2008 Season Opener for: "Irritating Words and Expressions" 1

[SantaMufasa]

As several have requested, this thread puts to bed the old, longer-than-comfortable thread that has a similar title.

<soap box>

My Pet Peeve of verbal irritation is the seemingly universal abuse of pronouns on either side of any form/conjugation/tense of the verb infinitive, "to be".

This verb is unique in that it implies equality. As we know from maths class, "If A = B, then B = A". In English, this correlates to "If A is B, then B is A". This implies that if we use pronouns on either side of any usage of the verb "to be", the pronouns should be nominative/subjective, not objective.

Specifically, when we use "to be", pronouns should be subjective: I, he, she, we, they; not objective: me, him, her, us, them.

Abuse: It's me.
Correction: It's I.
Reverse to prove: "I am it."; not "Me am it."

Abuse: The winners should be us.
Correction: The winners should be we.
Reverse to prove: "We should be the winners."; not "Us should be the winners."

Abuse: The most qualified is her.
Correction: The most qualified is she.
Reverse to prove: "She is the most qualified."; not "Her is the most qualified."

Sammy Davis Jr. Lyric abuse: "I've Gotta Be Me."
Less poetic correction: "I Must Be I".
Reverse to prove: "I must be I"; not "Me have got to be I."

So, let's please always use subjective/nominative pronouns when using any form/conjucation/tense of the infinitive, "to be".

</soap box>



Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
[I provide low-cost, remote Database Administration services: www.dasages.com]

 

[Opieo]

... if you Google for the terms: [Pronouns "Predicate Nominative"], 8,420 links result...all of which agree that when using ...

You checked them all?!?


On the other note, perhaps it is just in Michigan here that people state "I seen it" without have, had, or any such possibly proper form of usage.
I hear it all the time [ sad panda ]
Although, I hear my guild mates over Vent do it a lot too so I would tend to think its not very isolated. =\

~
Chuck Norris is the reason Waldo is hiding.

 

[SantaMufasa]

You checked them all?!?

Good catch, OP, I didn't check them all. But of the several I did check, all agreed (leaving none that asserted to the contrary ), so I made the presumption that none of the 8,420 would want to fly in the face of printed conventional wisdom on the topic.

So, to be more precise, I should re-state my assertion:

... if you Google for the terms: [Pronouns "Predicate Nominative"], 8,420 links result...all of the many that I read agree that when using ...

<breathing easier now>

Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
[I provide low-cost, remote Database Administration services: www.dasages.com]

 

[risby]

The reason that the correct construction sounds so bizarre is, in my opinion, because the incorrect construction is virtually universal, and our ears have become attuned to accepting this abomination as standard.

You call it a correct construction but then state that the incorrect construction is virtually universal. I'd say that to describe the latter form would be to describe current English and that the former was just that, nay archaic.

Just because prescriptive grammarians tell me it is correct to say "The winners should be we" doesn't mean I'll actually talk like that. If this should irritate anyone it would say more about their indulgence in pendantry (alright pedanticism) than about how clever they were. (Ain't the subjunctive fantastic.)

It would be more instructive to contrast human languages with programming languages than to compare the two. Natural languages are not cast in concrete; they are dynamical systems. People (persons) deliberately brake the rools for fun, creativity, and to distinguish or identify themselves or, rather, their group. The way to break the rules become the new rules.

It were ever thus so, as a youf might say "get ova it, granpa"

Please don't think that I'm arguing against intellectualism or education. I just worry about the state of mind of people who think it OK to have a fit (an "abomination" fer chrisakes) over such an arcane feature of English grammar.

==========================================

I phoned the local ramblers club today, and this bloke just went on and on.

 

[SantaMufasa]

What you say, Risby, may be the correct answer...Since the rest of the world breaks the rules, we should jes' let 'er be...Let's go ahead and say:

&quot;Me and him went to the movies.&quot;
&quot;Her and us cook food good.&quot;
&quot;My boss took my wife and I to dinner.&quot;

It's all good...

And while we're at it, there's no need to waste bandwidth and disk space on the &quot;Making an Impression&quot; forum, either...right? 'Cuz good English don't matter no more. &lt;grin&gt;

Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
[I provide low-cost, remote Database Administration services: www.dasages.com]

 

[risby]

there's no need to waste bandwidth and disk space on the "Making an Impression" forum, either...right? 'Cuz good English don't matter no more.

I couldn't disagree more. I think it is simple, appalling, arrogance to assume that you have the right to tell others how they should express themselves. If everybody wanted to learn and stick to one set rules about how to speak then your attitude would be acceptable. That they don't tells me that prescriptive grammarians have misunderstood the nature of human language ... and makes your elitist attitude unacceptable.

I can see why you would wish to exclude me from the "Making an Impression" forum if its purpose is to allow a clique of pedants to impress themselves with their superior learning.

But I wish to make an impression too. You say my stance implies that "good English don't matter". That simply begs the question that English is one standard thing. It isn't. It is OK by me for merkins to say "gotten" even though it sounds odd to my English ears. It's OK for Jamaicans to say "arks" where I would say "ask". It OK that I should have to spend some time getting to know the different rhythms, grammar and dialect words of Geordie or Scots.

It is not a matter of allowing the great shining icon that is the English language to be besmirched by ignorant scrotes; it is a matter of humbly accepting diversity and fluidity in human communication and rejecting that pompous bean-counting approach to grammars.

==========================================

I phoned the local ramblers club today, and this bloke just went on and on.

 

[risby]

on the other hand I can't stand people who say "off of"

==========================================

I phoned the local ramblers club today, and this bloke just went on and on.

 

[SantaMufasa]

...I can see why you would wish to exclude me from the &quot;Making an Impression&quot; forum if its purpose is to allow a clique of pedants to impress themselves with their superior learning.

Whoa, Risby...First, I never suggested your exclusion from &quot;Making an Impression&quot;...my suggestion was that if language doesn't matter, then MAI is unnecessary. (The little &quot;&lt;grin&gt;&quot; following it all implies good-natured jesting.) You have apparently taken my words personally, but I don't even know you, so I could not make any personal comments about you. I intended no personal affront.

I think it is simple, appalling, arrogance to assume that you have the right to tell others how they should express themselves...and makes your elitist attitude unacceptable.

Let's remember who it was that said,

I would be pleased if you could give a reference to an authoritative site for this &quot;rule&quot; and method of proving it

You are the one that asked for the authoritative site. I posted means to find several. I have no more right than the next bloke (or blokess) to tell others how to express themselves. Our conversations here are to discuss, cite, and share conventions of the language, and then people can choose to speak as they will.



This situation may be similar to conventions of &quot;good personal hygiene&quot;...those who choose to disobey those conventions, should not be surprised if &quot;elitists&quot; choose to either hold their noses or walk on the other side of the street. &lt;another grin here with an explicit tongue in cheek&gt;

To suggest that someone's choosing to use the English language per the established rules and conventions is unacceptable or undesirable is logic I haven't figured out yet.

In any case, Risby, I intended neither you nor anyone else any harm or disrepute in the things I said, above. If you, however, choose to take offense by my benign comments, then that is your choice, but certainly not my objective.

Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
[I provide low-cost, remote Database Administration services: www.dasages.com]

 

[Michael52x]

I only saw "be", and not any "to's" So be it.

"Impatience will reward you with dissatisfaction" RMS Cosmics'97

 

[risby]

my suggestion was that if language doesn't matter, then MAI is unnecessary.

I don't think language doesn't matter. I didn't say anything of the sort. This was exactly the kind of straw man retort that I tried to pre-empt when I said

Please don't think that I'm arguing against intellectualism or education.

You have apparently taken my words personally

Not at all

I intended no personal affront

Thanks

authoritative site. I posted means to find several

Thanks

This situation may be similar to conventions of "good personal hygiene"

This I find quite unacceptable. To regard those who choose or have learnt different language conventions as the verbal equivalent of smelly outcasts I regard as unkind and priggish. I'm not complaining that you have offended me and I'm sorry if you misunderstand my trenchant, forthright style as evidence of being upset. I'm not but it's nice of you to allow me the choice to be if I so choose[smirk]

the established rules and conventions

There is no single source of undisputed rules that attempt to corral the English language in the same way that the Académie Française does with French of the Real Academia Española does with Spanish. English is a tolerant language that accepts borrowings and imaginative use with ease. If only you could accept that ... the winners would be we. [he he]

==========================================

I phoned the local ramblers club today, and this bloke just went on and on.

 

[SantaMufasa]

Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
[I provide low-cost, remote Database Administration services: www.dasages.com]

 

[kjv1611]

risby,

If I may...

English grammar is a set of rules/guidelines (some are more-so rules, others more or less just guidelines). In the case of the predicate nominative, that is an established rule.

However, I think one way to distinguish your whole point is to point to dialects. Oftentimes, when acts of breaking rules of a particular language become rules themselves, dialects are formed - um, sort of.

In other words, they aren't generally accepted rules, but they are rules to a certain smaller group of people - usually localized, or else united by some similar belief or thought pattern. Example: Southern vs Norther. "Why I was told that "aint" aint no kinda word!"

So maybe the whole "The winners should be us" thing should be labeled as part of a dialect. Incorrect basic English grammar? Yes. A set dialect? Maybe. Then again, I suppose that bad grammar isn't localized.



See, now isn't the matter all cleared up?! [ROFL2]

--

"If to err is human, then I must be some kind of human!" -Me

 

[risby]

I'm be pleased to be able to clear up your misapprehension kjv611.

The predicate nominitive form that we're discussing was part of Latin grammar but it can't be part of current English grammar if speakers of English do not use that form.

The language has moved on.

Deal with it.

==========================================

I phoned the local ramblers club today, and this bloke just went on and on.

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> it can't be part of current English grammar if speakers of English do not use that form.
(emphasis mine)

That's a big if, and to that point, the language has not moved on. The predicate nominative remains part of English grammar because your "if" condition has not been met. There are speakers of English who continue to use the predicate nominative form. That is undeniable.



--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read
FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[Welshbird]

How about "We shudda won!"?

Fee

"The cure for anything is salt water – sweat, tears, or the sea." Isak Dinesen

 

[snuv]

I think risby might, to a certain extent, be taking the we out of us.


"If it could have gone wrong earlier and it didn't, it ultimately would have been beneficial for it to have." : Murphy's Ultimate Corollary

 

[risby]

The predicate nominative remains part of English grammar because your "if" condition has not been met. There are speakers of English who continue to use the predicate nominative form.

Again with the computer logic mentality already.

I didn't say "iff" and I didn't say "all".

If, as has mostly happened in English with declension of nouns in respect to case, the agreement of the nominative predicate pronoun and the subject pronoun has also fallen into general desuetude then those speakers who continue to use that form are not speaking current English but an archaic form of English which, I might add as this sentence isn't quite long enough, is quite appropriate for fusty old professors.

==========================================

I phoned the local ramblers club today, and this bloke just went on and on.

 

[kjv1611]

risby,

Nothing personal, but it seems to me that you just have an utter distaste and even hate for standards.

Standards are necessary, especially for communication.

If there are no standards, then how would one know what the definition of the word "is" REALLY "is."



--

"If to err is human, then I must be some kind of human!" -Me

 

[SantaMufasa]

...and you (Risby) don't seem to have a problem conforming to the strict syntactical prescriptions of AWK, C, C++, Perl, and Unix. I'll bet you are not as much of a non-conformist as you are leading us to believe. <grin>



Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
[I provide low-cost, remote Database Administration services: www.dasages.com]

 

[Prognewb]

Also not far behind is people who "seen" things when they really "saw" it.

"I seen it the other day"
Ohhh no you didn't ..

What's even worse, is when they "seent" or "seened" it.

 

[CajunCenturion]

Again with the computer logic mentality already.

I beg your pardon? You're assuming facts not in evidence.

I didn't say "iff" and I didn't say "all".

No one said you did. But it's interesting that you are assuming that "if" means "if" when you say it, but "iff" when another speaks it.

==> ...as has mostly happened in English with declension of nouns in respect to case, the agreement of the nominative predicate pronoun and the subject pronoun has also fallen into general desuetude
There is no real comparison between the two. The declension of nouns with respect to case disappeared from English hundreds of years ago, mostly during the transition from Old English to Middle English. However, the nominative predicate pronoun, although in decline, is still very much in use. I will stipulate that you may not hear it or see it in your circles, but English has lots and lots of circles.

==> then those speakers who continue to use that form are not speaking current English
Would you not say that current English includes all those forms being spoken today?

==> is quite appropriate for fusty old professors.
Did you not say that, and I quote, "To regard those who choose or have learnt different language conventions as the verbal equivalent of smelly outcasts I regard as unkind and priggish"? Being an advocate of tolerance, I would agree that such a claim is unkind and not warranted, but in the same vein, I find the fusty characterization equally demeaning.

Finally, if your previous post is an example of the English grammar that you believe to be mainstream, or perhaps at least would prefer to be mainstream, then I'm quite content to be of a mind in that regard.

--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read
FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein