Search results for 'tag:Subjunctives tag:Nominative' matching tags 'Subjunctives' and 'Nominative'

Re: Can I change from "If I were him" to "Were I him"? I thought it was a little awkward...

Mister Micawber — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:55:42 GMT

.
Yes, I think so, but I am muddled by my preference for If I were he, Were I he -- as long as you wish to use the more formal subjunctive, I would use the seemingly more formal nominative pronoun. Informal: If I was him...

Re: subjunctive/indicative

Grammar Geek — Sun, 18 Jun 2006 03:20:14 GMT

I understand. It's common to say "That was her!" or "That was not her!" even though by the laws of grammar it should be the nominative "That was she." Often our ears protest hearing "It was she," thinking it sounds absurdly pendantic, stuffy, or old fashioned. But once you have the rest of the phase included: "she who answered the phone" then it becomes clear that the nominative is necessary.

Re: How to use i.e. /e.g./ for example /and so on

Jussive — Sat, 19 Nov 2005 17:47:52 GMT

CalifJim wrote:
If a student points to some construction and asks me if it's the subjunctive or not, I can't reply, 'No, it's a monkey!'

Now there you are wrong! You are the teacher and can say any dang thing you want!
In fact a smart retort like that might go a long way toward making your students realize that knowing the correct terminology for this or that word or phrase is not at all the same as gaining competence in the use of English.

It rather depends on whether you want your students to be able to express themselves naturally in the real world, or whether the important thing is for them to pass tests in which they correctly identify word groupings as "noun phrase", "progressive tense", "gerund", "possessive adjective", "pronoun in the nominative case", and other such lingo of no use to them once they walk out the classroom door. It's quite amazing the number of students who know the word "nominative" but draw a blank on "lease a car" or "repair the light fixture". It is as if we were preparing them to live their entire lives in the English classroom.

Of course, if you are making your living in an academic institution where all those things are regarded as marks of competence in English, then you really have to concentrate on the lingo, like it or not, I suppose. If so, my condolences!

CJ

I completely agree with you bar a couple of things, CJ:

These technicalities are good for diagnostic reasons. It doesn't help anyone in the fluid process of speaking English, but if there is something wrong then it's easier if there's a technical understanding of grammar and the termonolgy involved so that the teacher can pinpoint the problem quickly. Also, I think, some particular and detailed aspect of any subject may be unnecessary and seem obsessive to some, however, to others it may play an important role to their overall understanding of that subject. It really does depend on how you've put the pieces together in your own mind as to whether one particular piece holds more or less value for you in your understanding of the subject.

As you indicated, though, the students have to pass exams, and I have been taught and am supposed to teach the language in this way, whether I like it or not. Personally, I'd rather just give the grammar where and when I think it's needed and not base their whole learning experience on it.

One last thing, I appreciate that sometimes and in some sense, termonology is just that, and you may as well call some things 'monkey', however, termonology also categorises important functions, elements and differences. For example, I get the sense that there IS a good reason why grammar books tend not to categorise the non-past and modals used hypothetically as 'the subjunctive'.

...but anyway, that's for:

http://www.englishforums.com/English/CoupleQuestionsAboutSubjunctive-Hypotheticals/bpkbn/Post.htm

Jussive

Re: How to use i.e. /e.g./ for example /and so on

CalifJim — Sat, 19 Nov 2005 04:43:11 GMT

If a student points to some construction and asks me if it's the subjunctive or not, I can't reply, 'No, it's a monkey!'

Now there you are wrong! You are the teacher and can say any dang thing you want!
In fact a smart retort like that might go a long way toward making your students realize that knowing the correct terminology for this or that word or phrase is not at all the same as gaining competence in the use of English.

It rather depends on whether you want your students to be able to express themselves naturally in the real world, or whether the important thing is for them to pass tests in which they correctly identify word groupings as "noun phrase", "progressive tense", "gerund", "possessive adjective", "pronoun in the nominative case", and other such lingo of no use to them once they walk out the classroom door. It's quite amazing the number of students who know the word "nominative" but draw a blank on "lease a car" or "repair the light fixture". It is as if we were preparing them to live their entire lives in the English classroom.

Of course, if you are making your living in an academic institution where all those things are regarded as marks of competence in English, then you really have to concentrate on the lingo, like it or not, I suppose. If so, my condolences!

CJ

Re: Rather than he do it

Anonymous — Wed, 21 Sep 2005 21:53:09 GMT

Hello Miriam

Thank you for the reply. As for the first part of your explanation, I well know that usage of bare infinitives. But it is a bit away from what I meant by "a bare infinitive with a subject". In those sentences you presented (causative and perceptive constructions), the NP in the objective phrase of <NP + a bare infinitive> is merely in a semantic subject of the verb in the infinitive form and therefore the NP must be in an objective case. For example, you can say "I heard Tom whisper ugly things to Mary", but you cannot say "I heard he whisper ugly things to Mary". On the other hand, in the case of "rather than" constructs, the NP stands in a nominative case and we can say like "Rather than she do it, I prefer to do it myself". I think this "bare infinitive with a subject" is quite different from those you mentioned.

The concern of ours is whether so-called "a bare infinitive with a subject" that Professor Svartvik uses in the explanation of "rather than Joan do it" is identical to a present subjunctive construct or not. My answer is YES. As you told, somehow, there is a tendency in English that a word like "rather", "sooner", or "better" induces a present subjunctive. I have learned that the tendency comes from an impersonal dative construct of Old English like "Him wÃ¦re betere Ã¾at he nÃ¦fre geboren nÃ¦re" (Him were better that he never born not be).

paco

Re: Rather than he do it

paco2004 — Tue, 20 Sep 2005 01:45:03 GMT

Hello Everyone

Thank you for the comments. The phrase <rather than someone do it> is new also to me. I found this in the grammar textbook 'A Comunicative Grammar of English' published from Longman and authored by Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik. Svartvik, though he is a Swede, is one of the co-authors of Quirk's CGEL and the authors are saying that that part is a quote from the description of the CGEL. So I believe it is correct but at the sme time I agree to the opinion that the phrase is of rare use even among native speakers. I searched the phrase <rather than * do it, I'd prefer to do> in google and I found most of the hits come from websites for English learners, among which Chinese sites are dominant.

I'm still puzzled about how to parse the phrase. It would be possible to take it as a 'present subjunctive' as Profssor KM suggests. And it seems reasonable when we consider that the word 'rather' quite often goes with present subjunctive in many collocations. But this interpretation is a bit questionable when taking into account the fact Svartvik uses a term 'present subjunctives' in other places of the same grammar book. I cannot understand why he is saying it is a 'bare infinitive clause with a subject' but not a 'present subjunctive construct'. Mr P's interpretation that it might be a contracted form of <rather than (I have) someone do it> seems rational as long as the 'someone' is a proper noun like 'Joan'. But some people online are using a nominative personal pronoun instead like <rather than he do it>. So I am inclined to parse that this 'Joan' is in nominative case.

I'm still in thick clouds and I would like to hear further opinions from you, my teachers.

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

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: Confuse personal pronouns

Mister Micawber — Sun, 17 Oct 2004 02:55:23 GMT

Hi Happy,

This area is a very contentious one, so it is not surprising that you find different pronouncements within and between grammar books. Here is my opinion on the examples you present:

(1) 'Who did it ?' Not I.'

The pronoun stands in parallel to the subject 'who', and is a shortened form of 'I didn't do it.' As such, it is formally correct, but 'Not me' is common and acceptable in spoken English.

(2) 'It is I telling you to go out.'
'It is them I spoke to.'

In the first of these two sentences, 'I' again stands in subject apposition to 'who'-- '(who is) telling'-- while in the second sentence 'them' stands in object apposition to 'whom'-- '(whom) I spoke to' ['I spoke to them']. In informal English, however, 'It's me telling you to go out' is common and acceptable.

(3) 'Let you and me go out.'
'Let her and him do the work.'

Both of these sentences are imperative, with the understood subject 'you', so that, (ungrammatically) extended, they would read:

'(You) let you and me go out.'
'(You) let her and him do the work.'

Now it is obvious that 'you, me, her and him' are objects of the main verb. Having said that, as you will see from the additional references I quote below, 'you and I' has become so common a collocation that it is becoming acceptable in any position: 'Let's you and I have a picnic'-- in spite of the fact that 'let's' is the contraction for 'let us', which is clearly and rigidly petrified in the objective case.

(4) 'If I were a millionaire, I would buy you a car.'
'If he were a millionaire, he would buy a car.'

Both are conditional and formally take the subjunctive form 'were' in all persons; that is simply the nature of English-- one of the uses of the subjunctive mood is to express hypothetical situations. Again, however, 'if I was' is becoming increasingly acceptable in spoken English. Another sign of the slow death of the distinct subjunctive forms in the language.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some additional references:

(1) From the Columbia Guide to Standard American English:

"Most speakers of English tend to put nominative case pronouns at the left-hand side of the clause, in âsubjectiveâ territory before the verb, and objective case pronouns at the right-hand side of the clause, in âobjectiveâ territory after it. Apparently the pressure of this habit is so great that it overwhelms the Standard Formal pattern for the special class of verbs called linking or copulative verbs, wherein It is she is required, at least by rule, rather than Itâs her, or where This is he is needed, not This is him. The primary use of the objective case pronoun after linking verbs is in the first person: Itâs us, Itâs me. With third person, singular and plural, many Standard speakers will retain the nominative, even at lower levels of speech and in Informal uses. (And of course with second person you, the nominative and objective are indistinguishable.) But Itâs me and Itâs us are both Standard in all Conversational and most Informal uses, perhaps in part because they occur almost exclusively in speech anyway. Consider the way you answer the phone if the caller asks for you. To a stranger youâll respond (if youâre a Standard speaker), This is she [he], not This is me, or youâll dodge the issue entirely and say Speaking. If you know the caller well, though, Itâs me will serve. In Oratorical speech and Formal writing, however, Standard English demands the nominative: It is we who must shoulder the burden. It is us just wonât do in that sort of context."

(2) Observations from Greenbaum & Quirk, A Student's Grammar of the English Language:

"Case in personal pronouns involves a distinction absent from nouns, marking broadly the grammatical roles of subject and object. . . . The choice of subjective and objective forms does not depend solely upon the strict grammatical distinction between subject and object. Rather, usage shows that we are concerned more with subject 'territory' (the pre-verbal part of a clause) in contrast to object 'territory' (the post-verbal part of the clause). In consequence of the latter consideration, it is usual in informal style to find objective forms selected in such instances as the following:

His sister is taller than him.
It wasn't me.

Many people are uncomfortable about such forms, however, especially in writing, though the subject variants are almost equally objectionable in seeming unnatural. Where an operator can be added, of course, the problem of choice satisfactorily disappears:

His sister is taller than he is.

Note: In contrast with 'except', which is always treated as a preposition and therefore followed by the objective case ('Nobody except her objected.'), there is vacillation over prepositional 'but', many people preferring the subjective form if it is in subject 'territory'. Thus:

Nobody but she objected.

Even in object territory, 'but' can be followed by either form, as with 'as' and 'than':

Nobody objected but she/her.

The frequency of the coordination 'you and I' seems to have resulted in a tendency to make it case-invariant, though such examples as the following are felt to be uneasily hypercorrect:

Let's you and I go together then."