Search results for 'tag:English grammar tag:Accusative' matching tags 'English grammar' 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

Help with nominative-accusative case.

M. Caliban — Thu, 28 Dec 2006 13:59:05 GMT

Although I'm a native English speaker, I've often struggled to understand English grammar, especially its morphosyntatical elements. I've done some reading on nominative-accusative as well as ergative-absolutive cases and I just don't get it.

Can someone who's better at linguistics explain this to me?

I understand that a sentence has a Subject, a Verb, and an Object. (John sees fish) I understand that a verb can be transitive, in that it demands both subject and object, or intransitive, in that it won't accept an object.

For example, 'to see' is transitive in that John (the subject) has to see something (the direct object), he can't 'just see.' On the other hand, 'to sleep' is intransitive in that John can 'just sleep' but he can't sleep a direct object.

1a: John sees fish.

1b: John sees.

2a: John sleeps fish

2b: John sleeps.

Therefore, 1a and 2b are right. 2a is never right and 1b is only right if you want to interpret it as actually saying, "John does see."

As I understand it, nominative-accusative case is when a language 'marks' the direct object of a transitive verb. So, if my mark was '-do' then I could say:

1. John sees fish.

2. John fish-do sees.

3. Fish-do sees John.

4. Sees fish-do John.

And all of them would mean the same thing. Word order doesn't matter now as no matter where I scatter the word fish the -do tells me what its function in the sentence is.

My problem (took me long enough, didn't it?) is that English is described as having a vestigial normative-accusative case in its use of pronouns and passive voice but I don't see it. Can someone explain how normative-accusative applies to the English language?

phrasal verbs decoded. The placement of the object.

Kvinchuca — Sun, 09 Apr 2006 02:04:16 GMT

The various forms of phrasal verbs

Phrasal verbs can be transitive or intransitive, separable or inseparable.
The object or accusative can in the cases of separable phrasal verbs be placed before or after the particle.
With inseparable phrases, the object/accusative is fixed and its position either before or after the particle cannot be changed by the speaker.
Our analysis has shown that the position of the object/accusative assigns an importance, diminished importance, or a complete lack of importance from the speakers point of view.
If the particle is followed by the object/accusative then the importance is clearly shown.
If the object/accusative precedes the particle it has a diminished or lack of importance.
If the object/accusative can go before or after the particle, as is the case in separable phrases, then the importance assigned to it is decided by position the speaker places it.
The separable phrases are commonly described as having the same meaning, no matter where the object/accusative is placed, either before or after the particle and in general this may be true, however there is a difference, so small as to be unnoticed.
There nevertheless occasions when the object/accusative sounds to be misplaced to the ears of a native speaker.
There are in many phrases a word order that is generally accepted to be the norm, and a diversion from this order would immediately be noticed by a native speaker and not necessarily by a non-native.
For example, the colours of the Union Jack (the British national flag), are red, white and blue. If somebody described them as blue red and white, they are technically correct, but the native speaker would sense an uncomfortable feeling that the speaker was not quite right, or had spoken incorrectly.

There are many example of this: bacon and eggs (correct) eggs and bacon (uncomfortable). Black and white films (correct) white and black films (uncomfortable). Cup and saucer (correct) saucer and cup (uncomfortable).
There is nothing in English grammar that rules the order of these words and to a non-native speaker the fact that all the information is there, is all that matters, but the uncomfortable sensation felt by the native demonstrates that something very subtle is going on.
The same applies to the separable phrasal verbs. In most instances the subtle difference is unnoticed even by the native, yet in speaking the word order used demonstrates a particular importance or diminished importance that has subconsciously been attached by the speaker.
For example. âthat man is chatting my girl-friend upâ, in this phrase, I have given a diminished importance to my âgirl-friendâ and there is a subtle sense of indifference to the situation. Whereas âthat man is chatting up my girl-friendâ, in this phrase âmy girl-friendâ is after the particle and is subtly stressed. âMy girl-friendâ is shown to have more importance in this phrase and there is an implied sense of indignation as opposed to indifference.

When we use a pronoun instead of naming the object/accusative, the pronoun always goes before the particle. The reason being that once the object has been named the attached importance to the person or thing is slightly diminished, but the importance can be restated by the repetition of the name.
For example, âIs your girl-friend called Sarah?â âYes why?â âWell, that man is chatting her up â. âBloody hell, youâre right, heâs chatting up my Sarahâ.
Here the indignation is obvious because of the naming of the girl a second time. If the phrase was âyes heâs chatting her upâ the indignation felt by the speaker and heard by the listener would depend on the inflection of the voice, whereas in âmy Sarahâ, there is no doubt how the speaker feels.

Re: eragative or middle.

paco2004 — Sat, 21 Jan 2006 02:14:14 GMT

Hello Anon

Are you testing our knowledge about linguistic terms?

"Ergative" is originally the term used to refer to the case of the subject in the transitive sentences of ergative-absolutive languages like Georgian and Basque. In those languages, the nouns are marked by an "ergative-case marker" when they come to the position of subject in a transitive sentence and otherwise the nouns are marked by an "absolute-case marker". You can see this argument more clearly by comparing two sentences:
         1. The woman(erg) loved the man(abs).
         2. The man(abs) arrived.
So roughly speaking, "ergative verbs" in ergative-absolutive languages is synonymous to "transitive verbs" in nominative-accusative languages such as English. However, some English linguists use the term "ergative verbs" to refer to special verbs that can be used both in transitive and intransitive ways without significant difference in the meaning. Take "break" as the example:
         3. Someone broke the china.
         4. The china broke.
If English were an ergative-absolutative language, the subject in the sentence #3 should take the ergative case. This might be the reason theses amphoteric verbs were named as "ergative verbs". So, more precisely speaking, when it is used as an English grammar term, "ergative verbs" refers to some intransitive verbs that can be used as a transitive verb. "Unaccusative verbs" is another term used to refer to the same things. This term was created on the ground that the subjects of such intransitive verbs are in the accusative case when they are in the original transitive sentences.

It is said English has about 600 ergative verbs. Examples are : alter, balance, beat, begin, bend, bleed, boil, burn, burst, change, circulate, close, commence, dash, decrease, increase, diminish, drop, dry, embark, end, explode, fade, fill, form, freeze, gather, grow, harden, improve, increase, issue, melt, open, pass, roll, separate, shake, shine, shiver, shoot, slip, spread, start, stir, stop, split, spread, start, tear, thaw, thicken, turn, twist, upset, etc.. In contrast to these ergative verbs, verbs like "arrive", "jump", and "dance" are obligatorily intransitive and therefore the subjects of these verbs couldn't take an ergative case if English were an ergative-absolutive language. So these genuine intransitive verbs are called "unergative verbs".

"Middle verbs" is another term for a special class of verbs that can be used both transitively and intransitively. Middle verbs and ergative verbs somewhat overlap with each other, but their concepts are different. Let's take your three sentences.
          3. Someone broke the china.
          4. The china broke.
          5. China breaks easily.
"Break" in the sentence #4 is an ergative verb. It is used in a sentence describing an event that a certain china broke. On the other hand, "breaks" in the sentence #5 is a middle verb. It is used in a sentence describing a quality or property of china, that is, the sentence #5 says that china has a quality of being easily broken.

Many amphoteric verbs can be both an ergative verb and a middle verb. But some amphoteric verbs can be used only a middle verb. Take "sell" as an example.
          6. The book sells well.
          7. They sold the book in the university bookstore.
          8. The book was sold in the university bookstore.
          9. (*) The book sold in the university bookstore.
"Sell" in the sentence #6 is a middle verb and it describes the quality of "the book". The sentence #7 describes an event and the sentence #8 is a passive version of the sentence #7. We cannot make a sentence like the sentence #9 to mean the same as the sentence #8. The ergative verbs are commonly used to describe a change of the state of the subject, while the middle verbs are commonly used to describe the quality or the state of the subject.

paco

the original text

Teo — Sat, 19 Nov 2005 05:29:52 GMT

Another kind of illegitimate argument is based on analogy between one area of grammar and another. consider yet another construction where there is variation between nominative and accusative forms of pronouns:

[3] a. They invited me to lunch. b. %They invited my partner and I to lunch.

The <%> symbol is again used to mark the [3b] example as typically used by some speakers of Standard English but not by others, though this time it is not a matter of regional variation. The staus of the construction in [3b] differs from that of It's me, which is undisputably normal in informal use, and from that of !Me and Kim saw her leave, which is unquestionably non-standard. What is different is that examples like [3b] are regularly used by a significant proportion of speakers of Standard English, and not generally thought by ordinary speakers to be non-standard; they pass unnoticed in broadcast speech all the time.

Prescriptists, however, condemn the use illustrated by [3b], insisting that the 'correct' form is They invited my partner andme to lunch. And here again they seek to justify the claim that [3b] is ungrammatical by an implicit analogy, this time with other situations found in English, such as the example seen in [3a]. In [3a] the pronoun functions by itself as direct object of the verb and invariably appears in accusative case. What is different in [3b] is that the direct object of the verb has the form of a coordination, not a single pronoun. Prescriptists commonly take it for granted that this difference is irrelevant to case assignment. They argue that because we have an accusative in [3a] we should also have an accusative in [3b], so the nominative I is ungrammatical.

But why should we simply assume that the grammatical rules for case assignment cannot differentiate between a coordianated and a non-coordinated pronoun? As it happens, there is another place in English grammar where the rules are sensitive to this distinction - for virtually all speakers, not just some of them:

[4] a. I don't know if you are eligible. b. *I don't know if she and you're eligible.

The sequence you are can be reduced to you're in [4a], where you is subject, but not in [4b], where the subject has the form of a coordination of pronouns. This shows us not only that a rule of English could apply differently to pronouns and coordinated pronouns, but that one rule actually does....

For further information, please read section 2.2 Disagreement between descriptist and prescriptist work in Chapter 1 of The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, published by Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Re: whomever or whoever?

paco2004 — Mon, 29 Aug 2005 02:48:21 GMT

Hello
Charles-James N Bailey, Professor Emeritus of Berlin Technical University, argues online ('How Grammars of English Have Missed the Boat') his historic view on English grammar. According to him, basic words used in current English were mostly those borrowed from the underclass's language (Anglo-Saxon) but its grammar structure comes from the upperclass's language (French/Latin). He takes 'whom' and 'whomever' as examples for the discussion. He argues:

'Whom' does not directly derive from the Anglo-Saxon accusative; Germanic (non-neuter) accusatives end in -n, whereas the dative was 'hwam'. If final -m became -n through what linguists call an unmarking development, this process was operative at language-birth and must have been influenced by Latin (non-neuter) accusatives ending in -m (cf. Latin 'quem' - 'whom'). 'Whom' has never been fully integrated into the English system, and remains marginal in educated speech (only following a preposition that has been moved to a clause-initial position). Errors made by professional writers -- e.g. 'the person whom I said had done it' and 'give it to whomever is there to sign for it'--'the one whom the residents of that settlement had assured me would repair it,' 'It was for whomever over there wanted to win quick acclaim,' and 'at the expense of whomever is wrong' -- show how un-integrated 'whom' and 'whomever' are in the English system. Even the 1611 Bible has the Lord making a grammatical error in 'Whom say ye that I am?' The French forms suggest why 'him' and 'them' endure: Unlike unchanging French 'qui' (or 'elle'-'her', she, 'nous' - 'us', 'we', or 'vous' - 'you-all'), the French words for for 'him' and 'them' contrast with those for 'he' and 'they.' The grammar comes from French structure -- never mind the etymology of words borrowed from any source.

paco

Re: Much too much much

Anonymous — Tue, 02 Aug 2005 06:51:36 GMT

Hello Roro

Iâm now in my office and so I can't log in by my own ID

Why am I frustrated? I feel the use of bare NPs as temporal adverbials is a linguistic phenomenon common to many languages. But no English grammar book gives us this sort of information in a detail enough to make us use them freely.

We discussed this matter a bit before. If you are interested, please visit here.

Paco

[PS] I think accusative nouns are used as temporal adverbials in Russian too. Please visit "Time Expression in Russian"

Adverbial objectives

paco2004 — Sun, 05 Jun 2005 06:59:15 GMT

Many English nouns and noun phrases can be used as adverbs. They are called "adverbial objectives". From the standpoint of word order, an adverbial objective is put as if it were an objective of a verb, but actually it works as an adverbial modifier of the verb. This sort of constructs comes from an Old English grammar rule that allowed ti use accusative cases of nouns as adverbs. For example, let's take an Old English sentence "He eode ham"[=He went home]. From the view of current English the word "ham" [home] would be treated as an adverb but it was the accusative of the noun "ham" in Old English. In current English this sort of noun phrase uses is prominent especially in the case the noun phrases means "time/duration", "space/direction/distance", "measure/degree", "manner" and others.

Time/Duration
[1.] Did you see him this morning?
[2.] What time shall we go?
[3.] She is thirty years old.
[4.] I'd like to start Wednesday, the first jury day. ["the first jury day" is appositive to "Wednesday"]
[5.] Please tell me what day you are free.
[6.] The parcel arrived last week.
[7.] They prayed all night in the cathedral.
[8.] They walked two hours.
Some other examples of noun phrases of this use:
every day, next week, next Monday, the day after tomorrow, one of these days, one day, any day in this week, etc.

Space/Direction/Distance
[1.] Today I came a different way. ["Today" is a TIME ad. ob.]
[2.] Elms stood either side of the street.
[3.] Let's go some place.
[4.] He lives next door.
[5.] She'll come home soon.
[6.] Come this way, please!
[7.] We wandered north and north.
[8.] We walked ten miles.

Measure
[1.] She was thirty years old.
[2.] The bottles was about three quarters full.
[3.] They stood up together *** high in the sea.
[4.] He stands head and shoulders above his fellow.
[5.] Her skin was snow white.
[6.] It was pitch dark inside the room.
[7.] Stars are diamond bright and there is no dew.
[8.] The sea went mountains high.

Degree
[1.] I should not mind a bit.
[2.] She blamed herself no end.
[3.] She used to laugh a good/great deal.

Manner
[1.] Don't look at me that way.
[2.] He speaks good English
[3.] He came full speed.
[4.] He stood there sailor-fashon.
[5.] She run upstairs two steps at a time.
[6.] They walked barefoot.
[7.] Our ship sailed first thing in the morning.

Noun Couplets
[1.] Bind him hand and foot.
[2.] He smote them hip and thigh.
[3.] We all got to go sometime reason or no reason.
[4.] Let's fight tooth and nail.
[5.] They discussed the matter heart to heart.
Some other examples of couplets: day after day, year after year, face to face.

The Superlative and the Comparative
[1.] My father liked this hat the best.
[2.] He runs the faster.
[3.] She couldn't know which she liked the better.
[4.] I don't know whose eyes would be the widest open.

Distribution
[1.] She visited the States twice a year.
[2.] He paid $ 20 a pair for my shoes.

To my guess, these collocations are so common that most of native speakers could acquire them even without knowing the concept of "adverbial objectives". And (therefore?) many of grammar books currently available don't mention this, and dictionaries give a definition to a noun used as an adverbial adverb as an adverb separately from the definition as a noun. As for the complex adverbial objectives, they are explained as simple idiomatic phrases without giving any grammatical explanation. Accordingly, in teaching English as a second language too, the concept of "adverbial objectives" is rarely taught at the beginner's stages in school at least in Japan. So many of English learners in Japan (including me) learned theses expressions one by one without knowing the mechanism why native speakers use nouns as adverbs. I sometimes feel it might be better to let students know the concept of "adverbial objectives" at an earlier stage of English learning and it could be helpful for them to learn this kind of noun usage more efficiently. But I'm not sure. I would like to hear opinions from English teachers (especially those who teach English to ESL students) about this.

paco

Re: The use of hope

paco2004 — Tue, 19 Apr 2005 23:23:31 GMT

??I want that you clean up your room this instant!

It would not surprise me to learn that it was possible in some NAmE Englishes.

Some Romance language speaking immigrants may speak it.

Quote from Everything2 : The Subjunctive Mood of English

After verbs which formerly used the subjunctive mood, we often find the 'logically odd' but economical construction of the accusative pronoun (or just regular noun) plus the infinitive. Thus we are saved from saying, "I want that he be good today," instead we use, "I want him to be good today." Alternatively, in the negative sentences like, "I don't want him seeing that girl anymore!" the present participle is sometimes found. When you look at the latter sentence from a logical point of view, which is often futile in English grammar altogether, the subject doesn't really want the "object" (him), but rather wishes that the subject of the subjunctive clause exhibit the characteristic of being good. Perhaps on the model of the predicate nominative one could label this phenomenon the "subject accusative". In a modern language that retains the subjunctive such as French we find "Je veux qu'il soit sage," (I want that he be good/behave), whereas the phrase, "Je le veux Ãªtre sage," (I want him to be good/behave) is completely absurd. This illustrates the difference between French and English, which has all but lost its subjunctive form yet still feels a subconscious need to convey the emotion in "I want him to be good," instead of losing it completely in the non-subjunctival construction, "I want (that) he's good."

paco

About non finite clauses...

guille — Thu, 24 Feb 2005 16:24:58 GMT

I am not a native speaker, but I know a little about English grammar; but I sometimes have some problems with determined constructions. I would like you to answer the following questions:

1. Once I write the following phrase to a friend: I doubt you to write the article on time. He said this construction has problems, but he can not explain me why. I have seen it with verbs like want, ask, etc. This construction is said to be Accusative infinite, when can I use it?

2. Parallel to the accusative infinitive there is accusative participle, for instance:

-It is no use you telling me not to worry.
-he was chosen because of him being a fully qualified engineeer
-Please excuse me interrupting you.

I want to know if I can write the above phrases with the accusative infinitive (It is no use you to tell me not to worry.) If so, Is there difference as to meaning?. When can I use one and the other? which features should the verbs meet to use this construction?