Search results for 'tag:Conversations tag:Accusative' matching tags 'Conversations' and 'Accusative'

Re: Which way would you sway?

MrPedantic — Fri, 25 May 2007 00:08:15 GMT

Milky wrote:

<I would be interested to see quotations from the early English grammarians that presented spoken English as somehow inferior, or that demonstrated an imposition of inappropriate rules from Latin. >

Do you doubt that was the case?

"Doubt" is too strong a word. I would be interested to see the quotations.

If so, I guess you disagree with this:

"If they have studied "English Grammar", this is probably an encumbrance which they might well put aside for the present, since it is based on a more or less imitative recapitulation of Classical Latin Grammar, which is totally non-applicable to the English language as it now stands.

I would disagree that Classical Latin Grammar is "totally non-applicable" to the English language (or vice versa). It would be truer to say that many aspects of Latin grammar are non-applicable to English.

I would also disagree with the notion that the study of English grammar for any given person is bound to have been based on Latin grammar; though no doubt the statement is true for some people.

[Lowth] condemned "forcing the English under the rules of a foreign Language"¹).

Sounds sensible.

His most famous (or infamous) contribution to the study of grammar was his prescription that sentences ending with a prepositionâsuch as "what did you ask for?"âare inappropriate in formal writing.

Sounds doubtful. Though Lowth doesn't appear to mention Latin in his reasoning:

"This is an Idiom which our language is strongly inclined to; it prevails in common conversation, and suits very well with the familiar style in writing; but the placing of the Preposition before the Relative is more graceful, as well as more perspicuous; and agrees much better with the solemn and elevated Style."

And he seems to limit his prescription to the "solemn and elevated Style", which is a relatively rare form of English.

Thus Lowth condemns Addison's sentence "Who should I meet the other night, but my old friend?" on the grounds that the thing acted upon should be in the "Objective Case" (corresponding, as he says earlier, to an oblique case in Latin), rather than taking this example and others as evidence from noted writers that "who" can refer to direct objects.

I would not agree with Lowth about Addison's sentence; but nothing here suggests that his justification lay in Latin grammar.

"Objective case" doesn't seem a particularly pernicious phrase; "whom" is undeniably an example; and what remains of the objective case in English "corresponds" in some of its functions to the accusative case in Latin.

I know that some popular sources repeat the notion that early English grammarians attempted to impose Latin grammar on English; but I've yet to see any primary evidence.

MrP

Re: Correct a sentence (subjunctive) 2

CalifJim — Sat, 29 Jan 2005 17:54:53 GMT

There is ... no basis at all for including dative among the inflectional categories of the English noun.

And there is likewise no basis for including nominative or accusative (or objective) among the inflectional categories of the English noun.

English nouns have no inflections whatever except for plurality and the apostophe-s.

The Cambridge reference is interested only in English from the inside, as it were. But if you widen the inquiry to include many languages you see that other languages do have dative as an inflectional category. When a native speaker of one of those languages wants to know how to say his dative construction in English, it doesn't help much to say English doesn't have one. It's pretty much a conversation stopper! It's just arguing terminology, and doesn't solve the student's problem. Taking a less rigid approach often eases communication and helps the student to acquire English faster by concentrating on the practical matters of speaking and writing English, not on the fine points of grammatical terminology.

I think we all tend to forget, because grammar and linguistics can be so fascinating in themselves, that we are not teaching grammar and linguistics as such, but only as a means to an end. I say if the means gets in the way of the end, toss it out.

CJ

Re: This is me or this is i

rommie — Thu, 12 Feb 2004 16:30:24 GMT

What we're saying is that both are "correct" in some sense. "This is I" is correct technically. "This is me" is what the vast, vast majority of people actually say in practice. "This is me" is not technically correct, but it is what most people say in reality.

So ... in an exam, use "This is I". In conversation ... majority opinion is weighted in favor of "This is me".

BUT...

Your example does NOT follow that pattern. In the sentence "This is I who have allergies", the fragment "I who have allergies" is an independent clause. It must be complete in itself, and internally correct. It would be incorrect to say "Me who have allergies", therefore it be incorrect to say "This is me who have allergies" - and I mean really incorrect now, even in spoken English. So in this case, everyone is in agreement - "This is I who have allergies" is correct in all circles.

("Me who has allergies" is also a correct clause, but you're unlikely to hear anyone say that. Generally, people avoid the accusative case it they can get away with doing so).

Rommie