ESL Linguistics Discussion Forum

Re: Beware the ides of March, the revenge of the moderators!

Tallulah Tam — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 13:17:22 GMT

I would just like to add that if anyone is interested in following the topic, from which my message was removed, it is in General English Grammar Questions under Simple Subject and Predicate.

Re: Beware the ides of March, the revenge of the moderators!

Tallulah Tam — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 13:02:26 GMT

Hello Henrietta,

If moderators are so "busy" they only have time for a perfunctory one sentence response or they would rather eliminate posts than elaborate on them, one can only assume they have another motive for their haste.

(The sarcasm did not go unnoticed)

Re: Beware the ides of March, the revenge of the moderators!

Henrietta — Tue, 01 Nov 2005 21:13:14 GMT

Tallulah Tam wrote:
I have noticed that some teachers are so anxious to keep the number of their messages high that they more often write one line replies or even just one or two word exclamations rather than trouble themselves to give informative and instructive answers.

Yes you're spot on there. My whole world revolves around watching my post count on English Forums go up and up and up.

(post number 365 - can't wait till it gets to four digits...oooh I get shivers down my spine just thinking about it)

Re: Beware the ides of March, the revenge of the moderators!

Tallulah Tam — Tue, 01 Nov 2005 13:54:04 GMT

These are very good answers. Well done! I really liked Pacoâs analysis and would give full marks to him.

If the original moderator had given an answer anywhere near as good as these there would have been no ill feeling.

It does not alter the fact of course that my message should not have been erased. If he marks his students homework in the same fashion, most of the answers will end up in the bin without a satisfactory explanation. Nobody learns anything that way.

A GOOD teacher might have said âNow look, we have an interesting answer here. It happens to be incorrect but we can see how Tallulah arrived at that answer. She thinks the subject is in the sentence line, but in fact in this particular sentence which is called an IMPERATIVE sentence exceptions are made. The subject of the sentence in this case is IMPLIED. 'Take that off my chair'. The SUBJECT here is the person to whom you are talking. 'YOU take that off my chair.' in this case YOU is unspoken."

I have noticed that some teachers are so anxious to keep the number of their messages high that they more often write one line replies or even just one or two word exclamations rather than trouble themselves to give informative and instructive answers. They also write obscure answers in textbook format, not everyone here is sitting an exam!

I am glad you reproduced my message, it is a useful learning tool from which others can benefit.

Thanks to all.

Tallulah

Re: Beware the ides of March, the revenge of the moderators!

paco2004 — Tue, 01 Nov 2005 05:27:52 GMT

Hello Tallulah

I'm a learner from Japan. Could you let me answer your question?

Tallulah Tam wrote:
Is it not true that every complete sentence has a subject and predicate? Yes or No?

Yes, in most cases, but there are exceptions. The exceptions are imperative sentences, and "Take that off my chair" is an imerative sentence. In the sentence the real subject "you" is hidden. So we have to parse the sentence as "[You] take that off my chair". The whole of "take that off my chair" works as a predicate here. "Take" is a verb. "That" is a demonstrative pronoun functioning as the object of "take". "Off my chair" is a locative adverbial phrase.

paco

Re: Beware the ides of March, the revenge of the moderators!

julielai — Tue, 01 Nov 2005 02:55:37 GMT

The thing or person on the chair is what he/she is talking about. Yes or No?

I'd say no, for I see an implied you in the sentence.

You take that off the chair.

The subject is clear now, but the subject won't change even with you unstated (and thus implied).

Just out of curiosity, are we basing this discussion on a generic definition of subject/predicate or are we arguing for intellectual discussion's sake? If the latter, then we can define subjects in whatever way we like.

I did some googling and found this. Hope that helps!

Sometimes we use sentences in which a subject is not actually stated, but is, nevertheless, understood in the meaning.

Example:

Call the plumber please.

                A sentence like this gives an order or a request to someone.

Because we use such statements when we are talking directly to someone, we omit the word you. It is understood in the sentence. Therefore, in statements like this one, we say the subject is

                                                    you (understood).

This kind of sentence is an imperative sentence.

Source: http://wwwnew.towson.edu/ows/sentelmt.htm

http://www.uottawa.ca/academic/arts/writcent/hypergrammar/subjpred.html

Re: Beware the ides of March, the revenge of the moderators!

Tallulah Tam — Tue, 01 Nov 2005 02:34:03 GMT

Mr P. and Julie, thank you for those examples, but could we work with THE sentence please, including answering the Yes, No, questions I asked about it? Bearing in mind we are talking about the SIMPLE subject and predicate.

Julie if you are asking me whether I mind if this is moved, I would rather it stayed here so that people can follow it through to the end, thanks.

Re: Beware the ides of March, the revenge of the moderators!

julielai — Tue, 01 Nov 2005 01:10:35 GMT

Hi Tallulah,

Nice to get some linguistic discussions. So I'll add my two cents.

You go away. (Subject is you)

Now, if I'm really tired at the end of the day, I may end up saying,

Go away.

Go.

(But the subject hasn't changed, has it?)

Do you mind if we move this to the linguistics forum? This seems a good linguistic topic.

(By the way, if you have leftover Hershey kisses, save me a handful, please?)

Cheers.

Re: Beware the ides of March, the revenge of the moderators!

MrPedantic — Tue, 01 Nov 2005 01:10:25 GMT

Hello Tallulah

The grammatical subject of a sentence isn't necessarily the same as the "subject matter".

In this sentence, for instance â

1. My girlfriend ran off with the milkman.

â the grammatical subject of the sentence is "my girlfriend"; the predicate is "ran off with the milkman"; and the object of the verb "run off with" is "the milkman".

But the subject matter (the "topic") would depend on the context and intonation. For instance, the sentence might arise in a discussion of "people girlfriends run off with". ("My girlfriend ran off with the milkman!") Or a discussion of "my girlfriend". ("I forgot to tell you. My girlfriend ran off with the milkman.") Or even "milkmen" ("That's a coincidence! My girlfriend ran off with the milkman!").

Or take this one:

2. I always try to get balls into the conversation.

The subject is "I"; the predicate is the underlined part; and the object of "get" is "balls". These definitions are invariable. But the topic/subject matter could be "my charming quirks":

2a. I always try to get balls into the conversation.

Or "things we can do to promote balls":

2b. I always try to get balls into the conversation.

Or "unusual conversational gambits":

2c. I always try to get balls into the conversation.

So the problem is your use of "subject" and "object". In grammatical contexts, these have precise meanings: they don't mean "subject matter" and "thing".

Does that help?

MrP

Re: Beware the ides of March, the revenge of the moderators!

Tallulah Tam — Tue, 01 Nov 2005 00:28:06 GMT

Thank you Mr P. Now we are getting somewhere!

Actually I inserted a wink after the sentence in parentheses, or perhaps inside them, I can't remember.

OK here goes........... (It takes a brave person to take on the Gurus).

Is it not true that every complete sentence has a subject and predicate? Yes or No?

Assuming the answer is âyes,â in the following sentence, âTake that off my chairâ the subject matter is what is on the chair. Yes or No?

The subject is not ALWAYS a person, it can be a thing. Yes or No?

The thing or person on the chair is what he/she is talking about. Yes or No?

Therefore,

The simple subject is âthatâ

The simple predicate is âtakeâ

Please explain very clearly EXACTLY where this is wrong.

Re: Beware the ides of March, the revenge of the moderators!

MrPedantic — Tue, 01 Nov 2005 00:02:46 GMT

Hello Tallulah

I'm sorry if we seem to be ganging up on you. Lively posts do tend to attract a lively response. But let's go back to the post that was deleted:

______________________________________________________

MrX,

I refer you to your previous answer:-

"You have underlined objects, not subjects. (the first has no written subject: it is understood you)".

This did not explain that an object could be the subject of the sentence.

To help Anon.

If you ask yourself what is going on in the sentence " Take that off my chair"

Somebody is asking someone to take something off the chair. The something is the subject of the sentence.

The something is "that"

(I try to get balls into my discussions )

_________________________________________________________

When you say "an object could be the subject of the sentence", you're not "incorrect" in any general sense; but in grammatical terms, you're confusing "subject" as in "topic" with "subject" as in "grammatical subject of the sentence" (= "something of which something is predicated").

You're also confusing "object" as in "thing" with "object" as in the grammatical object of the verb.

A thing can certainly be the "topic" of a sentence; but the object of the verb can't also be the grammatical subject of the sentence.

In your sentence "Take that off my chair", for instance, the grammatical subject (i.e. the person performing the action described by the verb) is an unstated, understood "you"; while "that" is the direct object of the verb "take."

I hope that clears it up. It really isn't a case of power-crazed mods running amok with flailing gavels. All we do is pick up litter, direct people to the washrooms, and try to get between over-excited members when they start kicking hell out of each other.

(And if you've ever found yourself stuck between a couple of over-excited members, you'll know what that can be like.)

MrP

Re: Beware the ides of March, the revenge of the moderators!

Sextus — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 20:23:07 GMT

Sextus wrote:

This is indeed a democracy.

I mean: this certainly seems to be a democracy given that this guy could post his "clever" messages with complete freedom.

Sextus

Re: Beware the ides of March, the revenge of the moderators!

Henrietta — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 19:18:47 GMT

hitchhiker wrote:
Admin and self-confessed dictator.

ROFL

Re: Beware the ides of March, the revenge of the moderators!

Sextus — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 17:06:08 GMT

Well, well, what a discussion...

I do believe that this site is great. Moderators and others have helped me a lot with the papers I've written in English, even though I may be a little annoying.

I just wonder why no moderator delete the messages from this cocky, smart-aleck guy, who posted them "anonymously". This is indeed a democracy.

All the best,

Sextus

Re: Beware the ides of March, the revenge of the moderators!

Tallulah Tam — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 16:41:33 GMT

Dear Mr P.

Thank your for your reply.

I would like to ask you whether you saw the post in question or whether you have just accepted the moderator's explanation?

I would not have been embarrassed for my post to be corrected in public. This is SUPPOSED to be a teaching forum!

The moderator gave a very poor, perfunctory, and unclear response. He did not give any examples, and above all he gave it with absolute authority. He initally tried to shut down the thread by declaring it "Resolved" then since he knew my message would still be read he decided to delete it.

I do not enjoy being "ganged up" on. I need an advocate on my side.

The way to present my case would be to reproduce a copy of my message for open discussion.

Sincerely,

Tallulah