacking proper respect. But, hey, who does actually
> > think about how one says that in centuries old prayers?
> >
> > pjk
>
> What is very noticeable is that many Bible translations and associated
> religious texts avoid the whole issue of polite forms of the 2nd
(Most of the) other European languages are not in any
position to avoid this issue. It's not just a question of what
pronoun to use now and then. As soon as one addresses
the God or a saint one has to use consistent familiar forms
of all verbs and pronouns in all their declensions, tenses
and aspects.
E.g. It is always the familiar Cz form "Matko Boz^í, pros za nás"
or "Matko Boz^í, oroduj za nás"
(Mother of God, beg/intercede for us) and never ever
"Matko Boz^í, proste za nás" or "Matko Boz^í, orodujte za nás"
(Mother of God, beg/intercede(formal polite) for us)
It is always "Otc^e náš, jenz^ jsi na nebesích"
(Father of ours, who are on heavens) and not
"Otc^e náš, jenz^ jste na nebesích"
(Father of ours, who are(formal polite form) on heavens)
pjk
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
Oh, dear! Speed-reading, I suppose.
> Why do you think thou is "respectless"?
I've seen it said so. I gave one reference:
http://www.quaker.org/thee-thou.html
Here's another:
Since the occasional misuse of *thou* in more formal situations was
interpreted as patronizing, it developed a *contemptuous or scornful
connotation*. In formal social situations, the historically plural
*ye/you* began to be used in the singular, as a *sign of respect* when
speaking to a person of higher rank.
http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=20000208
Paulo da Costa
> <andrew...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1157910621.8...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>> Paul J Kriha wrote:
>>
>>> AFAIK, a deliberate decision was made to always translate
>>> addresses to God using familiar 2nd sg. in all languages.
>> Not necessarily in French, at least among Catholics (I think
>
> I didn't know that.
>
> I expected old Catholic translations to be especially
> consistent in all different languages.
It's not consistent with that in Portuguese either (Pai nosso que estais
no céu... o Senhor é convosco... etc.). It doesn't follow the Latin
model of second person singular.
I guess each language used what felt natural in that language at the time.
Paulo
Tak To
> John Atkinson <john...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:YVeMg.25536$rP1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>>"Paul J Kriha" <paul.nos...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
>>news:45013801$1...@clear.net.nz...
>>
>>>Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> ...
>>>
>>>>John Atkinson <john...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote...
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Brian M. Scott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>[...]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>And about 16,200 other hits on "man that I met" (e.g., 'I am
>>>>>>>>currently in a wonderful relationship with a man that I met
>>>>>>>>through your site 3 months ago').
>>>>
>>>>>>>And the reason you don't give the figure(s) for "who" (and
>>>>>>>"whom")?
>>>>
>>>>>>I was not trying to demonstrate that 'who' and 'whom' are
>>>>>>possible in that construction. In fact "man whom I met"
>>>>>>gets only about 9750 hits, and "man who I met" only about
>>>>>>596; unsurprisingly, "man I met" gets about 176,000.
>>>>
>>>>>Something wierd here! Yesterday, as it happened, I searched for "the
>>>>>man
>>>>>that I met" etc, with added "the": My results:
>>>>
>>>>>"the man that I met" 37 600 hits
>>>>>"the man who I met" 55 100
>>>>>"the man whom I met" 1140
>>>>>"the man I met" 26 000
>>>>
>>>>But if you actually page through, you'll find that "the man
>>>>that I met" actually gets only 136 hits (with the 'very
>>>>similar' ones omitted); "the man who I met" gets 46, "the
>>>>man whom I met" gets 91, and "the man I met" gets 729.
>>>>
>>>>Without the article, in the same order: 604, 335, 567, 790.
>>>>
>>>>With <a>: 186, 74, 132, 715.
>>>>
>>>>Something's clearly wrong with the routine that returns the
>>>>approximate total number of hits.
>>>>[...]
>>>>Brian
>>>
>>>It's probably counting pages that are pointed to by pages
>>>containing the specified string or strings.
>>
>>I thought of that too. But that theory doesn't work -- as I already showed,
>>and as you verified in your other post, shortening a string by leaving out
>>the first word (which must produce a superset of the pages previously
>>obtained) often *reduces* the figure Google comes up with.
>>
>>No, it's nothing that simple.
>
>
> Yes, I didn't say so but I do realize there are also other factors
> involved. Returning hit pages that are pointed to by pages containing
> the specified string definitely happens but it's not the only thing
> that they do in their 'highly sophisticated proprietary search logic'.
>
> For example, when you search for earl gray (unquoted)
> one of the returned early hits is
> www.englishteastore.com/earlgreytea.html - 46k - Cached - Similar pages
> If you select Cached rather than the page's URL you get the page
> content supplied from the Google's cache (which is sometimes
> faster, also it may be the only way to get at the content if the original
> site is down or no more in existence). It is displayed with a Google
> preamble. At the end of the preamble Google says explicitely:
>
> These search terms have been highlighted: earl
> These terms only appear in links pointing to this page: gray
>
> Well, lahdydah... I wish Google installed an option which
> when selected would disable all their sophisticated artificial
> intelligence logic.
The cached version sometimes lags quite far behind in terms of
getting updated.
Another thing is that Google cannot reliably tell if certain text
is actually visible. Some webpage designers put tons of catch
phrases in so as to draw the attention of search engines, but
the phrases are not visible and not searchable by the browser.
Many mail order sites are like that, esp. porn ones.
Tak
--
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ta...@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
Robert Bannister
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>>ranjit_...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>>Father ... not genderless
>
>
> I'm not so sure. James Watt may be called the father of the steam
> engine in a genderless sense since he didn't sire a steam engine.
So was Mme Curie the father of radium?
--
Rob Bannister