Search results for 'tag:Whom tag:English grammar' matching tags 'Whom' and 'English grammar'

Re: Proficiency alongside "poverty".

Cool Breeze — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 09:58:49 GMT

Anonymous
In that respect, I would like to know when and how the auxiliary "do" appeared in English. What kind of people introduced it into the English language?
I would like to know who decided about the value of tenses of the Past. They do not correspond to the value of the tenses of the Past in latinoÃ¯d languages. Who can give me answers ?
In this debate, I do not think there is an evolution towards simplicity nor towards more complicated structures. The
communities of native speakers of a language constantly change the rules and the meaning of words (although the main core remains more or less stable for facility reasons.)
Ethnic languages are tools of inclusion and mainly exclusion (internal and external). That is why there are so many exceptions.
No ethnic language is that easy to learn. When I say "to learn" I mean to learn it to be on equal footing with a native speaker of the language. There will always be a difference, a discrimination.
From what I have experienced ( I am very interested by languages), there is no easy language. All has been done by training.
There is no natural language : everything has been constructed by Man.
I invite the readers to learn an interlanguage such as Esperanto, compare it with your mother tongue and with languages you have studied later. 90% to 95% of the time is spent to the learning of exceptions. That is why a language without exception such as Esperanto is ten to twenty times faster to learn than ethnic languages.
It is fascinating to see how a universal congress of Esperanto works and to compare it with an international congress in only one language. Many prejudices fall.
Maybe I am opening new interests in the debate..
George/Belgium

Do existed in Old English more than a thousand years ago as a regular verb and meant to cause. It is impossible to say who introduced it to English. It's use as an auxiliary in questions and negations was established in Shakespeare's day when it was correct to say both

I know not him
and
I do not know him.

It is very common that the usage of tenses varies from language to language, especially if the languages are not closely related. No reasons can usually be given for this. You might just as well ask why the usage of tenses in the Romance languages differs from that in English. Linguistic changes are often shrouded in the past and there is no knowing why they occurred.

All words and grammatical structures people are not used to sound wrong and/or odd and therefore people usually object to changes that are about to happen in their lifetime and think the language is deteriorating. This is true about all languages, not just English. People tend to think a language is at its most beautiful right now and any change will just make it worse.

English grammar has become so simple over the centuries that I cannot envisage it becoming any simpler without the risk of English becoming even more inexact than it is now. However, not all changes have made the language simpler in structure. In Old English there was just one relative pronoun and it had only one form. That made communication with relative clauses very awkward and it wasn't a great surprise that who, whom, whose, what and which began to be used as relatives to facilitate communication.

CB

Re: Who do you think I am?

Philip — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 20:16:58 GMT

Teo wrote:

1. Who do you think I am?

2. Whom do you think me?

I think #1 is correct. According to Treasure of English Grammar (written by Liu Yi), #2 is also acceptable. Do you agree?

# 2 is totally foreign to my ear.

Who do you think I am?

Teo — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 20:10:13 GMT

1. Who do you think I am?

2. Whom do you think me?

I think #1 is correct. According to Treasure of English Grammar (written by Liu Yi), #2 is also acceptable. Do you agree?

Oldest of whom

Rotter — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:56:50 GMT

Bonjour les abonnÃ©s. Hier, nous avons achetÃ© des billets de tombola Ã un groupe d'Ã©coliers dont le plus Ã¢gÃ© avait 8 ans. Ils vendaient cent billets 50 colones costaricains chacun. Le lot est Â« une surprise dans un carton Â». Bien sÃ»r, c'est pour la bonne cause et le lot m'est Ã©gal, mais c'est intÃ©ressant d'imaginer ce que Ã§a peut Ãªtre, avec une recette totale de seulement dix dollars. J'espÃ¨re que l'Ã©cole atteindra son but.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello subscribers. Yesterday we bought raffle tickets from a group of schoolkids, the oldest of whom was 8. They were selling a hundred tickets for 50 Costa Rican colones each. The prize is "a surprise in a box." Of course, it's a good cause and I don't care about the prize, but it's interesting to imagine what it could be, with a total take of only ten dollars. I hope the school meets its goal.

An American whos is good at French has written the above. This person has written some French/English grammar books too. So I don't question her prowess either in English or French.

My question is on the following sentence of the above:
Yesterday we bought raffle tickets from a group of schoolkids, the oldest of whom was 8.

If it is fine, the following sentences are fine too. I am not sure about the words 'the oldest of whom was 8'.

1. There are many students in my Russian class, the oldest of whom is 36.

2. There are so many people training at the gym, the oldest of whom is 79.

Re: Hypercorrection

Alienvoord — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 16:05:08 GMT

I don't think "between you and I" can be blamed entirely on hypercorrection. It's been attested since at least 1596, before English grammar was taught in school. Nowadays it might be partially due to hypercorrection, but I think something else is going on, namely something to do with how conjoined pronouns interact with case.

The same with "whom" in subject position, which is found in Shakespeare, before English grammar was formally taught.

whose vs 'of which' in clause?

AVim — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 01:51:31 GMT

I am reading Longman English Grammar now, in which it says both the sentences
"In 1980 he caught a serious illness from whose effects he still suffers." and "In 1980 he caught a serious illness the effects of which he still suffers from." have the same meaning.

Well, may I deduce that I may write the sentence
"He is the man from whose house the pictures were stolen."
into
"He is the man the house of whom the pictures were stolen from." ??

I need your confirmation, thanks!

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: how to pronounce numbers

Eng_teach_in_germany — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 18:04:39 GMT

ok.. I would just like to clarify something - I do in fact make my students aware that zero is commonly pronounced as the letter 'O'. I teach to German people, most of whom are already aware of this due to years of English courses in school, etc..

In German, the word for 'zero' is 'Null' and it's always used for phone numbers. SO, 'Null'='zero'. That is the unamiguous, technically correct and exact translation. I teach the students that it is more correct to say 'zero' because it is literally not the letter 'O', no matter how post-modern you wish to be. I don't make a fuss over it, I'm fully aware that many/most people use 'Oh', and I don't care if my students use 'Oh'. I even use it sometimes myself. It's just not a big deal. As I stated in a previous post, I just tell the students 'the full story'. They are never confused about it afterwards and very little time is required to be spent on it. Similarly, I've spent enough time on it here as well. The End.

In regards to the related topic - whether or not there is actually such a thing as 'correct' English, my response is simply that in practice, 'on the ground' so to speak, an 'anything goes' approach is inappropriate. In a philosophy class it might be fine to discuss how everything's relative and so on, but in real world ESL teaching it's advisable to 'stick to the rules' of English grammar as much as possible. Of course language changes over time. Of course there's no perfect, absolute, master version of English set in stone forever. There are very cohesive standards and rules however(which change gradually over time) which make it possible for us to communicate clearly with each other, and to pass on the knowledge of our language to non-native speakers.

Take for example this (now online) book written 90 years ago, entitled 'How to Speak and Write Correctly':
<a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/hwswc10h.htm" target="_blank" title="http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/hwswc10h.htm">http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/hwswc10h.htm</a>
While the author's writing style may seem slightly antiquated, it's still fine and 99% of his description of English grammar still applies today, nearly 100 years later. The other 1% consists of the sort of changes and developents that are often discussed on this forum.

The problem of what is correct or not of course often comes up in TESL when British and American English use different words or spelling. At the end of the day you have to teach either one or the other, or teach both. Usually it depends on which one the client/student is most likely to need.

Subject-Verb Agreement Problem in a complex sentence

Imjimmy — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 06:25:24 GMT

Hello everyone,

I have some trouble with recognizing subject-verb agreement in cases where the verb occurs in the sub-ordinate clause and refers back to a noun/subject in the main clause

For instance could you please let me know which of the following sentences is correct.

1)In good years, the patchwork of green fields that surround the San Joaquin Valley town bustles with farm workers, many of them in the area just for the season.

2)In good years, the patchwork of green fields that surrounds the San Joaquin Valley town bustles with farm workers, many of whom are in the area just for the season.

For 1) sorround in the dependent clause seems to refer back to 'greenfields' in the main clause.

For 2) sorrounds in the dependent clause seems to refer back to 'patchwork' in the main clause.

However verb 'bustles' in both sentences seems to refer back to 'patchwork'.

As written which of the following sentences is more correct. Are both grammatically correct.

Is there any rule in English grammar which would allow us to choose the correct subject b/w patchwork and greenfields. Does the fact that "greenfields" occurs in a prepositional phrase matter?

Thanks very much.

The Seven Deadly Sins of Grammar

Drewauerbach — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 17:45:42 GMT

I know of at least seven grammatical errors that I think are both widespread but easily fixable issues in both colloquial and written usage. I'd like to share these errors, and their solutions, with you today.

1) Incorrectly constructed parrallel structure (emphasis on the infinitive).
     One of the more unusual aspects of English grammar is that we express infinitives using two words, to + conjugated verb. Commonly, the "to" part of the infinitive is ignored in parallel structure. Here are a couple example sentences incorporating this easily fixable grammatical error:
      A. WRONG: I like to run and play.   RIGHT: I like to run and to play.
      B. WRONG: She said she's going to call us soon, ask us what time the movie is, and meet us there.
          RIGHT: She said she's going to call us soon, to ask us what time the movie is, and to meet us there.

2) Split infinitive
    This error is both widespread and easy to fix. Basically, just avoid inserting words between the "to" and the conjugated verb when expressing an infinitive. Here is an example:
    WRONG: I want to quickly run.

3) Misuse of the limiting adjectival modifiers, "only" and "just"
    The error is the misplacement of only before a verb rather than after it. Doing so changes the meaning of the sentence entirely, often confusing the sharp reader. The words "only" and "just" are similar in meaning, and you can use them interchangeably. Consider the following example sentence:
     A. WRONG: I only want to go to the movies. RIGHT: I want only to go to the movies.
     In the WRONG sentence, the speaker states that (s)he "only wants to go to the movies." This sentence DOES imply that (s)he wants to do NOTHING ELSE, such as buy a bucket of popcorn, buy a ticket, sit down to watch the show, or even breathe. The usage of only before the verb is, in this sense, a disaster because now the speaker is speaking suicidally! Now, because the error is so widespread, it is often easy to say the WRONG sentence and convey the RIGHT meaning. But, the RIGHT sentence also conveys the RIGHT meaning, not only to those ignorant of this fixable error, but to those who understand it. So, pick the RIGHT sentence!
     Special Notes: This error just drives me nuts, becasue it is widespread yet fixable.

4) Pronounce antecedent agreement error: IT!
    I will explain the error through an example:
    WRONG: It is nice. RIGHT: Ice is nice.
    Look at the WRONG sentence and ask yourself, back to what does "It" refer? Nothing, the reader or listener becomes confused.

    Special Notes: This error perhaps is the most widespread of the four. It is also the most difficult to fix because usually people have this error ingrained by habit and don't even realize the need to fix it.

5) Misuse of this, that, these, those, one
    Basically, the misusage of these words occurs when a person omits a noun that should follow immediately after these indicator adjectives. Here are a couple examples:
    A. WRONG: I don't like this. RIGHT: I don't like this (feeling, basketball, etc.).
    In the WRONG sentence, "this" leaves a reader confused. In speech, the listener may be confused if you don't obviously identify what "this" is using body language.
    B. WRONG: What is this? RIGHT: What is this (sensation, feeling, crap, etc.)
    Here, you leave the reader or listener hanging by omitting identifying what you don't know.

    Special Notes: CAREFUL! You would be entirely correct in speech to say, "What is this?" if, in some obvious way, you directed the listener's attention to exactly what you wanted "this" to identify using body language.   One such way, provided that the unknown is a thing (as opposed to a sensation, feeling, etc.), would simply be to point at the object in question.

6) End of the sentence prepositions
    This error occurs when you place a preposition at the end of a sentence. The error is widespread, especially in speech. Here are a couple example sentences:
    A. WRONG: Who are you going with? RIGHT: With whom are you going?
    (If you're sharp, then you noticed that I changed who to whom. I did so because in the WRONG sentence, we use the word that indicates the unknown person in the nominative case. In the correct sentence, we use this word in the objective case.
    B. RIGHT: Shut up.
    I wrote this example to indicate that "up" here is not a preposition, but an adjective. Make sure that you pay attention!
    Special Notes: This error is hard to fix during speech but not in written work (proofread!). With practice, you should be able to fix it in both speech and writing. In speech, the error is often acceptable. Some people actually think the error is unecessarily identified. As one man president once said (I neither remember his name nor his exact sentence), "This is the sort of arrant pedantry up with which I shall not put."

7) Passive voice
    Passive voice means of, relating to, or being a verb form or voice used to indicate that the grammatical subject is the object of the action or the effect of the verb. Strictly speaking, this error is not grammatical in nature but rather is stylisitc. Here are examples:
    A. WRONG: The rag was washed by Joe. RIGHT: Joe washed the rag.
    By making the subject of the sentence an object on which an action was performed, the WRONG sentence is passive voice. You can avoid passive voice, so do so.
    B. WRONG: The reader is confused by the writer. RIGHT: The reader is confused.
    This example demonstrates another way of rewording a passive sentence. In this manner, you avoid passive voice by omitting the doer of the action. This way of rewording a sentence is useful to create mystery in writing, but for the most part, and especially in speech, you should indicate what performs the action and do so by rewording the sentence into active voice (see example A).