Casi  +  73019 Wed, 09 Feb 05 10:25 AM Mr Pedantic wrote: If anyone knows [Professor of emeritus C-J N. Bailey's] e-mail address, please feel free to let me know... MH has it. It's the correct address, and the N. stands for Nice. His bio is here: http://www.orlapubs.com/A/A2.html (He wrote it) It's fairly lengthy, and most of it is about his mother, but if you intend to contact him, it'll give you an idea of where he's been, what he's done, and so on. Casi Joined on Sat, Sep 25 2004 Regular Member 547 Grammar

	MrPedantic  +  73021 Wed, 09 Feb 05 10:44 AM Thanks, Casi! I expect he's a very busy man, but with luck a rebuttal already exists for the points I've raised. That's assuming I make it through his firewall. He must be overwhelmed with queries, to judge by the other forums that cite his findings – sometimes in surprisingly similar terms. MrP MrPedantic Joined on Tue, Oct 12 2004 Veteran Member 12,592 ...opella forensis / adducit febris... Grammar

	Casi  +  73048 Wed, 09 Feb 05 12:41 PM You're welcome, Mr P. You'd be surprised how busy he actually is. Try him. His ideas are not that radical, or are they? You've me intrigued with the French connection. Do tell. What do you see that I don't see, or haven't yet picked up on? Casi Grammar

	just the truth  +  73091 Wed, 09 Feb 05 02:56 PM Mr P: To return to the original posting: it would be interesting to know whether Professor Bailey could defend his seemingly inaccurate analysis of the links between English and French. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, Mr P, I was going to get back to you on this French connection but it kinda got lost in the shuffle. Before you rush off tilting at windmills, you should be certain that you fully understand just what it is Prof Bailey is saying about the connection between French and English. Could you please let me know some of those other sites you've located, Sire? Just to clear up another thing. No, Casi, I'm not Japanese-Canadian. I'm a mixed boat, to be sure, but as far as I know, there are no Japanese ancestors in the closet. To quote George and Jerry; "Not that there'd be anything wrong with that". just the truth Joined on Mon, Dec 27 2004 Regular Member 849 Grammar

	MrPedantic  +  73101 Wed, 09 Feb 05 03:29 PM Hello Casi I find the 'for you and I/me and you are' duo quite interesting. In fact I think you and I ('me-and-you') have discussed it before. To my mind, the CGEL explanation involves a lapse of logic, while the Bailey explanation is short on historical evidence (in the article JTT mentions, at least). Pinker discusses it somewhere too, but I can't remember what he says (though I do remember it was mostly conjectural). I expect I've misunderstood Bailey's explanation. I am easily confused. MrP MrPedantic Grammar, Articles

	Su Cheng Zhong  +  73163 Thu, 10 Feb 05 12:01 AM I always wonder some thing in English grammar. For instance, the sentence: I drive him. 'I' is the subject. 'Him' is the object. Yet their position have told us this too. Is that means the English grammar is sort of double expressing? For if the sentences of: I him drive. drive I him. drive him I. him drive I. him I drive. never happened in our printing material, the position will tell us what they are. Another example is this: I carried him, before. It is also double expressing. The past tense 'ed' tells us the action happened in the past, while the word 'before' tells this too. So the question would be; why should we express a certain meaning in a sentence twice, while other meaning only once? Is there any meaning that need to be expressed three times? Su Cheng Zhong Joined on Mon, Feb 7 2005 New Member 29 Tenses, Grammar, Past Tenses, English Grammar

	phalder79  +  73210 Thu, 10 Feb 05 07:44 AM Dear Sir/Madam, I am Mr. Pradipta Halder from India. My English Forums user id is phalder79. I have written a letter of motivation for a masters programme. I want to get it edited by you. But I don't know how to post my letter. Do I paste my letter on this box ? Please help me. My formal email id is phalder79@rediffmail.com. You can send your suggestion there. The last date of application is 28 th Feb 2005. Please reply at the earliest. Thanks Pradipta phalder79 Joined on Wed, Feb 9 2005 New Member 01 Dates, Letter of Motivation

	Casi  +  73247 Thu, 10 Feb 05 01:00 PM MrP wrote: I find the 'for you and I/me and you are' duo quite interesting. (cited) bartleby.com: Lounsbury, following Dean Alford, says ["It's me"] came into English in imitation of the French c’est moi, and defends it as at least as good as “it is I.” There's more here: Source:http://www.bartleby.com/185/41.html As for the French connection: "moi" is called a stress pronoun, or rather pronom toniques (e.g., lui, eux), and it's used only in certain grammatical contexts: When no verb is implied: Qui est à la porte?—C'est moi, Hubert. (C'est *je; subject pronoun) Who is at the door?—It's me, Hubert. (Note, it's been argued, and I don't have the source handy at the 'mo, that 'est' doesn't function as a copular in that context.) When used with a subject pronoun: Mon ami et moi . . . . Cf. English: You and me are; Mary and myself (i.e., glorified "me") And of course, as in English, following a preposition. Cf. English: for you and me Casi Nouns, Verbs, Prepositions, Grammar, Pronouns

	MrPedantic  +  73252 Thu, 10 Feb 05 01:38 PM Thanks, Casi. Your point is very similar to the one I was making. It's buried somewhere in the first page of this thread. (I didn't say it was an interesting post; so don't feel obliged to hunt it down.) MrP MrPedantic Grammar