Would you mind telling me whether these sentences are correc

Vocaboly.com
Vocabulary builder software for SAT, TOEFL, GRE, GMAT and more

FAQ

Memberlist

Profile

Would you mind telling me whether these sentences are correc
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Vocaboly.com Forum Index -> alt.usage.english

Author

Message

Bill Bonde ('by a commodi
Guest

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 6:20 am Post subject: Re: Would you mind telling me whether these sentences are co

Mike Lyle wrote:

Quote:

Nick wrote:
[...]
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."

There are two discussions here, one about the use of the subjective or

objective case, the other about how to comma up restrictive and non
restrictive clauses.

--
Had Tolstoy confined himself to war or peace, he could have been
finished in seven hundred and fifty pages.

--
In a day and age when some people would think nothing of throwing stones
at Rosa Parks, she dared to rock the bus. Bully for her!

Robert Lieblich
Guest

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 6:51 am Post subject: Re: Would you mind telling me whether these sentences are co

"Bill Bonde [snip quote from *Finnegans Wake*; it's getting old, Bill]
wrote:

Quote:

Donna Richoux wrote:

[ ... ]

Quote:

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 I offered this comment once already on this thread: Drift can
affect idiom, and things like "Who do you want me to give this to?"
have reached the point where it would be absurd to argue that they're
not idiomatic. Since idiomaticity is, by definition, a free pass for
what might otherwise be considered a grammatical error ("It's I,"
anyone?), there would be nothing wrong with "Let he who is without sin
cast the first stone" -- if it had reached the point where frequency
of usage had converted it to idiom. But I don't think that has
happened yet. And as long as a usage is neither grammatical (in
traditional terms) nor idiomatic, I think it worth resisting. Indeed,
I think there's nothing wrong with calling it -- horror of horrors
(well, today *is* Hallowe'en) -- an error.

I have no definitive theory why we're suffering an outbreak of "Let he
.... cast ..." (I do have a hunch, discussed below.) Donna has
demonstrated that most ordinary English bibles either use "let him" or
adopt some other form. I guess that what's going on, more generally,
is the end, now approaching, of what's left of the English case
system. I'd give it another fifty to a hundred years to disappear
completely -- i.e., to survive only in vestigial usages, to the point
where whatever forms survive are completely natural and controversies
such as this one are ancient history. "Mob", anyone" "Morale"?

Quote:

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."

I'm not sure that you've described the exact mechanism that's
operating. In the particular case of "let he who," I think -- just a
surmise, as I noted earlier -- that it has a lot more to do with "he
who" than anything else. As I recall, at least one poster to this
thread madethat connection directly. You don't get a lot of "let me
who" constructions or "let you who" [Yoohoo?], for that matter. The
"he who" leads to "Let he who is without sin cast ... " but in the
absence of that who you almost never see the simpler "let he cast [or
any other verb]." Invoking "he who" sounds logical, but the logic is
false.

But like I said, in a few decades pronoun case will have died off and
anyone dredging this post up from the well of antiquity will wonder
what on earth I'm going on about.

--
Bob Lieblich
Master of going on about

Chris Waigl
Guest

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 7:02 am Post subject: Re: Would you mind telling me whether these sentences are co

On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 15:38:45 -0500, Don Phillipson wrote:

Quote:

This is an incomplete revision. EFL speakers write
about "the progress (not progression) of life (not the life.)"

Wrong use of the definite article often betrays foreigners
writing about the life or the love or the sport. EFL speakers
write about life, love or sport.

This is the second time I see you use "EFL speakers" in this sense, and it
confuses me. For me, "EFL" stands for "English as a foreign language", and
an EFL speaker would be either someone who is actively learning English or
a non-native speaker in general. (In the latter case, I would be an EFL
speaker, in the former, I wouldn't.)

You, however, apparently use the term as referring to someone who speaks
idiomatic English. But I can't really think of what it might stand for.
"English as the first language" doesn't seem much appropriate as a
category for speakers of English here, as you're obviously talking about
people who know English and not about the order of language acquisition.
Well, you contrasted it with "foreigners", which is again another issue
entirely.

Could you enlighten me? Is anyone else using "EFL speaker" this way?

Chris Waigl

P.S.: This maybe-not-EFL speaker wouldn't put an article before "life",
but along with a lot of native speakers, whose writings have been indexed
by Google, doesn't find anything wrong with "progression of life" per se.

--
blog: http://serendipity.lascribe.net/
eggcorns: http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/

ArWeGod
Guest

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 8:06 am Post subject: Re: Would you mind telling me whether these sentences are co

"Robert Lieblich" <robert.lieblich@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:4366ADED.F1170687@verizon.net...

Quote:

"Bill Bonde [snip quote from *Finnegans Wake*; it's getting old, Bill]
wrote:
Donna Richoux wrote:
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?

Um, I'm guessing it's 'cus you talk funny...

Quote:

I think I offered this comment once already on this thread: Drift can
affect idiom, and things like "Who do you want me to give this to?"
"Who should get this?" works, tho, right?

Quote:

Since idiomaticity is, by definition, a free pass for
what might otherwise be considered a grammatical error,
there would be nothing wrong with "Let he who is without sin
cast the first stone" -- if it had reached the point where frequency
of usage had converted it to idiom.

Don't quotations count? This is a quote of a fairy tale told by sheep
herders from 2000+ years ago. "Lions, and Tigers, and Bears, Oh My!" may
not scan well, but it is a quote...

Quote:

And as long as a usage is neither grammatical (in
traditional terms) nor idiomatic, I think it worth resisting. Indeed,
I think there's nothing wrong with calling it -- horror of horrors
(well, today *is* Hallowe'en) -- an error.

Spooky. But why does a quote need to be grammatical. "Half the game is
90% mental" or whatever is a quote. Nobody needs to go mental about the
semantics of it.

Quote:

ordinary English bibles

It was written by people who couldn't write to encode ideas that
pertained to living in a dessert (no cherries, ever!). These people who
lived IN THE DESERT had nothing to keep track of their stuff to the
point that the people who ruled over them made them build MOUNTAINS of
rocks in the the DESERT. Are you getting the concept of impermanance
here...?

So their favorite fairy tale about living forever was passed on from
speaker to speaker, on account of the fact that (say it with me) They
Lived In The Desert and Had Nothing With Which To Keep Track Of Their
Stuff. One storm - everything gone! No wife, no mule, why, why, why?

Because it was sand. See a Sam Kinison routine for the humourous take on
this.

Quote:

But like I said, in a few decades pronoun case will have died off and
anyone dredging this post up from the well of antiquity will wonder
what on earth I'm going on about.

Earth? Dirt? Soil? What did you mean by that post up?

And 2000 years ago, in another language, in another language, in another
language it may have been correct English...

--
ArWeATypoInThyme

ArWeGod
Guest

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 8:06 am Post subject: Re: Would you mind telling me whether these sentences are co

"Chris Waigl" <cwaigl@free.fr> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.11.01.00.02.50.231855@free.fr...

Quote:

On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 15:38:45 -0500, Don Phillipson wrote:
This is an incomplete revision. EFL speakers write
about "the progress (not progression) of life (not the life.)"
Wrong use of the definite article often betrays foreigners
writing about the life or the love or the sport. EFL speakers
write about life, love or sport.

This is the second time I see you use "EFL speakers" in this sense,
and it
confuses me. For me, "EFL" stands for "English as a foreign language",
and
an EFL speaker would be either someone who is actively learning
English or
a non-native speaker in general. (In the latter case, I would be an
EFL
speaker, in the former, I wouldn't.)

Seems clear to me, as an EFL.
English as a First Language. Learned from birth, grew up in English
speaking household, went to english speaking school, in an english
speaking town with english speaking friends. Everyone I know speaks
english to me.
Still, some kid told me, "Sick hat, Dude." And I wasn't sure what to do
with that information, as I checked it for vomit...

--
ArWeIllin'OrChillin'

Charles Riggs
Guest