| Author |
Message |
Robert Lieblich
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 4:43 am
Post subject: Re: Usage of preposition. |
|
|
Pat Durkin wrote:
[addressing me]
| Quote: | But did you learn dative, nominative, accusative in English class or in some
college class or comparative linguistics or Latin or whatever?
|
Latin class, as a matter of fact. I got just good enough in Latin to
be of some use to my daughter when she took it up maybe thirty years
after me. Nothing resembling fluency. I agree with those who say
that studying Latin is a great help in mastering English -- but it is
necessary not to get caught up in slavish devotion to Latinate grammar
when dealing with English.
| Quote: | I think I learned "nominative" as "noun" in highschool English, or drew that
conclusion. Substantive (symbolized by "s.") was "subject" for me. And I
think I just picked that up in some Spanish class or other.
|
I was taught subjective/possessive/objective, with the important
proviso that aubjective and objective invariably had the same form in
nouns. The term "common case" antedated my school years by decades,
but I recall no mention of the term.
| Quote: | I can recall a
professor trying to explain dative to us in Spanish class as a way to
differentiate between "para" and "por", though I may be mistaken. I never
had anything on which to hang the terms, thus my questioning.
|
The infinitesimal quantity of Spanish known to me I picked up orally.
I don't even know what case system, if any, Spanish has. I suspect
there is one.
| Quote: | Glad I didn't have to read your duet with Eric.
|
Actually, it was kinda fun. Sort of like an intellectual bar
argument, with the added benefit that no one could punch anyone else
in the snoot. As I recall, I declared victory at the end and pranced
off the stage before anyone could gainsay me.
| Quote: | At this st(age) I find my attention
wanders in reading the very detailed arguments and explanations.
|
I find my attention wanders whenever I'm not asleep.
--
Bob Lieblich
Basking in glories past (feeble as they were) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Robert Lieblich
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 5:58 am
Post subject: Re: Usage of preposition. |
|
|
"Richard R. Hershberger" wrote:
[ ... ]
| Quote: | To put it another way, most modern academic grammars (certainly Quirk
et al) define "direct object" and "indirect object" as syntactic forms.
Semantic slots are plotted seperately. The semantic slot "Sarah"
fills in "John gave the book to Sarah" is the recipient (or beneficiary
or benefactive or whatever: this stuff has only been around for thirty
or forty years, and the vocabulary has not yet been standardized). In
"John gave Sarah the book", "Sarah" is once again the recipient. The
difference is that in the first sentence the recipient is expressed
through the syntactic form of a prepositional phrase, while in the
second it is expressed as an indirect object.
They could have gone the other way, and defined "indirect object" as a
semantic category and given some other name to the syntactic
categories. I really doesn't matter, and it might have been better had
linguists invented entirely new terms rather than adapting existing
terms. The important thing is that traditional English grammar
systematically conflates and confuses semantic and syntactic
categories, while modern grammars seperate them, and this is a Good
Thing.
|
I couldn't agree more. And even if I could, I don't have the energy.
| Quote: | I think that Eric never really sorted out the distinction.
|
Exactly. It's like the old argument about whether "house" in "house
guest" is a noun or an adjective. It functions as a determiner --
that's its semantic function. Give it whatever other label makes you
happy.
| Quote: | He always thought that the study of grammar had peaked with Curme,
|
Well, it did ... and it didn't. No one has since been able to do any
better what Curme did so well. If we've made progress, it has been by
deviating from Curme. As long as you don't take his labels too
seriously, his analyses can be extremely useful. I have a copy, and I
do refer to it from time to time, and it offers much food for
thought. But it's not Holy Writ (of course).
| Quote: | and any
subsequent development could and should (indeed, must!) be dismissed
out of hand. So while he in effect argued for "indirect object" and
"dative" as semantic categories, he had to more or less consider syntax
unimportant, at least in this instance.
|
Exactly, except that he wouldn't own up. I kept telling him that the
only way he could deduce a dative was from its semantic function in
the sentence. If I remember his position correctly, it was that he
didn't care how you figured out that something was a dative -- if you
spotted something that was or could be an indirect object, then it was
a dative. This wasn't terribly helpful. (I concede that sometimes
you need help from semantics to deduce a syntactical function, as in
the famous pair of sentences beginning with "time flies" and "fruit
flies," but Eric went WAAAAY beyond that.)
| Quote: |
But in any case (as it were), this still leaves open my question. The
sentence "We rammed into the fence" does not include an indirect object
under any scheme of which I am aware. Do I need to buy a new book, or
are people misusing the term?
|
It has been my experience that some people think inverting the
sentence to convert what is otherwise the indirect object into the
object of a preposition does not alter its character as indirect
object. Even some people who reject the term "dative" take this
approach. Since I agree with you that things like "indirect object"
and "object of preposition" are descriptive of syntax, I obviously
don't agree with them. But they're out there, and I seem to see more
and more of them all the time. Given the lack of rigor with which
even some professionals use the terminology, it's hard to criticize a
lay person for taking an approach that differs from yours and mine.
Okay, they're wrong -- it's still hard to criticize them, at least to
their faces.
A fascinating topic. If you're lurking, Eric, come out and take a
bow. And say something.
--
Bob Lieblich
Dr. Dative (not!) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ritsuko Murata
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 6:10 am
Post subject: Re: Usage of preposition. |
|
|
"William" <william@lowerknowle.com> wrote in
news:1129491796.479121.113550@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
| Quote: | Ritsuko Murata wrote:
"Ra Eun-A" <RaEunA@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1129446155.227962.172180@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
We fled the house. We fled from the house.
Both are fine. In England the first is heard a little less often
these days I think.
But in Wales, it is used all the time?
|
Is it? I don't know.
R |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ritsuko Murata
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 6:22 am
Post subject: Re: Usage of preposition. |
|
|
Odysseus <odysseus1479-at@yahoo-dot.ca> wrote in
news:4352C676.E417CE09@yahoo-dot.ca:
| Quote: | Ritsuko Murata wrote:
"Ra Eun-A" <RaEunA@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1129446155.227962.172180@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
snip
|
<snip>
| Quote: | The reason a preposition is required is that the verb "to swerve" is
intransitive, i.e. it can't have an object.
|
Yes. 'Swerve the ball' and 'swerve the car' seem ok though. To me. To you?
<snip>
| Quote: | We ran into the house (prep required)
Yes. If you ran the house you were its managers.
We ran through a red light. We ran a red light.
The first is fine as long as you're on foot. To run somewhere in a
car is a little old fashioned. The second is wrong.
"To run a (red) light" is a common idiom, at least in North America.
It's colloquial but I don't see any justification to label it
"wrong". Cf. the long-established expressions "to run a blockade" and
"to run the gauntlet", both of which use "run" transitively with
similar meanings.
|
Interesting! We don't have that idiom here. In that case no, it's certainly
not wrong. Apologies.
R. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Odysseus
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:04 am
Post subject: Re: Usage of preposition. |
|
|
Ritsuko Murata wrote:
| Quote: |
Odysseus <odysseus1479-at@yahoo-dot.ca> wrote in
news:4352C676.E417CE09@yahoo-dot.ca:
Ritsuko Murata wrote:
"Ra Eun-A" <RaEunA@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1129446155.227962.172180@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
snip
snip
The reason a preposition is required is that the verb "to swerve" is
intransitive, i.e. it can't have an object.
Yes. 'Swerve the ball' and 'swerve the car' seem ok though. To me. To you?
|
Afraid not. For the latter I'd say something like "make the car
swerve", and for the former I'd most likely use another verb,
"deflect" or "redirect" perhaps.
--
Odysseus |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Matti Lamprhey
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 2:15 pm
Post subject: Re: Usage of preposition. |
|
|
"Ritsuko Murata" <ritsukomurata@hotmail.com> wrote...
| Quote: | "William" <william@lowerknowle.com> wrote:
Ritsuko Murata wrote:
"Ra Eun-A" <RaEunA@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1129446155.227962.172180@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
We fled the house. We fled from the house.
Both are fine. In England the first is heard a little less often
these days I think.
But in Wales, it is used all the time?
Is it? I don't know.
|
William was making a joke about your use of "England" when he considered
that "Britain", the more general term for the nation, would have been
better. It's a small mistake often made by the English, the Welsh, the
Scots, the Cornwallers, the Ulsteriors, ...
Matti
-- an Englishman in Wales |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 5:46 pm
Post subject: Re: Usage of preposition. |
|
|
Robert Lieblich wrote:
[...]
| Quote: | Exactly, except that he wouldn't own up. I kept telling him that
the
only way he could deduce a dative was from its semantic function in
the sentence. [...]
A fascinating topic. If you're lurking, Eric, come out and take a
bow. And say something.
|
Maybe you accused him of dating once too often so he ablated
himself.
--
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ritsuko Murata
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 6:03 pm
Post subject: Re: Usage of preposition. |
|
|
"Matti Lamprhey" <matti@official-totally-reversed.com> wrote in
news:3rmdopFk4r97U1@individual.net:
| Quote: | "Ritsuko Murata" <ritsukomurata@hotmail.com> wrote...
"William" <william@lowerknowle.com> wrote:
Ritsuko Murata wrote:
"Ra Eun-A" <RaEunA@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1129446155.227962.172180@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
We fled the house. We fled from the house.
Both are fine. In England the first is heard a little less often
these days I think.
But in Wales, it is used all the time?
Is it? I don't know.
William was making a joke about your use of "England" when he considered
that "Britain", the more general term for the nation, would have been
better.
|
I wondered if he was. He was mistaken. I said, 'In England' because I was
talking about the usage of the word in England. I don't hear as many Welsh
voices in England as I do English voices, so I didn't feel qualified to
speak about its usage in Wales, let alone the rest of Britain.
| Quote: | It's a small mistake often made by the English, the Welsh, the
Scots, the Cornwallers, the Ulsteriors, ...
|
It's one I'm sensitive to, being partly Scotch. (That should get him!)
| Quote: | Matti
-- an Englishman in Wales
|
Ritzy
-- a cinema in Brixton |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Cunningham
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 6:15 pm
Post subject: Re: Usage of preposition. |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 05:08:09 GMT, Odysseus
<odysseus1479-at@yahoo-dot.ca> said:
| Quote: | Ritsuko Murata wrote:
|
[...]
| Quote: | Yes. 'Swerve the ball' and 'swerve the car' seem ok though.
To me. To you?
Afraid not. For the latter I'd say something like "make the car
swerve", and for the former I'd most likely use another verb,
"deflect" or "redirect" perhaps.
|
The _New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary_ (British) has
transitive "swerve" with the example
5 v.t. Cause to turn aside or change direction. LME.
E. ALBEE He swerved the car, to avoid a porcupine.
The _Merriam-Webster's Unabridged Dictionary_ (American) has
swerve
[...]
transitive verb : to turn aside : cause to turn
from a straight course : cause to deviate
<swerve the car>
<swerve a ball>
<do not let your apprehension of what the judges
may say swerve you from saying what you think
C.P.Curtis> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard R. Hershberger
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:28 pm
Post subject: Re: Usage of preposition. |
|
|
Robert Lieblich wrote:
| Quote: | A fascinating topic. If you're lurking, Eric, come out and take a
bow. And say something.
|
So true. Eric had a knack for being completely and spectacularly
wrong, but in interesting ways. I learned a lot due to the enforced
discipline of knowing that he was wrong and having to figure out
exactly how this was the case. It was constant bickering, but
surprisingly productive bickering. Nowadays we have Riggs and Cooper
sniping at one another in completely uninteresting ways. It is a sad
day aeu has come to.
Richard R. Hershberger |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony Cooper
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 1:39 am
Post subject: Re: Usage of preposition. |
|
|
On 19 Oct 2005 06:28:02 -0700, "Richard R. Hershberger"
<rrhersh@acme.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Robert Lieblich wrote:
A fascinating topic. If you're lurking, Eric, come out and take a
bow. And say something.
So true. Eric had a knack for being completely and spectacularly
wrong, but in interesting ways. I learned a lot due to the enforced
discipline of knowing that he was wrong and having to figure out
exactly how this was the case. It was constant bickering, but
surprisingly productive bickering. Nowadays we have Riggs and Cooper
sniping at one another in completely uninteresting ways. It is a sad
day aeu has come to.
I consider it an act of kindness to bicker with Charles. If I don't, |
the poor fellow will be completely ignored.
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Odysseus
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 7:00 am
Post subject: Re: Usage of preposition. |
|
|
Bob Cunningham wrote:
| Quote: |
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 05:08:09 GMT, Odysseus
odysseus1479-at@yahoo-dot.ca> said:
Ritsuko Murata wrote:
[...]
Yes. 'Swerve the ball' and 'swerve the car' seem ok though.
To me. To you?
Afraid not. For the latter I'd say something like "make the car
swerve", and for the former I'd most likely use another verb,
"deflect" or "redirect" perhaps.
The _New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary_ (British) has
transitive "swerve" with the example
5 v.t. Cause to turn aside or change direction. LME.
E. ALBEE He swerved the car, to avoid a porcupine.
The _Merriam-Webster's Unabridged Dictionary_ (American) has
swerve
[...]
transitive verb : to turn aside : cause to turn
from a straight course : cause to deviate
swerve the car
swerve a ball
do not let your apprehension of what the judges
may say swerve you from saying what you think
C.P.Curtis
|
Thanks for the references. I wonder whether the usage is rare in
Canada or is just arbitrarily missing from my idiolect.
--
Odysseus |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alan Jones
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 11:35 pm
Post subject: Re: Usage of preposition. |
|
|
"Odysseus" <odysseus1479-at@yahoo-dot.ca> wrote in message
news:4356F619.CE1BE26@yahoo-dot.ca...
| Quote: | Bob Cunningham wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 05:08:09 GMT, Odysseus
odysseus1479-at@yahoo-dot.ca> said:
Ritsuko Murata wrote:
[...]
Yes. 'Swerve the ball' and 'swerve the car' seem ok though.
To me. To you?
Afraid not. For the latter I'd say something like "make the car
swerve", and for the former I'd most likely use another verb,
"deflect" or "redirect" perhaps.
The _New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary_ (British) has
transitive "swerve" with the example
5 v.t. Cause to turn aside or change direction. LME.
E. ALBEE He swerved the car, to avoid a porcupine.
The _Merriam-Webster's Unabridged Dictionary_ (American) has
swerve
[...]
transitive verb : to turn aside : cause to turn
from a straight course : cause to deviate
swerve the car
swerve a ball
do not let your apprehension of what the judges
may say swerve you from saying what you think
C.P.Curtis
Thanks for the references. I wonder whether the usage is rare in
Canada or is just arbitrarily missing from my idiolect.
|
The NSOED citation is from an American author (the playwright Edward Albee).
This transitive use is ancient, apparently, but not usual in current BrE,
though it would be understood.
Alan Jones |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in