| Author |
Message |
Robert Lieblich
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 8:06 am
Post subject: Re: Would you mind telling me whether these sentences are co |
|
|
Bob wrote:
| Quote: |
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 00:36:41 +0000, Pat Durkin wrote:
"Bob" <bob@dont.spam.me> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.10.31.00.14.18.70433@dont.spam.me...
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 20:03:56 +0100, Donna Richoux wrote:
Bob <bob@dont.spam.me> wrote:
Compare and contrast:
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." "Let he, who
is
without sin, cast the first stone."
I read the original as being paralell in structure to the first of
those
quotes.
... clip ...
So my example wasn't an exact quote from this version (translation) of
the Bible. None the less it is a very common expression and perfectly
gramitacal, in my opinion.
It is a "subjunctive usage", as in imperative.
Let him. . .
Have him. . .
Make him. . .
"Have him shut the door."
Let me go, lover.
Let me be first.
Make her shut up.
All very grammatical. The clause "who is without sin" simply modifies the
proposed actor.
Hmmm. That's persuasive, but let me ask the following...
Doesn't that only work if it is read as:
"Let him (who is without sin) cast etc..."
as opposded to:
"Let (he who is without sin) cast etc..."
|
There's only one way to read the sentence. "Who is without sin" is a
dependent clause modifying a pronoun. The pronoun is not part of the
dependent clause. "He who is without sin" is the combination of the
pronoun and the dependent clause; it comprises both the pronoun and
the clause. But the pronoun is part of the independent clause, and
within that clause it is the direct object of "let." So it's in the
objective. End of discussion.
| Quote: | Somehow "him who is without sin" just doesn't sound right to me.
|
Then aren't you lucky you have this newsfroup to set you straight?
(Rhetorical question; note question mark.)
| Quote: |
Also consider:
"He who is without sin is a rarity."
|
Altogether different. In that sentence "who is without sin" again
modifies a pronoun, but this time the pronoun is the subject of the
independent clause, so of course it's in the subjective. What
determines its case is its role in the clause of which it is a part,
and that clause is the independent clause. End of discussion.
| Quote: | You wouldn't say, "Make he shut the door", so "Let he shut the door who
has drawn the short straw". No. You would say "Let him shut the door".
Thus, "Let him throw the first stone".
What about "He/him who drew the last straw may shut the door." I see "Let
... shut the door" as saying the same thing.
|
Semantically, perhaps, but not syntactically. Your example makes "He"
the subject of the independent clause, unlike The Other Bob's
examples, which has it as the object of "let" or "make".
| Quote: |
But you've got me thinking now that I don't know what is really correct.
|
Ah, progress.
| Quote: | Your explanations are very persuasive but they conflict with my "ear". And
the "Let he ..." phrase shows up all over the place.
|
Yes, it's a very common error. But I don't think it qualifies as an
idiom -- yet. So I not only eschew it but criticize it.
--
Bob Lieblich
A Bob among Bobs
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bob
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 8:07 am
Post subject: Re: Would you mind telling me whether these sentences are co |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 00:36:41 +0000, Pat Durkin wrote:
| Quote: |
"Bob" <bob@dont.spam.me> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.10.31.00.14.18.70433@dont.spam.me...
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 20:03:56 +0100, Donna Richoux wrote:
Bob <bob@dont.spam.me> wrote:
Compare and contrast:
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." "Let he, who
is
without sin, cast the first stone."
I read the original as being paralell in structure to the first of
those
quotes.
|
.... clip ...
| Quote: |
So my example wasn't an exact quote from this version (translation) of
the Bible. None the less it is a very common expression and perfectly
gramitacal, in my opinion.
It is a "subjunctive usage", as in imperative.
Let him. . .
Have him. . .
Make him. . .
"Have him shut the door."
Let me go, lover.
Let me be first.
Make her shut up.
All very grammatical. The clause "who is without sin" simply modifies the
proposed actor.
|
Hmmm. That's persuasive, but let me ask the following...
Doesn't that only work if it is read as:
"Let him (who is without sin) cast etc..."
as opposded to:
"Let (he who is without sin) cast etc..."
Somehow "him who is without sin" just doesn't sound right to me.
Also consider:
"He who is without sin is a rarity."
| Quote: |
You wouldn't say, "Make he shut the door", so "Let he shut the door who
has drawn the short straw". No. You would say "Let him shut the door".
Thus, "Let him throw the first stone".
|
What about "He/him who drew the last straw may shut the door." I see "Let
.... shut the door" as saying the same thing.
But you've got me thinking now that I don't know what is really correct.
Your explanations are very persuasive but they conflict with my "ear". And
the "Let he ..." phrase shows up all over the place.
Bob |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skitt
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 8:07 am
Post subject: Re: Would you mind telling me whether these sentences are co |
|
|
Bob wrote:
| Quote: | Donna Richoux wrote:
Bob wrote:
Compare and contrast:
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." "Let he,
who is without sin, cast the first stone."
I read the original as being paralell in structure to the first of
those quotes.
Except, unfortunately, that it is neither one. It can't be "Let he",
contrary to popular opinion.
Hmm. Not sure I agree with that. "he who is without sin" is a
perfectly good noun phrase so it fits right in with "Let <noun> throw
the first stone".
|
Even when it is a noun phrase, it has to be in the objective. Most of the
time there is no noticable difference, but when there's a pronoun involved,
there is.
| Quote: |
The King James Version has:
KJV John 8:7 When therefore they continued asking him, he
lifted up himself, and said to them, He that is without sin
among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
So my example wasn't an exact quote from this version (translation) of
the Bible. None the less it is a very common expression and perfectly
gramitacal, in my opinion. Your quote above also uses the nearly
identical phrase ("he that is without sin among you") as a noun
phrase as well, even though the quote is different.
|
Yes, the quote is quite different, because the sentence construction is
completely different. Still, notice the "Let him first cast ...".
| Quote: | I Googled "he who is" and found that "Let he who is without sin" used
in many places, including a bible-study site. It was the title of a
Star Treck episode. It was used in a review of Sin City. "Let he who
is without brains" was used in a review of the Jerry Springer Show.
"Let he whose buffer has never overflowed cast the first aspersion"
was used in a discussion of security exposures in software.
|
Yeah, so much for the knowledge of English of those whose discuss such
things. They do believe what they see in *their* bible, though.
| Quote: | Another bible quote (Book of revalations chapter 22):
Let he who is unjust be unjust still, the filthy be filthy still
Here is a similar quote:
He who is kind to the poor lends to the Lord, and He will reward him
for what he has done.
Proverbs 19:17
|
That one is perfect and not an example of what is being discussed. Notice
the "him" where it is required.
| Quote: | And some more from a translatopn of an Egyptian script:
Verily, he who is yonder will be a living god,
Averting the ill of him who does it
|
Again, this is correct. There's a "he" there and a "him", both where they
should be.
| Quote: | Many others can be found.
|
True, but it seems you are not understanding the grammatical structure of
what you are finding.
| Quote: |
The Revised Standard Version (1962) relegates John 8:1-11 to a
footnote (meaning it is of dubious authenticity) and has:
"And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them,
'Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a
stone at her.'"
Not sure about this one ("let him who ..."). Google shows lots of
references but I honestly don't remember ever hearing it before.
|
Well, that's the way it should be in today's English. I don't know anything
about the English of olden times.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pat Durkin
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 8:07 am
Post subject: Re: Would you mind telling me whether these sentences are co |
|
|
"Bob" <bob@dont.spam.me> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.10.31.01.27.43.237371@dont.spam.me...
| Quote: | On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 00:36:41 +0000, Pat Durkin wrote:
"Bob" <bob@dont.spam.me> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.10.31.00.14.18.70433@dont.spam.me...
... clip ...
So my example wasn't an exact quote from this version (translation)
of
the Bible. None the less it is a very common expression and
perfectly
gramitacal, in my opinion.
It is a "subjunctive usage", as in imperative.
Let him. . .
Have him. . .
Make him. . .
"Have him shut the door."
Let me go, lover.
Let me be first.
Make her shut up.
All very grammatical. The clause "who is without sin" simply
modifies the
proposed actor.
Hmmm. That's persuasive, but let me ask the following...
Doesn't that only work if it is read as:
"Let him (who is without sin) cast etc..."
as opposded to:
"Let (he who is without sin) cast etc..."
Of course the first version works. The second one does not. |
"Let he shut the door"? "Let she have the cake"? No.
The objective form follows "allow, permit, make, have, etc". These
verbs are part of the imperative or command mood. The subject of these
verbs is "you (implied, not stated)".
| Quote: |
Somehow "him who is without sin" just doesn't sound right to me.
|
I think that if you separate the modifying relative clause "who is
without sin" from the command verb, the sentence will work. "Let him
cast the first stone."
You may have to drill yourself in quite a number of sentences with the
suggested verbs if you wish to develop the "ear" for this structure.
| Quote: |
Also consider:
"He who is without sin is a rarity."
|
Now, this example is correct, as it is a simple declarative sentence.
There is no outside actor permitting, (forcing, ordering, etc.) him to
do anything. He is a free agent.
| Quote: |
You wouldn't say, "Make he shut the door", so "Let he shut the door
who
has drawn the short straw". No. You would say "Let him shut the
door".
Thus, "Let him throw the first stone".
What about "He/him who drew the last straw may shut the door." I see
"Let
... shut the door" as saying the same thing.
|
No. See above. Letting or making or allowing introduces an outside
force on the person shutting the door. Let him (who drew the short
straw) shut the door. He is not a free agent if _you_ are letting him
do it.
| Quote: |
But you've got me thinking now that I don't know what is really
correct.
Your explanations are very persuasive but they conflict with my "ear".
And
the "Let he ..." phrase shows up all over the place.
|
As Skitt, Donna, Bob and I have put the situation, the KJV version is
correct, and not outdated or obsolete at all.
I, too, have found info on Google, Wikipedia, etc. and have quoted it
here, to my embarrassment.
While there are knowledgable people here who argue about some usages,
the instance you have chosen has not been one of those cases. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charles Riggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 3:32 pm
Post subject: Re: Would you mind telling me whether these sentences are co |
|
|
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 17:21:04 -0800, "Skitt" <skitt99@comcast.net>
wrote:
| Quote: | Bob wrote:
Not sure about this one ("let him who ..."). Google shows lots of
references but I honestly don't remember ever hearing it before.
Well, that's the way it should be in today's English. I don't know anything
about the English of olden times.
|
You know enough about it, I reckon, to know that people, even today,
think of the phrase as being "Let he who is without sin, etc", because
that's the way we've always heard it. That, in itself, makes it
acceptable, grammar be damned. Where's Schultzie when we need him?
--
Charles Riggs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charles Riggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 3:32 pm
Post subject: Re: Would you mind telling me whether these sentences are co |
|
|
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 18:33:37 -0500, Robert Lieblich
<robert.lieblich@verizon.net> wrote:
| Quote: | And I agree thoroughly with Donna and those others who pointed out
that it should be "Let him," not "Let he."
|
Them is wrong. It is part of a set phrase, taken from the Bible most
of us are very familiar with. It is too late to change it due to a
grammatical error on the part of God's son, or whoever coined the
famous phrase in question.
--
Charles Riggs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donna Richoux
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:50 pm
Post subject: Re: Would you mind telling me whether these sentences are co |
|
|
Bob <bob@dont.spam.me> wrote:
| Quote: | On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 20:03:56 +0100, Donna Richoux wrote:
Bob <bob@dont.spam.me> wrote:
Compare and contrast:
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." "Let he, who is
without sin, cast the first stone."
I read the original as being paralell in structure to the first of those
quotes.
Except, unfortunately, that it is neither one. It can't be "Let he",
contrary to popular opinion.
Hmm. Not sure I agree with that. "he who is without sin" is a perfectly
good noun phrase so it fits right in with "Let <noun> throw the first
stone".
|
But the "Let" is the key. "Let" is the imperative verb, and it takes an
object -- let us (let's), let him, let her. The subject isn't spoken, as
is normal with commands.
| Quote: |
The King James Version has:
KJV John 8:7 When therefore they continued asking him, he lifted up
himself, and said to them, He that is without sin among you, let him
first cast a stone at her.
So my example wasn't an exact quote from this version (translation) of
the Bible. None the less it is a very common expression and perfectly
gramitacal, in my opinion. Your quote above also uses the nearly identical
phrase ("he that is without sin among you") as a noun phrase as well, even
though the quote is different.
I Googled "he who is" and found that "Let he who is without sin" used in
many places, including a bible-study site.
[snip more examples] |
Oh, I know. I went through all that myself, a few years ago.
Misquotations abound.
Quotations do change in the consciousnesses of the general public. It is
amazing how often we've found a discrepancy between a quote whose source
is known and verifiable (such as quotation dictionaries at the Bartleby
site), and the way many people say it (as Google will show). I probably
should have kept a record of those. Even in the 20th century, look at
all those movie lines supposedly said by famous stars that weren't,
quite.
I think two things happen: sometimes people paraphrase, as best as they
can remember, and sometimes people quote accurately what they've heard
others say, but it isn't the original, either. I think both of these are
normal, natural, and inevitable processes.
I've learned that although Google is great for many tasks, it is
terrible at verifying either the actual wording of a quotation or the
source of a quotation. Sometimes it can help me get close enough to a
quotation to track it further in the reliable sources, but it generally
doesn't itself lead me to anything authoritative.
However, all of that is about the popular conception. Before, we were
talking about grammar. What people might say is one thing, what grammar
"allows" (in its toothless way) is another.
| Quote: | Another bible quote (Book of revalations chapter 22):
Let he who is unjust be unjust still, the filthy be filthy still
|
You're taking someone's word for this, right? For Bible quotes, I go to
the Bible Gateway site, at http://bible.gospelcom.net/ which has many
versions of the Bible. It shows the KJV Revelations 22:ll
11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and
he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he
that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and
he that is holy, let him be holy still.
You can click on other Bible translations there, to compare.
| Quote: | Here is a similar quote:
He who is kind to the poor lends to the Lord, and He will reward him for
what he has done.
Proverbs 19:17
|
Notice, no "Let".
[snip]
| Quote: | Not sure about this one ("let him who ..."). Google shows lots of
references but I honestly don't remember ever hearing it before.
|
We learn something new every day. How are you on "de rigueur" and "ad
nauseam"?
--
Best wishes -- Donna Richoux |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wind Young
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 5:08 pm
Post subject: Re: Would you mind telling me whether these sentences are co |
|
|
Thanks a lot for giving me so many advices.
I really appriciate your help.
Thanks again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 6:51 pm
Post subject: Re: Would you mind telling me whether these sentences are co |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 10:50:34 +0100, Donna Richoux wrote:
| Quote: |
We learn something new every day. How are you on "de rigueur" and "ad
nauseam"?
|
Getting better! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 10:55 pm
Post subject: Re: Would you mind telling me whether these sentences are co |
|
|
"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')"
<John.Methuen@magersfontein.co.uk> wrote in message
news:43652ABA.F692DDA3@magersfontein.co.uk...
| Quote: |
Bob wrote:
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 10:16:14 -0800, Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of
recirculation') wrote:
Bob wrote:
4. He who is always preoccupied with his own business can't be
happy.
(Looks OK to me.)
Wouldn't it be nice if you could show it as a restrictive or non
restrictive clause by putting a comma before the "who" but could
always
include a comma before the main verb to help the reader figure out
where
it bloody is? This unbalanced comma-ing to show pauses is how one
actually
reads the text.
Compare and contrast:
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
|
Explanation: The person that casts the stone has_to_ be without sin.
Complete version: "You let him (everyone) who (that) is without sin, cast
the first stone." or "Let us allow the one (everyone) who (that) is without
sin, cast the first stone.
I would put a comma between sin and cast to understand the sentence faster.
When you read it, there is a pause there, anyway.
| Quote: |
"Let he, who is without sin, cast the first stone."
|
Explanation: The person that casts the stone has_to_ be him, not anyone
else. It happens that this person is without sin.
Complete version: "You let him (not everyone), who (that) is without sin
( by the way, he is without sin), cast the first stone.".
Nick (ESL) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skitt
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 1:10 am
Post subject: Re: Would you mind telling me whether these sentences are co |
|
|
Charles Riggs wrote:
| Quote: | Robert Lieblich wrote:
And I agree thoroughly with Donna and those others who pointed out
that it should be "Let him," not "Let he."
Them is wrong. It is part of a set phrase, taken from the Bible most
of us are very familiar with. It is too late to change it due to a
grammatical error on the part of God's son, or whoever coined the
famous phrase in question.
|
Whoever it was, he didn't do it in English. It was others who screwed up
the translation. Besides, not all bibles have it that way, as Donna has
mentioned.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill Bonde ('by a commodi
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 1:49 am
Post subject: Re: Would you mind telling me whether these sentences are co |
|
|
Donna Richoux wrote:
| Quote: |
Bob <bob@dont.spam.me> wrote:
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 20:03:56 +0100, Donna Richoux wrote:
Bob <bob@dont.spam.me> wrote:
Compare and contrast:
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." "Let he, who is
without sin, cast the first stone."
I read the original as being paralell in structure to the first of those
quotes.
Except, unfortunately, that it is neither one. It can't be "Let he",
contrary to popular opinion.
Hmm. Not sure I agree with that. "he who is without sin" is a perfectly
good noun phrase so it fits right in with "Let <noun> throw the first
stone".
But the "Let" is the key. "Let" is the imperative verb, and it takes an
object -- let us (let's), let him, let her. The subject isn't spoken, as
is normal with commands.
But something is going on here that purely pedagogical insistence will |
never really answer. Others have said that English doesn't really have a
case system anymore since the vestiges are just a few pronouns, the
ambiguous soot of an ancient idioma long since burnt to bits. Yet we
insist that the objective case be used for prepositions and for verb
objects while the nominative remain reserved for subjects. But people
don't seem to follow those rules. Why?
I think it might have to do with a perceived weakness, deference in the
objective and strength and an in your face feel in the nominative. Why
does "Let I" sound far worse to most people than "Let he"? Maybe the use
of the nominative with the first person feels too in your face, too
strong. Maybe people want to use the objective in the subject, "Me and
Bob went to the store" because they are showing deference to Bob like
they would if they put Bob's name first: "Bob and I went to the store."
--
Had Tolstoy confined himself to war or peace, he could have been
finished in seven hundred and fifty pages. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donna Richoux
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 2:06 am
Post subject: Re: Would you mind telling me whether these sentences are co |
|
|
Skitt <skitt99@comcast.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Charles Riggs wrote:
Robert Lieblich wrote:
And I agree thoroughly with Donna and those others who pointed out
that it should be "Let him," not "Let he."
Them is wrong. It is part of a set phrase, taken from the Bible most
of us are very familiar with.
|
Please let me know which Bible that is.
| Quote: | It is too late to change it due to a
grammatical error on the part of God's son, or whoever coined the
famous phrase in question.
Whoever it was, he didn't do it in English. It was others who screwed up
the translation. Besides, not all bibles have it that way, as Donna has
mentioned.
|
Excuse me, gentlemen -- *no* Bible has "let he". There are nineteen
editions at http://bible.gospelcom.net/ which you may check. The
passages are John 8:7 or Revelations 22:ll.
--
Lettuce spray -- Donna Richoux |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skitt
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 2:15 am
Post subject: Re: Would you mind telling me whether these sentences are co |
|
|
Donna Richoux wrote:
| Quote: | Skitt wrote:
Charles Riggs wrote:
Robert Lieblich wrote:
And I agree thoroughly with Donna and those others who pointed out
that it should be "Let him," not "Let he."
Them is wrong. It is part of a set phrase, taken from the Bible most
of us are very familiar with.
Please let me know which Bible that is.
It is too late to change it due to a
grammatical error on the part of God's son, or whoever coined the
famous phrase in question.
Whoever it was, he didn't do it in English. It was others who
screwed up the translation. Besides, not all bibles have it that
way, as Donna has mentioned.
Excuse me, gentlemen -- *no* Bible has "let he". There are nineteen
editions at http://bible.gospelcom.net/ which you may check. The
passages are John 8:7 or Revelations 22:ll.
|
Thanks, Donna. I wasn't sure that it was "no bible". You never know, you
know.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 6:00 am
Post subject: Re: Would you mind telling me whether these sentences are co |
|
|
Nick wrote:
[...]
| Quote: | I would put a comma between sin and cast to understand the sentence
faster. When you read it, there is a pause there, anyway.
"Let he, who is without sin, cast the first stone."
[...] |
No, no, a thousand times, no. No, no, a thousand times no. For very
good reasons.
The story's borderline apocryphal, anyhow, if anybody cares. Note
that the New English Bible translates it "That one of you who is
faultless shall throw the first stone."
--
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in