21 messages over 3 pages: 1 2 3 Next >>
geoffw Triglot Senior Member United States Joined 4689 days ago 1134 posts - 1865 votes Speaks: English*, German, Yiddish Studies: Modern Hebrew, French, Dutch, Italian, Russian
| Message 9 of 21 27 June 2012 at 10:28pm | IP Logged |
I understand the whole prescriptive vs. descriptive bit, but I say this is just WRONG, and here's why.
AFAIK, NOONE who is a native speaker would say "Bob invited I to his cottage" and think it was correct. EVERYONE would agree that it should be "Bob invited me to his cottage."
So WHY, WHY, WHY?????? do we suddenly try to say "Bob invited my sister and I"? IMHO, it comes from people overcompensating for the fact that they don't know the textbook rule for when to use "I", which has started to be replaced in certain circumstances by the direct object pronoun "me".
This flip side, i.e., using "me" where grammar rules dictate "I" is a bit different. In theory, one should answer the phone thusly: "Is this Bob? -- This is he."
But in reality, most people say "This is him" or "it's me" (instead of it is "I"). I usually just respond "speaking" to avoid the issue entirely, if I'm thinking (and maybe even say "it's me" if I'm not thinking). In this situation, I think we have to say that the old rule has been replaced in practice by a new one, dictating that this is an appropriate use of the direct object.
4 persons have voted this message useful
| Josquin Heptaglot Senior Member Germany Joined 4845 days ago 2266 posts - 3992 votes Speaks: German*, English, French, Latin, Italian, Russian, Swedish Studies: Japanese, Irish, Portuguese, Persian
| Message 10 of 21 27 June 2012 at 10:55pm | IP Logged |
geoffw wrote:
This flip side, i.e., using "me" where grammar rules dictate "I" is a bit different. In theory, one should answer the phone thusly: "Is this Bob? -- This is he." |
|
|
First of all: "Thusly" doesn't exist. "Thus" is already an adverb without the -ly.
Second: "It is him" is correct usage. In this case, one can apply emk's example of French disjunctive pronouns, because English works the same way. You cannot say: « C'est je » in French. You have to say: « C'est moi. »
Similarly, saying: "It is me/him/her/us/them" is absolutely correct English.
3 persons have voted this message useful
| hrhenry Octoglot Senior Member United States languagehopper.blogs Joined 5131 days ago 1871 posts - 3642 votes Speaks: English*, SpanishC2, ItalianC2, Norwegian, Catalan, Galician, Turkish, Portuguese Studies: Polish, Indonesian, Ojibwe
| Message 11 of 21 27 June 2012 at 11:15pm | IP Logged |
Josquin wrote:
Similarly, saying: "It is me/him/her/us/them" is absolutely correct English. |
|
|
When I was a kid we were taught that geoffw's telephone example was absolutely correct
English. When someone asked for me on the phone, I was taught that "This is he" was
correct.
Not many people use that anymore, but it's still correct English.
R.
==
2 persons have voted this message useful
| PillowRock Groupie United States Joined 4735 days ago 87 posts - 151 votes Speaks: English* Studies: Spanish
| Message 12 of 21 28 June 2012 at 12:59am | IP Logged |
Josquin wrote:
- Me and Dad, we're going fishing. |
|
|
I would add the comment that this particular construction, while grammatically valid, in practice is not used nearly as often in English (by native speakers) as it is in some other languages. It's so uncommon in my personal experience among native speakers that in my "mind's ear" (to coin an aural equivalent of "mind's eye") I have a bit of hard time hearing it without a foreign accent.
1 person has voted this message useful
| Umin Triglot Newbie Germany despairedreading.worRegistered users can see my Skype Name Joined 4548 days ago 37 posts - 52 votes Speaks: German*, EnglishC2, Japanese Studies: French, Mandarin
| Message 13 of 21 28 June 2012 at 3:27am | IP Logged |
Josquin wrote:
First of all: "Thusly" doesn't exist. "Thus" is already an adverb without the -ly.
|
|
|
Without trying to pick a fight here: my dictionary tells a different story and lists "thusly" as another term for thus mostly used in combination with a direct quotation as it is here.
To the topic: to me that's really a question of descriptive vs. prescriptive approach as pointed out here before.
To me personally, things can't be correct when nobody uses them anymore. I don't see why you always have to go around and tell people how to use their language.
3 persons have voted this message useful
| Ogrim Heptaglot Senior Member France Joined 4640 days ago 991 posts - 1896 votes Speaks: Norwegian*, English, Spanish, French, Romansh, German, Italian Studies: Russian, Catalan, Latin, Greek, Romanian
| Message 14 of 21 28 June 2012 at 11:01am | IP Logged |
emk wrote:
But there's no logical reason why vernacular English has to work like German. It might,
for example, work like French, where the official rule is:
Quote:
F1. Je parle avec Fred.
F2. Fred parle avec moi.
F3. Fred et moi parlons avec Mike.
F4. Mike parle avec Fred et moi. |
|
|
Here, je is a subject pronoun, and moi is the disjunctive pronoun. If you
use the conjunction et, then you always need to use the latter. There's no
accusative/nominative distinction at all, as you can see. It's a perfectly logical and
straightforward system, especially when you realize that the subject pronouns are
halfway to being fully-integrated verbal inflections.
|
|
|
This is true, but don't forget that unlike English, French has a double system, with stressed and non-stressed pronouns (exept for first and second person plural). For the pronouns without stress, you do distinguish between nominative and accusative: je/me, tu/te, il/le etc. The stressed form can also be used as a subject pronoun for emphasis, but you must still use the non-stressed form. "Moi, je parle avec Fred."
In your example F3, you can also say (and it is grammatically more correct I believe): "Fred et moi, nous parlons avec Mike."
1 person has voted this message useful
| Josquin Heptaglot Senior Member Germany Joined 4845 days ago 2266 posts - 3992 votes Speaks: German*, English, French, Latin, Italian, Russian, Swedish Studies: Japanese, Irish, Portuguese, Persian
| Message 15 of 21 28 June 2012 at 1:23pm | IP Logged |
Umin wrote:
Josquin wrote:
First of all: "Thusly" doesn't exist. "Thus" is already an adverb without the -ly.
|
|
|
Without trying to pick a fight here: my dictionary tells a different story and lists "thusly" as another term for thus mostly used in combination with a direct quotation as it is here. |
|
|
Not going to fight either, but the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary doesn't list "thusly" at all and Wiktionary states the following:
Wiktionary wrote:
Although thusly has diffused into popular usage, it is still widely regarded as incorrect; instead, other equivalent expressions (such as thus or this way) can be used. The word is not listed in the online version of the Chambers Dictionary of the English language. It originated in the Eastern U.S., and it is still more common in American than British English; it is "often used for amusement or to make an ironic point." |
|
|
1 person has voted this message useful
|
newyorkeric Diglot Moderator Singapore Joined 6380 days ago 1598 posts - 2174 votes Speaks: English*, Italian Studies: Mandarin, Malay Personal Language Map
| Message 16 of 21 28 June 2012 at 2:58pm | IP Logged |
Thusly is also in the online Merriam-Webster dicitionary as an alternative to thus.
Edited by newyorkeric on 28 June 2012 at 3:24pm
2 persons have voted this message useful
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum - You cannot reply to topics in this forum - You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum - You cannot create polls in this forum - You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.5000 seconds.
DHTML Menu By Milonic JavaScript
|