The Sciolist of English Grammar

The Great English Subjunctive Mood

2011-04-27T20:42:00.001-07:00

I know it has been awhile so I shall try to catch up. Yes, it's been one and a half years since I last wrote in this blog. It seems as though that were an eternity ago, doesn't it? No matter, though. I am glad to be back and I am glad to be writing once again. If only things in my life were going well, all would be fine. Alas, this is not so so I have to make the most of what I can.

Anyway, let's begin with today's topic of grammar---the subjunctive mood. Yes, I know that I've browbeaten this topic in the past, but it's a very important rule in grammar so it must be browbeaten lest the masses forget how it is used. Aha! There is that tricky subjunctive conjugation in "lest the masses forget". Here, the verb "forget" is in its third person plural present subjunctive conjugation. Unfortunately, in Modern English, there is no difference between the plural present subjunctive and indicative unless it be conjugated in a negated form ("unless it be conjugated" is subjunctive, too!!!).

Really, generally speaking, though, the English subjunctive is nominal. It plays a small role in our grammar because our language has syncretized over the last 400 years. In inflectional languages such as French, Spanish, and Latin, it plays an enormous role. In fact, in Old English, the subjunctive played a huge role. This was mainly because of the fact that modal verbs hadn't formed yet and verbs inflected more.

The subjunctive in Modern English is normally considered a relic of the Old English subjunctive---the remnants of a once vast conjugational system that is now virtually extinct. One form that is a virtual relic is the past subjunctive "were" form, which is used often in hypothetical or conditional situations:

Example: If I were in charge of this project, I would fire you.

Of course, normally one would expect to see the conjugation "was" collocated with the pronoun "I", but not here because this is a remnant of the Old English past subjunctive. In Modern English, all other verbs in the past subjunctive look just like the past indicative:

Example: If he ruled England, he would have you hanged for such effrontery.

As you can see, "ruled" looks just like the past indicative, but it really isn't---it's actually a past subjunctive form. In Old English, there was a difference between the past indicative and past subjunctive, but, in Modern English, this is no longer the case except for the verb "to be".

Personally, if you should find this rule to be difficult to understand, then you're in luck. Many grammar books now consider this pedantic rule to be optional. Even though this may be true, it is still considered a sign of an educated speaker. Furthermore, it is used by many literati in an effort to enhance their writing. The subjunctive can give a formal and archaic tone to one's writing so that may be the reason for its being so popular in the literary world. Below are examples of some literary subjunctive forms:

Examples:

O that I were a man!
Far be it from me to tell you what to do.
Be they big or small, I will crush them all!
If this be treason, make the most of it!

There are present perfect and past perfect subjunctive forms, too. Had you asked earlier, I would have posited some examples for you to look at. Aha, again! There's the past perfect subjunctive in that last sentence. Although the past perfect subjunctive is regularly common in modern parlance, this is not so for the present perfect subjunctive. In fact, people usually gasp and cringe at the mere presence of the pure English present perfect subjunctive when it is uttered in a conversation. Here are a few examples of it:

Examples:

It is necessary that each candidate have lived in his respective state for at least five years.
In the event that he have finished all of his work, he may go home.
I won't pay her unless she have completed all of her chores.
I pray that he have seen the error of his ways.

I hope that this might not have been too difficult for you to understand. It is not all that difficult. Well, thanks for listening, my friends and I shall talk to you later. Ciao!

Formal Grammar: The English Subjunctive Revisited From Its Death Throes

2009-10-18T23:38:00.000-07:00

Here are some good examples of the subjunctive in English that I have found on the Internet. Who says the subjunctive is dead?

Examples:

It is a good idea that you be a fastidious grammar student. (active simple present subjunctive)
The boss desires that all employees be working while she is gone. (active present progressive subjunctive)
It is desirable that she have incorporated her references in her exegesis. (active present perfect subjunctive)
The parents demand that the child have been cleaning his room for at least an hour before going out to play. (active present perfect-progressive subjunctive)
If I were a wealthy man, I would not be working here. (active simple past subjunctive)
The teacher would not have to yell if the class were behaving. (active past progressive subjunctive)
If I had eaten my vegetables when I was younger, I wouldn't be so short now. (active past perfect subjunctive)
If the boy had been studying as he has claimed repeatedly, he would not have failed the test. (active past perfect-progressive subjunctive)
The prosecutor insisted that the defendant be found guilty for his crimes. (passive simple present subjunctive)
It is vital that alcoholic drinks be being drunk by only adults age 21 and older at the party tonight. (passive present progressive subjunctive)
It is essential that references have been incorporated in your exegesis. (passive present perfect subjunctive)
The panel asks that the final report have been being compiled by the staff. (passive present perfect-progressive subjunctive)
If your car were damaged in an accident, then you could sue for damages. (passive simple past subjunctive)
If I were being mistreated, then I would tell you. (passive past progressive subjunctive)
If your house had been damaged by the storm, then you could have filed an insurance claim. (passive past perfect subjunctive)
If the pumpkins had not been being smashed by kids, then we would have had dozens for Halloween. (passive past perfect-progressive subjunctive)

While these examples might be that of formal English, the subjunctive can occur in far less formal statements. Here are examples of some formal situations and less formal situations wherein a person can see the subjunctive:

How about I be the pitcher?
God help us.
Subjunctive be damned!
It was, as it were, a miracle.
Come Sunday, we'll be ready.
I wish you were here.
Be he dead or alive, bring him to me!
The powers that be have spoken.
I may be able to answer that if I be permitted to speak.
If it please the court, I shall take the stand.
I want you to do it so that it be done correctly.
Whether he allow it or not, we'll do it anyway.
I pray that we not fail.
I hope that you be on time for once.
God forbid he run for office.

Okay, these are some more examples of the subjunctive in English. As you can see, it might not be so ponderous as you might have thought it would be. Many people say it all of the time without even noticing. I figured I should bring this up again lest it be forgotten by the canaille.

The Drunken Fisherman

2009-05-27T22:11:00.000-07:00

The Drunken Fisherman

It is not a mystery that poems elicit different feelings and images from people of all ages, races, and creeds. It is possible that one poem could evoke a feeling of empathy from one reader who bethinks himself of times he, too, had something similar occur whereas another reader may have a feeling of despondency from the same poem. It is this credo that works are intrinsically subjective that can make understanding and critiquing poems the most enjoyable because it is incumbent upon him who reads them.

In the poem, The Drunken Fisherman by, Robert Lowell, a person may picture himself fishing along a river bank, which can evoke, from the reader, feelings of serenity. Whenever I read this poem, I feel as though I were somewhere far away, having escaped all of my troubles and worries, with only the grassy knolls and the sound of the running river between me and all of the hardships of my life.

This feeling is especially elicited in the lines, "I cast for fish that pleased my eye/ Truly Jehovah's bow suspends/ No pots of gold to weight its ends" (2-4). These lines can tell the reader that the main character is doing all of this for recreation. The words, "no pots of gold to weight its ends" evoke this feeling that the fisherman is not doing this for his livelihood.

This poem can also elicit a feeling of somberness and finality to its reader after the fisherman, in the poem, catches his fish. This feeling is consistent in the lines:

Only the blood-mouthed rainbow trout
Rose to my bait. They flopped about
My canvas creel until the moth
Corrupted its unstable cloth (5-8).

In these lines, the reader can picture that the fisherman is only catching rainbow trout and that they are dying as he puts them in his basket. The death of these fish produces this somber feeling of finality for the reader. The words "flopped about" portray how the fish are trying desperately to escape from the fisherman's basket but to no avail.

It is unknown to the reader whether the fisherman might actually want to catch rainbow trout. The "gap" in this poem could be the fact that the fisherman really does not like rainbow trout. This can be inferred when the fisherman states, "I cast for fish that pleased my eye" (2), but then avers that, "Only the blood-mouthed rainbow trout/ Rose to my bait" (5-6). Here, one can picture that the fisherman is looking for certain kinds of fish, but the lowly rainbow trout are the only fish that are biting for him. In the end, the fisherman just concedes to this fact and places the fish in his creel.

The passing of time and sheer solitude of the fisherman's surroundings are also exemplified to the reader in the lines, "A calendar to tell the days/ A handkerchief to wave away/ The gnats" (9-11). Here, the word, "calendar" exemplifies this feeling of the passing of time whereas the handkerchief that is being used to swat the gnats portrays the fisherman to be in a serene area somewhere deep in the wilderness. This evocation of the passing of time can also be seen in the lines, "O wind blow cold, O wind blow hot/ Let suns stay in or suns step out" (17-18). In these two lines, the reader can infer that the sun is rising and setting and that the fisherman's surroundings are growing colder and then warmer. This seems to be signifying the changing of days.

A "digger for secret" may be best portrayed in the lines, "Children, the raging memory drools/ Over the glory of past pools" (23-24). The reader may get this feeling of nostalgia from the fisherman in the poem. He seems to be reminiscing to the days of his childhood—to a time when he was fishing as a young boy and made some "glorious" catches. This evocation of magisterial catches comes from the words, "glory of past pools" whereas "memory drools" can be inferred as the fisherman's drifting into a daydream as he remembers these good times.

From a psychological aspect, the character also seems to be very reclusive and may be trying to escape from all of his troubles. This feeling of escaping his troubles can be limned from the fact that the fisherman appears to be drunk in the poem. The reader can infer this in the line, "Pouching a bottle in one arm" (12), wherein it seems as though the fisherman has been drinking. In line 23, a "whiskey bottle" is mentioned, which denotes even more the possibility that some drinking has occurred. The reclusive aspect of this fisherman is denoted from the fact that no other characters are mentioned in this poem. From the reader's perspective, the fisherman is alone in the wilderness and the fish are his only company.

In the final stanza, the reader can infer that the fisherman is upset about his catch when he says, "Is there no way to cast my hook/ Out of this dynamited brook" (33-34). The participle, "dynamited" signals to the reader that there is nothing to be caught in this brook. It also limns frustration on the part of the fisherman who seems to be cursing the brook wherein he is fishing. His question, "Is there no way to cast my hook" (33) seems to be somewhat sarcastic and rhetorical—as if the reason for not catching any fish were directly related to how he casts his hook into the water.

In the end, this poem can be interpreted in many different ways. The old axiom, "to each his own" comes to mind because each person may glean from this poem whatever he may, and no interpretation is wrong. Whether the reader think the poem is somber and reclusive or angry and sarcastic is totally subjective in nature. There is no right or wrong answer when trying to understand the meaning of any author's works. It really all depends on the reader's own response.

The Semantics of What We Say

2009-05-12T21:06:00.000-07:00

There is a big reason that I talk about the subjunctive and indicative moods in English a lot. It's not that I just want to talk about them—the main reason is that it is important to understand the semantics behind what we say so that our meaning not become convolved or confused in any way.

Yes, it is true that English is a syncretic language; therefore the subjunctive plays a minute role, but what little of the subjunctive that we can see is important because if someone were to say it in the indicative one time and then the subjunctive the next, all of a sudden, it would be possible to have two statements that mean entirely different things. Here's a comparitive example:

Example: John, will you make sure that my son is buckled up? (This means semantically that the speaker wants John to check to see whether his son is buckled up.)

Example: John, will you make sure that my son be buckled up? (This means semantically that the speaker wants John to guarantee that his son will be buckled up.)

Again, normally we cannot notice this because of syncretism, but whenever we can, it is important that we differentiate between the two because of its semantic and syntactic differences. Normally, though, any idiot can understand the speaker's meaning by context. This is the one reason that the subjunctive, at least in English, is a moot point.

My biggest pet peeve, though, has to be the use of "would" in the protasis of the past perfect subjunctive. I cannot understand what fool would construct a sentence like this:

Example: If he would have hit the ball to right field, he would have gotten a base-hit. (I heard this one tonight at baseball practice. My friend, Jon said it.)

Correct Example: If he had hit the ball to right field, he would have gotten a base-hit. (This is still part of the subjunctive that grammarians won't let die. May it live on and not be corrupted by fools.)

Again, it's not a big problem because any idiot can figure out what the speaker means. The big question I have about this is the diachrony of this error. Where did it come from? How has it spread? It's the same with the whole "was/were" past indicative/subjunctive constructions. There must be a reason for this diachronic shift in construction. I mean, I seldom hear the pluperfect subjunctive anymore and this is by no means a moribund area of the English subjunctive mood. Here's one that's common though:

Example: I wish this team was our actual team, except for Rubin. (This was said at baseball practice today by my friend, Stephen.)

This is just another attack on the past subjunctive wherein "were" would be the correct verb conjugation, but again, this is picayune. I'm not here to beat a dead horse; I'm here to explain the semantics of these constructions so that there be very little confusion regarding whether it be "was" or "were" or whatnot.

Remember, in formal English writing, whether it be considered didactic or not, it is crucial that you make sure that your reader understand exactly what you want him to know. You should be careful not to confound the reader in any way, shape, or form. If English weren't so syncretic, though, it would be far easier to get your point across. You just have to make due while you write your paper or whatnot.

Perhaps, one day, all of these constructions will be considered grammatically correct. As of now, though, the only concession grammarians have made is to the present subjunctive forms, and this is not a total concession. The past and pluperfect constructions still must be adhered to, or so they say, yet over the last twenty years, this, too, has started to attenuate.

It really doesn't matter, though; this is just some food for thought. Please write to me to tell me about what you think in regard to this topic. I'm curious as to what others might have to say when it appertains to the semantics of these types of construction.

Woe Is I

2009-05-10T21:34:00.000-07:00

I believe I have talked about the predicate nominative before, but if I recall correctly, it was just an excursive, cursory explanation of it. With that said, I still want to expound further on this precept so that there be no confusion per se.

As you are probably eminently aware, the title explains this concept of the predicate nominative—"Woe is I"—instead of the more traditional way of saying, "Woe is me". Yes, I know Shakespeare did say, "Woe is me" and I am in no way saying that he was wrong for having said it like this. In fact, standard English grammatical rules weren't established until the mid-seventeenth century so Shakespeare had been dead approximately half of a century before English was standardized; therefore he was not wrong when he said it in this way.

Furthermore, not to rend the grammatical rules along with the semantics of this construction, but using an objective pronoun following a copula is just informal; it in no way impugns the interlocutor in any way. In fact, it may enhance a dialogue by removing the fusty nature that a phrase like "It is I" might induce. With that said, though, in formal writing, it is important that the writer follow this rule because it does produce concinnity in the paper, semantically it makes more sense, and grammarians still say it is correct, but formal.

Remember that high school and college English papers are formal bodies of work; ergo they must be stylistically formal. One must also remember that an accusative pronoun needs an action verb for it to be used. A writer cannot use an accusative pronoun as the direct object of a copula because a copula is only linking the subject with the subject predicate. There also must be concinnity in the construction of a "to be" construction with its subordinate clause. For instance:

Example: It is you [who are going to rectify this situation.]

Above, the predicate nominative is "you"; therefore the verb following the interrogatory pronoun "who" in the subordinate clause must correspond with each other; therefore it would appear to be "you are" in this situation. Below is another example so that you can see how this works:

Example: It is she who owns that land.

Now, remember that this will only be easy to spot provided "to be" be conjugated or it have a subject. It can be very difficult to spot during such times when the subject should appear to be nonexistent. For example:

Example: I want [myself] to be him.

Here, "to be" has a subject and that subject is the direct object of the verb to want, but because it's a reflexive pronoun, in this situation, it is normally omitted. The infinitive here is linking the two objective pronouns so they must both be objective. Here are some more examples below:

Example: I pretend to be her.

Example: I pretend that I am she.

Example: It's better that it be they than it be I.

Example: Yesterday, I became he [the leader].

Example: The winner was thought to be I.

Example: He thought me to be him.

Everyone reading this should be aware that this is formal English—English that one would write more so than he would speak. More so, many of these constructions can, indeed, be avoided in a paper and I would strongly urge that a writer avoid these constructions because of their stilted, pedantic constructions, but they do have their place in grammar. It should be stated, though, that a construction such as the example below can bring a connotation of strength and may embolden its audience so this construction can definitely be wise to use in a formal, persuasive paper:

"It is we, the people, who have fought for centuries for freedom. It is we who have offered our souls, our blood, and our brethren to fight against persecution and injustice. It is we who have the power to decide what is right for us and it is we who will never give up until we have what is rightfully ours."

This is a term in linguistics called "anaphora". Winston Churchill was renowned for his use of anaphora in many of his speeches. Anaphora is very powerful in persuasive writing because it causes the reader to focus on its construction. The constant, recurrent use of "It is we" is enough to cause anyone's head to turn.

All right, well that is my in-depth explanation of the predicate nominative. I hope it might have helped you a little in understanding the antiphony of prescribed constructions versus proscribed constructions regarding this topic.

The Wife's Lament

2009-05-09T23:19:00.000-07:00

The Wife's Lament

The Middle Ages began around A.D. 500 and was a period of time that existed in Europe between Classical Antiquity and the Italian Renaissance. It stretched throughout the centuries and historians believe it finally culminated around A.D. 1350, although speculation exists that it may have continued even longer.

Perhaps one of the most esoteric poems of this time is "The Wife's Lament." In this poem, the author is a woman whose husband has gone on a journey to some unknown place and, because he is no longer physically there to be with his wife, his family members have exiled her. From the context of the poem and its prologue, it is evident that the narrator has had an arranged marriage with her husband whom she describes as "her lord." The prologue mentions that the narrator was most likely a "peace-weaver," which, in medieval Anglo-Saxon culture, was a woman who was married off to make peace between warring tribes. This was a very common practice during the Middle Ages so it makes sense that her husband's family would contemn her and thus exile her upon his leaving.

An element of medieval Anglo-Saxon culture is clearly represented in this poem by the antonomastic overtone that the term, "my lord" brings. For example, the narrator states, "First [my lord] went away from his people here," then she later avers that, "[My lord] commanded me to stay in this place." The antonomasia found in these passages clearly connotes what many historians would consider as typical truckling of a medieval wife towards her husband. The antonomastic term, "my lord," also seems to exude a type of servile fealty that a wife would have for her husband during this time in Anglo-Saxon history.

This poem also seems to exude from it a great social conflict between women during the Middle Ages. One cannot help noticing that the narrator in this poem is inferior to her husband in every facet and it is almost as though she were his property more so than his wife. The narrator seems to be almost limned as that of a vassal or a serf from the different descriptions that are given in the poem. This is very consistent with medieval Anglo-Saxon culture because women were considered to have been put on this Earth by God to serve their husbands. Because of this precept that was embedded in the culture of this time, women were brought up to believe in this notion, thus, no matter what, they served their husbands well and accordingly until death did them part.

Furthermore, the reader can also get a sense from the poem that the narrator has married into a warrior cult and her husband has left her for some unknown reason. The narrator mentions in the poem that "her lord" has gone "across the storm-tossed sea." It may be that he has gone to conquer another land or fight in some great war, which, during the Middle Ages, was common practice throughout Anglo-Saxon culture.

The notion that this family that the narrator has married into may be a warrior cult is buttressed by the belief that the narrator is a peace-weaver. If she was a peace-weaver, then she was married to stifle a blood feud between the two exogamous families. Tensions between the narrator's family and "her lord's" family may still be extant, but occluded from sight while she and her lord are married and living together. The problem that exists now is that her lord has gone on this journey to some unknown place thus she is no longer being shielded by his aegis. Without her lord's aegis, she is at the mercy of his family members and therefore their true feelings towards her come out and they ostracize her to this place in the wilderness.

The reader can further picture the ostracism of the narrator when she describes disquietly that, "Endlessly I have suffered the wretchedness of exile" and then segues into how she now resides in an "earth-cave" in the wilderness. The narrator, in these lines, is expounding her coda to the reader. This is, in essence, the end-result she receives for all of her love, devotion, and fidelity she has had for her lord—the fact that she has now been exiled by his family to live out her days in this cave underneath an old oak tree. In medieval Anglo-Saxon culture, it was common practice for a family to blackball one of its estranged members, especially a peace-weaver when the husband had either died or gone somewhere such as off to war wherein it was very likely he would never return.

Furthermore, the connotation of a blood feud in this poem can be limned through the arranged marriage between the narrator and her lord. Since these are two separate warrior cults who are trying to create some semblance of peace between each other, the one cult has offered up a peace-weaver for betrothal to a male heir of the other warrior cult. Arranged marriages and blood feuds between exogamous families, particularly warrior cult families, were rampant throughout Anglo-Saxon culture during the Middle Ages. An arranged marriage was one way to end a blood feud between different families, but, many times, the hatred for the other family was still innate within each member; therefore many of these marriages were doomed from the start. It is apparent from this poem that the narrator's arranged marriage, which was an effort to create a rapprochement between the two warring families, has failed thus irreparably sundering the two families and inexorably reviving old tensions from the blood feud.

In the end, there are many elements of Anglo-Saxon culture and heritage that can be found in "The Wife's Lament." For instance, in the poem, the reader can see how a once doting wife seems to become nothing more than a flitting memory to her husband and his family and how, through all of her pain and persecution, through exile and enmity, the ever-faithful narrator still toadies to her missing husband—"her lord" for whom she forever weeps during her state of exile.

The Hug

2009-05-09T08:15:00.000-07:00

The Hug

In every work, the reader looks at it and must infer what the author is trying to say. Usually, the reader incorporates his own political views into the work as a group such as his feelings towards different genders, classes, races, or even sexual preferences. With that being said, it is safe to assume that "The Hug" by Thom Gunn is no different. Gun, a homosexual author, writes in such a way as to capture his audience, but all the while making many feel uneasy as to what he is portraying.

When the narrator says, "It was your birthday, we had drunk and dined/Half of the night with our old friend/Who'd showed us in the end/To a bed I reached in one drunk stride," the reader clearly pictures that the narrator is a man and that the person whom he is throwing a party for is either his wife or girlfriend (1-4). The "old friend" appears to be a male, perhaps someone whom they have known since they were in school. A feminist would impugn this stereotypical way of thinking as an archetypal fancy—a conceit held within the psyche of the average individual based on what roles society places on its sexes. For instance, society's archetype would view that a man should throw a party for his wife or girlfriend and not the other way around. More so, it is the man who should be drunk and not the woman and it would be improper for the old friend to be a woman because of the belief in the roles of fidelity.

From a post-feminist view, these archetypes are ridiculous or outmoded. In modern society, it is perfectly acceptable for a woman to throw a birthday party for the man, it is perfectly acceptable for the woman to get drunk at the party, and it is perfectly acceptable for there to be another girl at her husband's or boyfriend's party. Any other way of thinking, whether it be to assume sex roles for androgynous characters or something else, is not only prejudicial, but it is abasing to women.

From a queer theorists perspective, this archetype is completely flawed. A queer theorist would ask the reader, "Why do these characters have to be mixed genders? They could very easily be all men or all women." In fact, if one were to have insight that the author, Thom Gunn was homosexual during his lifetime, he might think differently as to who these characters are. In this sense, the average reader might become alarmed at the thought that these characters might be two men who have gone to bed with each other or even two women.

When the narrator says, "I dozed, I slept. My sleep broke on a hug/Suddenly, from behind/In which the full lengths of our bodies pressed," a feminist reader might want to switch her first thought (7-9). She would argue that the woman is apparently the narrator because the man would be the one to hug suddenly from behind and then push his body up against hers. This would be predicated on the societal archetype that a man is usually the one to make the first move on a woman and that the woman is the one who must acquiesce to his advances in the end.

A post-feminist would be able to see these characters from either a male/female or female/male role. She would argue that women are only preventing social change by falling for this archetypal ideology because women have needs, too. The character who is making the move could just as easily be a woman rather than a man. She could just be trying to give her man a birthday present or she, too, could be drunk and have lost her inhibitions.

A queer theorist, here, would stop the presses. He would say that the feminist and post-feminist are behind the times—that these characters could just as easily be having some homosexual relationship than a heterosexual one. He would elucidate that this is caused by society's strong biases against things it considers to be "out of the norm." Whether he be in the right is another argument entirely, but he would definitely focus on the fact that the average reader might view these characters more ominously if he were told that they are homosexual.

In the end, it is entirely up to the reader as to how he interprets the work he is reading. The main point to remember is that each individual views things differently and that these views are a combination of personal and societal osmoses—in other words, what one knows to be the norm and what one believes, combined, forms his views on a particular work, its characters, and its author.

All in All

2009-05-08T23:07:00.000-07:00

All in All

In every piece of work, there are always two sides to a coin and so this precept is true in the poem, "All in All," which was written by Alfred Lord Tennyson. This poem is the quintessence of how antonymous words, when used rhetorically, can actually be synonymous in nature and how there truly can be infinite meanings postulated for them.

In the poem, Tennyson tries to express a binary opposition when he states, "Faith and unfaith can ne'er be equal powers" (2). It is in this line wherein there are two words that are antonymous to each other: "faith" and "unfaith." Here, he tries to tell the person to whom he is professing his love that these two concepts are unequal, but, if one were to look at this from another aspect, he could see that, without those people who are unfaithful, faith would not exist; therefore it is not possible to have faith without unfaith and it is also not possible to have unfaith without faith. It can be concluded that each distinctive concept feeds off the other to form one.

In Tennyson's argument, the superior side is faith because, with faith brings trust and, with trust brings love and respect. If a relationship were to be without trust, it would be without faith and therefore it would be without love. It can be assumed then that, in the line, "In Love, if Love be Love, if Love be ours," Tennyson is trying to limn to his lover the dichotomy of love and faith while showing how they are one as well (1). "If Love be Love, if Love be ours" is Tennyson's way of saying to his lover that, if this be the true definition of Love, and if it actually be "theirs," then these two concepts of faith and unfaith can never be equal because Love cannot be Love without faith and, without unfaith, in essence, Love cannot actually exist (1).

Tennyson also tries to personify the concept of Love by capitalizing the "L" in his poem. This seems to humanize this word as though the concept were really he and his lover coalesced so to speak. In an almost ontological sense, Tennyson wants the reader to infer that his Love for this person is as it would be if it were a living, breathing organism.

Tennyson further deliberates on his own concept of Love and his rationale of faith and unfaith in the line, "Unfaith in aught is want of faith in all" (3). Here, the words, "in aught" are being used obsolescently to mean, "at all." Since "in all" means altogether and "at all" means in any which way, there are therefore two different sets of binary oppositions in this line: "unfaith/faith" and "in all/ at all." Tennyson is once again dichotomizing his version of love and faith to his lover. He is trying to limn to her that unfaith, in any which way one can perceive it, is really that person's fervent wanting of faith altogether. It completely contradicts rational perceptions of love and faith because one could also look at faith as being nonexistent in any which way without unfaith altogether.

Tennyson further contradicts and belies the normal perceptions of love and faith throughout the poem. In the middle stanzas, he has described their Love as something almost fetid, for instance, when he says, "Or little pitted speck of garner'd fruit/ That rotting inward slowly moulders all" (8-9). In these two lines, their Love is being described as the speck on a fruit that is rotten and that, over time, that speck grows larger and goes deeper into the fruit until it have rotted out the entire inside of the fruit. This is supposed to portray how their Love is almost cancerous when it starts out and that the cancer that is their Love will only spread until, in the end, their Love be completely destroyed. This is completely contradictory to what most people believe love to be, which is that of being eternal. Tennyson is describing their Love, in these lines, as a finite concept, which seems to go against the rationale of his whole argument regarding love and faith in the first stanza of this poem.

Tennyson further portrays more binary opposition in the lines, "It is not worth keeping: let it go/ But shall it? answer, darling, answer, no/ And trust me not at all or all in all" (10-12). Here, the pronoun, "it" is referring to their Love. He is telling his lover, in line eight, that their Love is not worth keeping so she should let it go, but he contradicts himself, in line nine, when he asks her to say that their Love is worth keeping and to rail against letting their Love dissipate. Finally, in line ten, Tennyson asks her to trust him altogether or not at all, which is somewhat a pun on his original version of love and faith. Here, he is actually trying to say that, if they have Love, then they have faith for one another and she will therefore trust him in toto, but if they should not have Love, then they do not have faith for one another and she will therefore not trust him. In essence, with their Love, like any Love, there is no middle ground—it is, in fact, all in all or nothing at all. It is a pun on his original version of love and faith because he had stated prior that "Unfaith in aught is want of faith in all" and now he is stating that she must choose one concept or the other. His original version had these two concepts seemingly immixed as one, but now they seem to be two separate entities and trust appears to be paramount to preserving the sanctity of their Love.

As a reader, it is important to look at different sides of the coin when dealing with different genres of work. In many instances, one meaning is not necessarily all that exist. Each work may have multiple meanings and seeking out those multiple meanings is paramount to understanding just what the author wants his reader to infer.

Long Day's Journey into Night

2009-05-07T10:04:00.000-07:00

Long Day's Journey into Night

In every work, a psychological profile can be made to explain each character for each character has his own unique style. This is no different in Eugene O'Neill's play, Long Day's Journey into Night. In this play, the reader can see a Freudian psychoanalytical twist to each one of the main characters' personalities.

In Freudian psychology, more specifically his theory on psychoanalysis, the human psyche is broken into three different subsections: The first one is the superego. The super-ego is categorized as this:

· It gives [a person] the sense of right and wrong, pride and guilt (Snowden, 106).
· It often gets [a person] to act in ways that are acceptable to the society, rather than to the individual. For example, it might make a person feel guilty for having extra-marital sex. The super-ego incorporates the teachings of the past and of tradition, imparting a sense of morals (Snowden, 106).
· It monitors behaviour [sic], decides what is acceptable and controls taboo areas, by means of repression. The fact that a person may not be aware of this repression shows that parts of the super-ego can operate unconsciously. In fact, Freud says that large parts of both the ego and the super-ego are normally unconscious (Snowden, 106).
· It allows the ego to measure itself and strive towards ever-greater perfection (Snowden, 107).
· It is rather bossy, always demanding perfection of the ego. In fact, it can be quite severe with the poor ego, humiliating it, ill-treating it and threatening it with dire punishments. Freud observed this sort of thing in his melancholic patients (Snowden, 107).

With the above mentioned topic's being limpidly stated, the reader must now look at the three main characters to decide who most likely fits this role. If one were to parse each character's personality traits, he would most likely adduce that James Tyrone is the most apt to fit Freud's super-ego traits. He fits all of the aforementioned traits that make him suitable for this position.

Some reasons that make James Tyrone most apt to be Freud's superego exemplar is the way he carries himself throughout the whole play. Throughout the play, he seems lost and bewildered as to what is happening with his family. There is his wife, Mary, who is seemingly caught in a continual state of stereotypy, his eldest son, Jamie, has had a rough life going from college to college, and his son, Edmund, is dying of tuberculosis. Through all of the turmoil, though, he appears to be the glue that is holding his family together. One can get the sense that if it were not for him, his family would have fallen apart a long time ago. He appears to keep his wife, Mary in check—retrieving her from her lost thoughts throughout the play. For his son, Edmund, he is the somewhat prototypical father. He spends time with him while he is sick, trying to comfort him over his mother's debilitating disease while keeping Edmund afloat towards his own disease. They can be seen carousing at bars, cavorting over card games, and laughing about the house. His being, in essence, the glue that holds his family together is what makes him a perfect candidate for the super-ego.

As Paul Roazen so eloquently expresses to his reader:

The sense of inferiority has strong erotic roots. A child feels inferior if he notices that he is not loved, and so does an adult...But the major part of the sense of inferiority derives from the ego's relation to its superego; like the sense of guilt it is an expression of the tension between them. Altogether, it is hard to separate the sense of inferiority and the sense of guilt. It would perhaps be right to regard the former as the erotic complement to the moral sense of inferiority (Roazen, 209).

One might notice that Roazen's exegesis on the relation between the ego and super-ego seems to typify the relationship between James and Edmund in the novel. Roazen claims that the "sense of guilt" is an expression of tension between the ego and super-ego. If one were to look at James' colloquies with Edmund , he would see that James is somewhat surreptitiously trying to convey a sense of guilt upon Edmund for his mother's woes even though the audience may notice James' trying to console and counsel his son. This sense of guilt is unconsciously stoking Edmund and thus keeping him afloat. In essence, James, the super-ego incognito, is laying a foundation of guilt upon the de facto ego, Edmund. This is entirely the job of the super-ego—"the part of [oneself] that tells [the person] what is right and what is wrong and judges [his] behaviour [sic] accordingly" (Snowden, 106).

The second part of Freud's psychology is the id, which is derived from the Latin word meaning, "it". "The id is the primitive, unconscious part of the mind that [a person is] born with" (Snowden, 104). The id can be categorized as being "disorganized and illogical in nature, and much of its content is negative and selfish. It can make no value judgements [sic]—it is completely amoral" (Snowden, 104).

With the above being said, the reader can infer that Mary Tyrone is Edmund's id—it is she who is the voice in Edmund's head—the aggressor—the voice in his head that starts undeniably to wear him down over time.

As Rudolph Steiner states, "The unconscious ignores all the scruples the conscious mind cannot disregard. The unconscious takes the attitude that 'the end justifies the means,' whether they harmonize with our ideas of propriety and morality or not" (Steiner, 60). In other words, the id is the dark side of a person's consciousness. It is the side that is hedonistic in nature—it is the pleasure-seeker—the part of the mind that is only concerned with itself.

Mary Tyrone is the dark side throughout this play. She single-handedly is wearing her family down right in front of the audience. Her cynicism and panic-stricken thought process causes her family much undue stress. Her actions are wearing away the glue [James, the super-ego] that is holding them together.

Snowden further buttresses Freud's argument by stating:

Because the id has no concept of time it contains impulses and impressions that may have arisen from events that occurred decades before but which still affect the person as if they were happening in the present. These can only be recognized as belonging to the past when they are made conscious by the work of analysis. Only then can they lose their importance and stop affecting the person's thinking and behaviour [sic] (Snowden, 104).

If one were to look at Mary Tyrone, he would see that, throughout the play, she is living in the past. In fact, it appears she has no concept of the past at all, which only further buttresses the argument that she is the id. She continually talks about the theater and how she has always loved her husband, but if she had known then what she knows now, she would have never married him. This is common behavior of Freud's id.

The final part of Freud's psychology of psychoanalysis is the ego, which is derived from the Latin word for "I". The ego is the part of the mind that reacts to external reality and which a person thinks of as the 'self' (Snowden, 105). Freud explains that the ego can be categorized as such:

· The ego tells us what is real. It is a synthesizer—it helps us combine ideas and make sense of things.
· It is practical and rational, involved in decision making.
· Anxiety arises from the ego. This is seen as a mechanism for warning us that there is a weakness somewhere in the ego's defences [sic].
· The ego can observe itself—in fact, in a number of its functions it can split temporarily and then come together again afterwards.
· A whole system of unconscious defence [sic] mechanisms protects the ego. These are involuntary or unconscious ways of protecting the ego from undesirable feelings and emotions.
· The ego is seen as being rather weak in comparison with the id, but it is better organized and more logical, so that it usually maintains a tenuous upper hand (Snowden, 105).

After looking at this explanation of the function of the ego and comparing it to Edmund, the reader should start to actualize that Edmund is the one being controlled by his personalities (James and Mary) throughout this entire play. If the reader were to examine closely Freud's argument that the ego (Edmund) is weak in comparison with the id (Mary), he would notice that this might be the reason that Edmund continues to be vexed throughout the whole play by his mother and her illness, even more so than his own.

In the end, though, Edmund is better organized and more logical in his thought process so he continues to maintain an upper hand, however slim it might be, over his id. This is crucial to Edmund's survival from his own disease because, were he to wear down from vexation, his immune system would as well, thus he would die even faster from his ailment.
When everything is all said and done, it is important to realize that each character has his own psychological propensities, thus giving him his own unique flavor in a piece of work. With that said, it must be known that Freud cannot always be used to explain a character's tendencies—it really is all in the mind.

Works Cited
Psychology 101. AllPsych Online. AllPsych and Heffner Media Group, Inc, 1999-2003.
Roazen, Paul. Freud and His Followers. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc, 1975.
Snowden, Ruth. Freud. Chicago: Contemporary Books, 2006.
Steiner, Rudolf. Freud, Jung, & Spiritual Psychology. Anthroposophic Press, Inc, 2001.
Wollheim, Richard. Sigmund Freud. New York: The Viking Press, 1971.

Georgia Dusk

2009-05-06T11:40:00.000-07:00

GEORGIA DUSK

It is not a mystery that poems elicit different feelings and images from people of all categories and walks of life. It is possible that one poem could evoke a feeling of antipathy from one reader who remembers times he, too, had something similar occur whereas another reader may have a feeling of hopelessness from the same poem. It is this credo that works are intrinsically subjective that can make understanding and critiquing poems the most enjoyable because it is incumbent upon him who reads them.

In "Georgia Dusk," by Jean Toomer, a person may picture himself walking through a woody dale in Georgia. For instance, when I read this poem, I feel as though I were just going for a walk across the Georgia countryside and all I can see is the beautiful summer scenery in front of me as daylight turns crepuscular.

This is especially elicited in the lines, "The sky, lazily disdaining to pursue/The setting sun, too indolent to hold/A lengthened tournament for flashing gold/Passively darkens for night's barbecue" (1-4). In line one, the reader notices how the author has portrayed the sky as "disdaining to pursue"—in essence, that the sky is rejecting to continue its course of existence and is allowing darkness to envelop its environment. In line two, the "setting sun" is being referred to as being "indolent" in its effort to hold itself afloat. "Indolent" is an adjectival synonym for "lazy"; therefore it is safe to assume that the author is describing to his reader that the sun could very well hold itself up, but as the day lengthens, it has become tired and so has its will to stay afloat.

In lines three and four, the reader begins to see just what happens when the sky and sun become "lazy" per se. The "flashing gold" is referring to the streaks of colors in the crepuscular sky caused by the sky and sun's indolence. The word "passively," in this context, helps further portray the indolence seen in the first stanza. The reader gets this feeling of finality from these last two lines as if this stanza were describing the end of an epoch.

In the second stanza, the reader appears to get the sense that dusk has ended and it is already night. This is mostly portrayed when the narrator says, "A feast of moon and men and barking hounds " (5). Here, the phrase "feast of moon" appears to be describing a "harvest moon"—a common occurrence in the late summer months when the crops have fully grown. The depiction of "men and barking hounds" seems to portray those people who are working on plowing the crop and the hounds are the animals that are possibly used to hunt down runaway slaves if some should decide to make a break instead of picking the crop.

The picture above becomes even more limpid when the narrator describes it as, "An orgy for some genius of the South" (6). Here, the word "orgy" may be being used to describe the roistering nature of this harvest moon feast wherein all of these people are picking the crop late at night. Furthermore, at the end of the line is the word, "South" in its capitalized form, which seems to be representational of the Confederate States. Georgia was a Confederate state during the American Civil War and this pride may still be extant in the mind of this narrator.

It has already been discussed that different readers infer different parts of a literary work differently. This is especially true when the narrator says, "With blood-hot eyes and cane-lipped scented mouth/Surprised in making folk-songs from soul sounds" (7-8). It is in these two lines that one might get the impression that they are describing the slaves while they are in the process of picking a cane crop. The description, "blood-hot eyes" may be referring to how tired these slaves are from working all day in the fields and now having to continue their work throughout the night.

In the third stanza, the reader gets what appears to be a surprise twist: "The sawmill blows its whistle, buzz-saws stop/And silence breaks the bud of knoll and hill/Soft settling pollen where plowed lands fulfill/Their early promise of a bumper crop" (9-12). The description in line nine of a sawmill's blowing its whistle may make the reader picture in his head that the work day is coming to an end. This is clarified even more so when it mentions that "buzz-saws stop" upon hearing the sound of that whistle. Furthermore, the word, "silence" in line ten buttresses this argument that the work day has ended because silence appears to break the bud of the knolls and hills around.

At this point in the poem, the reader might feel as though he were being taken back in time to the days of yore. He may also think that the depiction of dusk is an ending of something more significant than another day—but the ending of an era wherein the South was contemned for its abusive treatment of blacks.

In the fourth stanza, the reader further gets this feeling of rustic life when the narrator says, "Smoke from the pyramidal sawdust pile/Curls up, blue ghosts of trees, tarrying low/Where only chips and stumps are left to show/The solid proof of former domicile" (13-16). The depiction of "blue ghosts of trees" in line fourteen lets the reader picture that the landscape appears to be getting darker. As it gets darker, the trees become silhouetted thus forming a blue ghost depiction to the narrator. Furthermore, this stanza discusses how some of these trees are gone and only the stumps are left, signifying even more so the end of the day because the sawmill is no longer in use so these stumps are just resting there undisturbed.

As the poem continues, the reader starts to notice that it take on a force of its own, especially when the narrator exclaims, "Meanwhile, the men, with vestiges of pomp/Race memories of king and caravan/High priests, an ostrich, and a juju-man/Go singing through the footpaths of the swamp" (17-20). In this stanza, the author seems to be portraying something grandiloquent. The phrase, "vestiges of pomp" may be used to describe the termination of the dusk as it becomes night. The "men" could be the overseers of the slaves as they pick the cane crop.

Furthermore, the description of "high priests, an ostrich, and a juju-man" seems to be signifying something ominous. A high priest is known for being a middleman for God and a juju-man deals with magic charms and amulets so these are possibly limning to the reader preternatural concepts. The ostrich might signify someone who has his head in the ground—as if to say that Georgia is stubborn and conservative in its views on its pre-Civil War principles. These figures may also be signifying that the Georgia dusk is somehow magical and ethereal in nature.

The author continues to describe the beauty of the Georgia dusk when he says, "...the pine trees are guitars/Strumming, pine-needles fall like sheets of rain/Their voices rise...the chorus of the cane/Is caroling a vesper to the stars" (21-24). The word, "vesper" is used in line twenty-four to describe the caroling of what appears to be these high priests and juju-man. A vesper is the evening star or the old canonical hour evening call to prayer. In this sense, the evening star is the planet Venus—the brightest object in the sky next to the moon and probably was instrumental, at least in this time, in helping these people plow their harvest.

The final stanza seems to précis the entire literary work when the narrator exclaims emphatically, "O singers, resinous and soft your songs/Above the sacred whisper of the pines/Give virgin lips to cornfield concubines/Bring dreams of Christ to dusky cane-lipped throngs" (25-28). Here, the reader can imagine perhaps the horde of slaves are now chanting while they work. The "virgin lips" seem to be directly antonymous with the term, "concubine" being used in line twenty-seven. A concubine is a type of mistress or secondary wife, which elicits the notion of something soiled or adulterated. This is completely antipodal to what the word, "virgin" connotes. The concubines, though, appear to be the slaves as they work through the night indefatigably.

In the end, this poem can be interpreted in many different ways. There are many aphorisms that can be used to describe this piece of work. One popularly used hackneyed phrase, "to each his own" comes to mind because each person may glean from this poem whatever he may, and no interpretation is wrong. Whether a person be inclined to argue that a piece of work is austere in nature or sarcastic in nature is really up for him to decide because there is no true right or wrong answer when trying to understand the meaning of any author's works. It really all depends on the reader's own response.

O Captain! My Captain!

2009-05-05T12:55:00.000-07:00

O CAPTAIN! MY CAPTAIN!

"O Captain! My Captain!" is a poem that was written by Walt Whitman on the occasion of President Lincoln's assassination. It was first published in the New York Saturday Press in November 1865 and was an instant classic (Answers.com). For many years after its publication, children were taught this poem in school and many curricula in different schools made learning to recite it mandatory (Answers.com). In the poem, Whitman alludes that the fallen Captain is Abraham Lincoln and that his ship is actually his country—the United States of America.

In the poem, Whitman's narrator describes the feelings of people, particularly the people of the Union, in postwar America when he states, "O Captain! my Captain! our fearful trip is done/ The ship has weather'd every rack, the prize we sought is won" (1-2). Here, the "Captain" is Abraham Lincoln and the "fearful trip" is the Civil War. The "ship" is the country as a whole and when the narrator describes that it has "weather'd every rack," he is limning to his reader that the country has faced all of the adversity it could have possibly faced and has survived (2). The "prize" that has been won, in line two, is the war and the fact that the country will now be one again.

These first two lines in the poem are very important for the reader to understand because they are, in essence, the foundation of the poem. Without a clear understanding of who the Captain is and what allusions Whitman's narrator is referring to when he discusses the ship and the prize, the reader would be clueless throughout the poem. In order for the poem to make sense, this historical aspect must be fleshed out for its reader.

Whitman's narrator then segues from exultation over the winning of the Civil War to a more austere, somber situation:

But O heart! heart! heart!
O the bleeding drops of red,
Where on the deck my captain lies,
Fallen cold and dead (5-8).

Here, the narrator realizes that his Captain, President Lincoln has been shot and is now dead. The concept of being shot, as is how Lincoln was killed, is described when the narrator says, "O the bleeding drops of red" (6). "Bleeding" and "red" represent the loss of blood and the word, "drops" represents a small hole that is allowing the blood to exude from Lincoln's head.

Later on, throughout the poem, Whitman makes the reader have a sense that the narrator is having trouble coming to grips with Lincoln's death. For instance, he says, "Rise up—for you the flag is flung—for you the bugle trills/ For you bouquets and ribbon'd wreaths—for you the shores a-crowding," which seems to portray the narrator as incredulous towards the very notion that Lincoln has been assassinated (10-11). In these lines, he actually seems to be asking Lincoln's corpse to get off the ground when he cries for him "to rise up" so that he can apparently see how much he is loved by his people. There may be some binary oppositions in these lines because it is almost as if the narrator were telling Lincoln that he cannot die because he has won the war and heroes do not die. The concepts of winning and dying are seemingly antonymous to the narrator and therefore cannot occur in this instance.

Furthermore, after ordering Lincoln to rise up, Whitman's narrator asseverates, "It is some dream that on the deck/ You've fallen cold and dead" (15-16). In these two lines, the narrator seems to be finally starting to grasp the situation, but he still seems to be a little incredulous. It almost seems as though he were under the impression that he is having a bad dream wherein his Captain, Lincoln has been murdered. This is portrayed when the narrator states that "it is some dream" when referring to his Captain's falling cold and dead (15). The "deck" whereon his Captain lies may be the wooden boards of the balcony at Ford's Theatre in Washington, D.C. whereupon Lincoln was sitting when he was shot by John Wilkes Booth on the evening of April 14, 1865 (Norton).

The narrator further exclaims, "My Captain does not answer, his lips are pale and still/ My father does not feel my arm, he has no pulse nor will" (17-18). Here, he is finally coming to grips with the dour situation before him. In line seventeen, his Captain is not answering his repeated cries so the narrator is almost panicking in a sense. Finally, the narrator notices that his Captain's lips are pale and still and that he has no pulse; therefore he is dead. This represents the narrator's finally moving out of his denial stage and into a stage of realization and mourning.

After realizing his Captain, Lincoln is dead, he says, "The ship is anchor'd safe and sound, its voyage closed and done/ From fearful trip the victor ship comes in with object won" (19-20). In the first line, the ship is said to be "anchor'd safe and sound" (19). It is here wherein the narrator is telling Lincoln that everything is going to be fine without his having to be alive to oversee it. The "ship" is the country and the "anchor" is the mark that Lincoln has left on the country. The fact that it is "safe and sound" is a testament to Lincoln's accomplishments. In the second line, the narrator is telling Lincoln that the war is won and he is the victor so he can rest in peace for all of eternity knowing this. Here, the "fearful trip" is the war, the "victor ship" is the country, and the "object won" is the Union's being united as one again.

It is important that the reader understand the allusions that Whitman's narrator is making so that he may understand what is occurring in the poem. If the reader were not told that the "trip" is the war and the "ship" is the country, he would have no clue as to what the narrator is talking about; therefore he would be lost throughout the entire poem.

Finally, at the end of the poem, the narrator is moving on from this horrific crucible. He has come to grips with the death of his Captain and, even though he still mourns him, he wants everyone to cherish and bask in his Captain's accomplishments:

Exult O shores, and ring O bells!
But I with mournful tread,
Walk the deck my Captain lies,
Fallen cold and dead (21-24).

When the narrator exclaims, "Exult O shores, and ring O bells," he is telling the hoi polloi to eulogize Lincoln's life (21). The ringing of the "bells" could signify the knelling of the church bells for Lincoln's funeral, which paints a very caliginous picture for the reader. This seems to create somewhat of a binary opposition because the word, "exult" describes jubilation whereas the word, "bells" seems to import a somber meaning and both words are being used together as one, abstract meaning.

In the end, each reader may glean from this poem whatever he may, but the fact remains that Walt Whitman wrote this poem to honor President Abraham Lincoln's life and accomplishments. The fact is, though, that without a clear understanding of certain allusions that Whitman's narrator makes, this poem would be nonsensical or vague to its reader and, without an understanding of history, the context of this poem would be lost to its reader somewhere in a rift in space and time.

Works Cited

"O Captain! My Captain!" Answers.com. 2008. Answers Corporation.
http://www.answers.com/topic/o-captain-my-captain

Norton, R. J. "JOHN WILKES BOOTH'S MOVEMENTS ON THE DAY OF THE ASSASSINATION - APRIL 14, 1865." Abraham Lincoln's Assassination. 1996-2009. Abraham Lincoln Research Site.
http://home.att.net/~rjnorton/Lincoln36.html

On Growing Old

2009-05-04T21:20:00.000-07:00

Well, since I have run out of ideas, what I am going to do is publish old college papers online for whosoever wants to take a look at them. Most of these tractates were written from an anthology of poems, but not all of them. All of these papers got no lower than a C grade, and only one got a C—the rest were A's or B's, if anyone care.

Basically, I'm going to publish these papers so that anyone can use them if he so want. I am giving you carte blanche to use them however you may. I believe that they may be of use to many people who are in an intensive writing program that involves writing papers on poems. Well, without further adieu, here it is on the poem, "On Growing Old", written by John Masefield (1878-1967). My paper will be subjacent to Masefield's poem:

ON GROWING OLD

Be with me, Beauty, for the fire is dying;
My dog and I are old, too old for roving.
Man, whose young passion sets the spindrift flying,
Is soon too lame to march, too cold for loving.
I take the book and gather to the fire,
Turning old yellow leaves; minute by minute
The clock ticks to my heart. A withered wire,
Moves a thin ghost of music in the spinet.
I cannot sail your seas, I cannot wander
Your cornland, nor your hill-land, nor your valleys
Ever again, nor share the battle yonder
Where the young knight the broken squadron rallies.
Only stay quiet while my mind remembers
The beauty of fire from the beauty of embers.

Beauty, have pity! for the strong have power,
The rich their wealth, the beautiful their grace,
Summer of man its sunlight and its flower.
Spring-time of man, all April in a face.
Only, as in the jostling in the Strand,
Where the mob thrusts, or loiters, or is loud,
The beggar with the saucer in his hand
Asks only a penny from the passing crowd,
So, from this glittering world with all its fashion,
Its fire, and play of men, its stir, its march,
Let me have wisdom, Beauty, wisdom and passion,
Bread to the soul, rain when the summers parch.
Give me but these, and though the darkness close
Even the night will blossom as the rose.

ON GROWING OLD

It can be said that each poem may have its own psychological interpretation when dealing with its narrator whether it be from Maslow's, Freud's, or Erikson's perspective. In John Masefield's poem, "On Growing Old," this precept rings especially true. Masefield, throughout his poem, clearly allows the reader to see his narrator's ascendance throughout the tiers of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.

A perfect example of one of Maslow's needs can be limned by the reader when Masefield's narrator says, "Be with me, Beauty, for the fire is dying/ My dog and I are old, too old for roving" (1-2). These first two lines clearly point to Maslow's fourth tier, which is his need for esteem. Maslow believes that each individual wants to feel good about himself and, in these two lines, the narrator is asking that his "Beauty" stay with him. He clearly is observant to the fact that he is aging and that, with his age, he is losing his Beauty. Like any person, he is trying to beseech his good looks into staying with him even as he ages. This is a very common human psychological attribute that Maslow believes is innate in all individuals.

Masefield's narrator continues throughout his poem to show how he bounces from one tier to the next in his wizened years. For example, when the narrator says, "I take the book and gather to the fire/ Turning old yellow leaves; minute by minute," he is clearly expressing Maslow's fifth tier need for knowledge (5-6). This is limned by the fact that the narrator is riffing through pages of a book. This act clearly represents the narrator's thirst for knowledge in his old age. The fact that these pages are yellow shows that the book is old and that it may possibly be some sort of encyclopedia or reference book. One might picture an erudite man who is flicking through scholarly journals and lucubrating about concepts of great importance by candlelight if he were to envisage this.

These two lines could also portray Maslow's second tier—the need for safety. In the first line, the narrator expresses, "I take the book and gather to the fire," which could limn to its reader that the narrator is most comfortable with a book in his hands near a fire (5). In line six, the turning of the yellow leaves "minute by minute" could represent that the narrator likes to spend a substantial amount of time in this place of comfort.

Masefield's narrator can be portrayed as having an aesthetic quality when he says, "The clock ticks to my heart; a withered wire/ Moves a thin ghost of music in the spinet" (7-8). Here, Maslow's sixth tier can be limned in line seven when a spinet is mentioned. A spinet is a type of piano, which is a musical instrument and the love of music can portray an aesthetic quality in a person. Since it appears that the narrator has a spinet in his home, he can possibly be described as cultural or aesthetic.

Maslow's sixth tier need for aesthetics can also be limned in this poem when the narrator says to his reader:

I cannot sail your seas, I cannot wander
Your cornland nor your hill-land nor your valleys
Ever again, nor share the battle yonder
Where the young knight the broken squadron rallies;
Only stay quiet, while my mind remembers
The beauty of fire from the beauty of embers (9-14).

Here the narrator is expressing metaphorically that he is very old. The fact that he is using metaphors is an aesthetic quality. He says, "I cannot sail your seas, I cannot wander/ Your cornland nor you hill-land nor your valleys," which is his way of saying that his age has taken away his thirst for emprises (9-10). This lack of wanting to embark on emprises can also be limned when the narrator continues to say, "Ever again, nor share the battle yonder/ Where the young knight the broken squadron rallies" (11-12). Finally the narrator says, "Only stay quiet, while my mind remembers/ The beauty of fire from the beauty of embers" (13-14). This metaphor explains how, in the beginning, his life was tantamount to that of a raging fire, but now he is reduced to the beauty that embers imbue. An "ember" is what is seen when a fire dies out, which signifies the end of his life. All of these tropes ascribe an aesthetic quality to the narrator, which is significant to Maslow's sixth tier of needs.

In the final stanza, the reader can picture a transcendence of the narrator when he avers, "Beauty, have pity, for the strong have power/ The rich their wealth, the beautiful their grace" (15-16). It is here wherein the reader can ascribe Maslow's final tier of self-transcendence to the narrator because he has borne witness to other people's potential. The narrator has finally come to realize that this is how life works. There are the strong who have their power, there are the rich who have their wealth, and there are the beautiful people who have their grace.

Also, in the final stanza, the reader can notice the narrator's self-actualization, which is Maslow's seventh tier of needs. This can be portrayed to the reader when the narrator says:

Let me have wisdom, Beauty, wisdom and passion,
Bread to the soul, rain where the summers parch.
Give me but these, and though the darkness close
Even the night will blossom as the rose (25-28).

When the narrator expresses, "Let me have wisdom...wisdom and passion," he has actualized his potential in life (25). The narrator also knows that his life is ending when he states, "Give me but these, and though the darkness close," but it is here wherein he is asking to receive wisdom and passion for the remainder of his life (27). It is also in these last two lines that he explains to the reader that his life can still have meaning when he says, "Even the night will blossom as the rose" (28). Here the "rose" in line twenty-eight signifies the continuation of life whereas "night" signifies the ending of life.

In the end, one can conclude that, in every piece of poetry, some psychological argument can be made. Although whether that argument be the correct one is entirely subjective, a reader can infer whatever he may want because the true meaning of anything is always found somewhere in the psyche of its own reader.

A Tribute to Bea Arthur

2009-05-03T20:59:00.000-07:00

Bea Arthur, one of the great American sitcom actresses of the 1970's and 1980's, died of cancer on April 25, 2009. She was 86.

Beatrice Arthur was born on May 13, 1922 in New York City. She is best known for her years as an American actress, starring as the character, Maude Findlay in the 1970s' sitcom Maude and her role as Dorothy Zbornak in the 1980's television series, The Golden Girls.

The Golden Girls first aired on NBC primetime television, September 12, 1985. The series remained a top ten ratings fixture for six seasons. Her performance led to several Emmy nominations over the course of the series and an Emmy win in 1988. Arthur decided to leave the show after seven years and in 1992, the show was moved from NBC to CBS and retooled as The Golden Palace in which the other three actresses reprised their roles. Arthur made a guest appearance in a two-part episode.

Arthur died at her home in the Greater Los Angeles area in the early morning hours of Saturday, April 25, 2009 at the age of 86. She had been ill from cancer for several years prior to her death.

God bless you, Bea Arthur. You shall be missed. I truly loved your acting. You have brought laughs to me for years. Your witticism, your guilelessness, your humor—it was amazing to watch you in action. You were truly a splendid actress. May you find peace and happiness in the next life, wherever that may be.

To Catch a Tartar

2009-05-01T17:20:00.000-07:00

Let's flashback, shall we? It was spring semester 2003—I was a high school junior at the time. Back in those days, life was much simpler. I didn't have to drive thirty minutes to school and then go to work afterwards. I just got up, went to school, and couldn't wait for 2:05PM when school let out.

There was a day in this semester—a day I remember it well—well, a few days that I remember well. Though, one day in particular, I was in Mrs. Pate's British English class—God, how I had loathed that infernal class. "Hey, let's draw Beowulf, class," said Mrs. Pate. I remember thinking, "Screw Beowulf! Screw Macbeth! Screw Shakespeare and his falderal! What I wouldn't give to be playing baseball right now. How the hell do I draw Beowulf and give him a description in words? Well, I know that I wouldn't be teaching this tripe if I we...we...were the teacher? Hmmm, why is it 'If I were' in that instance? I know it's right, but I wonder why?"

I remember raising my hand and directing her towards me so that she could take a look at that sentence, which I had written out for her on the paper meant for Beowulf's description. "What is that," I asked. "Why, that's the past subjunctive?" I remember thinking, "Bah, you are no help. Explain it to me in layman's terms so that I no...not be confused? 'Not be'? Now, I'm really lost." I then spoke my thought to her so that she could hear this "not be". Mrs. Pate then gave her usual sardonic, pie-faced reply, "That's the present subjunctive."

Here I'm thinking, "Hey, Mrs. Pate, this crap is more interesting than your freaking caricatures of Beowulf. Why don't you teach this crap?" And so began my trek into understanding it myself. I had never known the reason that it is said like this, but I quickly picked it up after looking it up in a book. "Wow, this is easy because I say it like this for the most part. I've always wondered why the subject-verb agreement had seemed nonexistent in these clauses. I should have asked in 7th grade when I had first noticed it in the verse, 'God shed his grace on thee', which is found in the song, 'America the Beautiful'!"

Well, after quickly picking this up, I went into tutoring it at the local library. I remember that it was even more foreign to them than it had been to me on the day that I first learned its terminology.

This all happened just days after my French teacher had given her dithyramb (or more like her philippic) about how she couldn't teach us French since we didn't know English. All of this because I had been the only student, all day, in any of her classes to get the difference between "who" and "whom" correct. "Oh dearest Lord, Ms. Gurnack. God forbid we not know the difference."

I remember that my friend, Jeremy Kuznicki was definitely quick to give his reproof of my answering Mme. Gurnack's question correctly: "Who the hell says 'whom'?" The leer I got was unnerving to say the least—I remember replying, "It's a word," and Kuznicki quickly turned back towards Mme. Gurnack.

While this may not be anything on grammar today, it is a story that I had wanted to share with you so now I have. I can't believe it's been six years since that day. Heaven forbid time go faster. Yeah, one can only hope that it might slow down enough so that I can catch my breath. Six years...wow! I still cannot believe it. Where has time gone? Well, I shall write again soon, but this was just a short adumbration into my life as a 17-year-old high school student. I suppose one could say that it's some food for thought. Take care, everyone.

Emphasis on the DO

2009-04-30T20:11:00.000-07:00

In English, we have something called the emphatic tense of verbs. It is sometimes known as the periphrastic tense because it seems to be an extraneous usage of verbs, but in Modern English, it is paramount because it is usually how we negate our present and past tense verbs and it is also how we pose questions.

The emphatic tense is constructed in this way:

Subjective Pronoun + Conjugated "to do" + bare infinitive

Example: He does have

The emphatic tense is especially important when it is being used in questions such as the one below:

Example: Do you have the time?

One would probably answer, "Yes, I have the time", but he could easily just say, "Yes, I do". Here, the periphrastic use is very important because it makes the verb, "to do" very versatile, and its versatility is crucial to the syntax of a sentence.

In older forms of English, before "to do" was ever used as a form of auxiliary verb, questions were posed by inverting the subject and verb. In French, this is still one way questions are formed, but in Modern English, it is almost nonexistent. Nowadays, this is really only seen in some fixed expressions such as the ones below:

Example: What say you? (What do you say?)

Example: Where go you? (Where do you go?)

Example: What have you? (What do you have?)

Then there is the use of negating sentences by using a conjugated form of "to do" plus a "not" that supervenes. This is almost exclusively how a person would negate a present or past indicative clause in Modern English that doesn't have the verb "to be" as its negated verb or the use of "to have" as a construction of a perfect tense such as "have spoken". For example:

Example: I do not see him.

Theoretically, one could say it in its passé form, "I see not him", wherein one can see that the adverb "not" supervenes the main verb of the clause, but this is very much an archaic or humorous construction. Although this might be considered archaic, there are some fixed expressions that use this form:

Example: I know not what you are talking about.

Whatever the case may be, "to do" is usually used to negate indicative mood sentences. In subjunctive cases, it is very rare. It's usually seen in only past subjunctive cases such as the one below:

Example: If you did not want to go to Florida, you could choose Alaska.

Normally, this is all right provided it be talking about something hypothetical that hasn't already occurred. I state this because, if it were a subjunctive mood statement that is hypothetical about something in the past, it would have to be in a Past Perfect Subjunctive construction:

Example: If you had not wanted to go to Florida, you could have chosen Alaska.

Now, for the present emphatic subjunctive, I suggest that one avoid this as much as possible, especially in third person singular because it is considered by many to sound unintelligent. A normal, everyday present emphatic subjunctive construction would look like this, but most people do not consider it to be subjunctive because they never conjugate it as a subjunctive in third person singular:

Example: If you do not come to school, you will not pass.

If this were third person singular, one would probably say "does not", and those who say "do not" would be frowned upon as being uneducated, even though it technically would work as "do not" because the protasis here is technically subjunctive in its most prescriptive, semiotic form.

While this may be true, most people do not treat it as such so a construction such as "if he do not" should be avoided and in place, one should say "if he should not" or "if he not". Again, though, to each his own I always say. I'm not here to rip apart spoken English; merely I want to do a semiotic study of it, especially as it appertains to semantics. Here's an example that I had used in my last article on the subjunctive mood:

Example: If he do bleed, / I'll gild the faces of the grooms withal, for it must seem their guilt. (Macbeth, Act 2, Scene 2, Lines 71-72)

This should really be left for Shakespeare. I'm not in the mood to get into the semantics of this, but one should try to avoid a present emphatic subjunctive construction in all persons I say. This is only important when writing formal papers. I could care less how you might say it somewhere else. There are parts of the subjunctive mood that have a place in modern English, and there are parts that have no business being around anymore.

That's the great thing about English; it's very versatile—one could use the indicative or subjunctive in many places and they both can be correct. An example would be, "You should shut up before you be fired" compared to saying "you are fired". This is an older form of the subjunctive mood, and in my mind, it can be both, even in formal writing. The important present tense subjunctive construction is only after "that clauses" and for its past subjunctive, it's only necessary whenever "to be" might rear its ugly face.

This Jussive!

2009-04-29T22:42:00.000-07:00

The jussive mood, sometimes referred to as the imperative mood, is one that we use every day in Modern English. It is declamatory—meaning it's meant to issue a directive or an order. Every language has some form of this. French is notorious for putting in the "vous" or "you" in these commands such as, "Allez-vous en", meaning, "Go away" or literally, "Go (you) away".

You probably can't tell that something is in the jussive form whenever it might be used with its "you" form in a normal sentence, but I bet you use it. Here's an example:

Example: You have a good day, sir. (meaning, "Have a good day, sir")

While you may not notice it in this form, it can be noticed in forms like, "You be the judge", meaning, "Be the judge". There are also third person forms wherein it can be seen such as below:

Example: Everyone stay calm. It's only an aftershock.

Here, one can see that this is a jussive form—not to be confused with the subjunctive mood, which normally takes us either out of reality or puts uncertainty in our minds. For those interested, there is something called the jussive subjunctive, which can be seen from time to time. The jussive subjunctive is tricky in that it can be removed from the subjunctive by adding the modal, "shall" in most cases. "Shall" can also be used to create the imperative mood such as in, "You shall do as I say", which borders on the indicative and jussive and is sometimes considered as both. Here are some examples of the jussive subjunctive:

Example: I order that you (shall) surrender your troops.

Example: I command that he (shall) not waver from his position.

Example: You (shall) see to it that nothing (shall) go wrong!

Example: I want you to make sure that it (shall) be working next time.

Example: I demand that you (shall) show yourself, you insolent swine!

I think I have spoken about this before—the idea that "shall" should be in places where "will" dominates in spoken Modern English. For example, the semantic difference whenever your mother might say, "You will do your laundry" versus "You shall do your laundry". Here, in the former, a semiotician would say that your mother is just telling you her prediction of the future whereas the latter is a command from your mother or some prognostication of a future event—i.e. Nostradamus. This is one of the fascinating things about semiotics—one can really twist anyone's words so that they no longer mean what they once were intended to mean.

Grammar 101

2009-04-28T20:59:00.000-07:00

What if grammar weren't taught in school? What if it were something that one would have to learn by rote? I think that, if this were the case, we'd be in some serious trouble because English grammar has already been assailed by certain vernaculars such as Ebonics in the United States and Cockney in the United Kingdom. With that said, where do we begin to rebuild?

One would say that it's unwise that one start from the top and work his way down, but perhaps it's best that we just begin from the middle. I mean seriously, should we abase ourselves in such a way as to start from the bottom and work our way up? Perhaps we should have 16-year-olds, such as my neighbor, learn the difference between a noun and an adjective. I know for sure that my neighbor has no idea the difference because I have asked him before. With that little rant thoroughly prelected, let's begin with the main topic of this article—the definite and indefinite articles. Yeah, I'm retrograding to those old days of yore so here goes:

The: definite article in English that is used in front of words that begin with a consonant (compared to French, which has four different ones "le, l', la, les")

Example: The book is in my hand.

The (pronounced like "thee"): definite article in English that is used in front of words that begin with a vowel sound

Example: The owner is not here.

A: indefinite article in English that is used in front of words that begin with a consonant sound

Example: I have a problem with my car.

An: indefinite article in English that is used in front of words that begin with a vowel sound

Example: It's an honorable gesture.

Yeah, that was my big grammar article for today. I am seriously out of ideas. Perhaps someone can give me an idea as to what I should perorate about next time. I've done the subjunctive (more than once), I've explained gerunds and participles, I've done the predicate nominative, I've exposited on the perfects; I'm really out of ideas now. Oh well, until next time, take care everyone.

World's Dumbest Words and Constructions

2009-04-27T11:45:00.000-07:00

There is a list of, shall I say, "pet peeves" that I have that really test my patience whenever I hear them out loud or see them in writing. It really tries my patience as an English major student because I have known the difference between most of these since I was in elementary school. One really must wonder what they are teaching in school these days or whether anyone is actually listening.

My reified version of this concept would have to be my 16-year-old neighbor and good friend who still reads at a 3rd grade level—a 3rd grade level?! I kid you not. He is always asking me how to spell this word or that word and the words are 5th grade level words at best. He cannot construct sentences on his own, but he's still a good kid—he just doesn't go to school all that often, and when he does, he sleeps in class. It's a shame that this is what the American educational system is coming to.

For example, many people, including him, make this error that irks me:

Wrong: I should of went to class yesterday.
Correct: I should have gone to class yesterday.

For those of you who say and write it the former way, you should HAVE GONE to class one day and never have left until you had learned English! How hard is it to get this right? Where does one come up with the notion that the preposition, "of" would actually follow the modal, "should"? Also, what idiot would think that the preterit, "went" would come right after a verb that is already in its past tense, "should", which is the past tense of "shall" in this example? It boggles my mind, really—it does. Tush, tush, people! Learn your language; that's all I ask.

Here is a laundry list of other errors that piss me off:

We snuck into the movies last night. (Answer: sneaked)
I brung it to you yesterday. (Answer: brought)
I ain't going to the movies. (Answer: am not)
He should of did it a while ago. (Answer: have done)
I've drank too much tonight. (Answer: drunk)
I wish I was there with you. (Answer: were)
You've swam a lot this week. (Answer: swum)
I remember him being much taller. (Answer: his)
You are faster than me. (Answer: I/I am)
It's you who calls all the time, isn't it? (Answer: call)
The person in the picture is me. (Answer: I)
He don't know what he's talking about. (Answer: doesn't)
Where are you at? (Answer: superfluous "at". I've never heard them say, "Scooby Doo, where you at?" That must be the ghetto version of Scooby Doo.)
Where are you going to? (Answer: superfluous "to")
The book is in here. (Answer: superfluous "in")
Go back from whence you came. (Answer: superfluous "from")
He will find him guilty, irregardless of the facts. (Answer: regardless)
That person doesn't know what they're talking about.*(Here, "they" is referring back to the subject of the main clause) (Answer: he's/she's)
Us scoring twenty runs is all that counts. (Answer: Our)
Me and John are coming by to see you. (Answer: John and I)
This is just between him and I. (Answer: him and me)
He's talking to Lisa and I about something important. (Answer: me and Lisa)
They be all up in my grille. (Answer: no help for this sentence construction)
That is there book. (Answer: their)
You is/was wrong, man. (Answer: are/were)
It's important that he has it done by Friday. (Answer: have)
I think I'm gonna cry. (Answer: going to)
I'm telling you I wanna try again. (Answer: want to)
If he would have listened, he wouldn't have lost the game. (Answer: had listened)
If you would behave yourself, there wouldn't be a problem. (Answer: behaved)
Man, you ____talking to much. (Answer: are & too)
I'm talking to yous. (Answer: you/you and him/etc.)
I am doing good. (Answer: well)
I'm not feeling so good today. I think I'm sick. (Answer: well)
He's seems more happier today than he was yesterday. (Answer: happier/more happy)
He's the baddest kid in the neighborhood. (Answer: worst)
That television show is my most favorite. (Answer: superfluous "most")
Lane three is the express line. You can use that line if you have ten items or less. (Answer: fewer)
They have two twins. (Answer: superfluous "two" or "two sets" of twins)
It's a little, small package. (Answer: either "little" or "small", but not both)
Whom shall I say is calling? (Answer: Who)
Give this to whomever comes to the party. (Answer: whoever)
I'll try and do it myself. (Answer: try to do)
Bring it there! (Answer: Take)
I've already ate. (Answer: eaten)
Who's name was picked? (Answer: Whose)
I'm only concerned about me. (Answer: myself)
Stephen and myself will help you out. (Answer: Stephen and I)
People, like myself, are too critical about grammar. (Answer: me)
I am going to help him to be a better person. (Answer: subjunctive "be"; no infinitive)
Everyone should just do as they're told.*(Here, "they're" is referent to the subject of the main clause, "Everyone") (Answer: he's/ if talking about only females, then "she's")
If I was President, I would cut taxes.*hypothetical, contrary-to-fact statement (Answer: were)

Damn, do I hate these errors. There are some errors that I didn't mention because some errors in English I can live with, such as these:

Can I come with you? (instead of "May")
I'm sleeping over tonight. (instead of "at your house")
Put it over there. (there should be no "over")
Will you be there tomorrow? (instead of "Shall")
I won't be in school tomorrow. (instead of "shan't")
Who are you talking to? (Instead of "Whom")
Can you come here for a second? (Instead of "Will")
I want to go see a movie. (Instead of "go there to see")
Come and get it! (Instead of "come here to get it")
Wherever you are, I'll find you! (Instead of "be" or "may be")
It's over with now. (Instead of just saying, "It's over now")
I have put it over by the chair. (superflous preposition, "over")
Please sir, I would like some more. (instead of a more formal, "should")

Okay, that's my rant for the day. Take care, everyone and be sure to write to me regarding any comments you might have about this article and, perhaps, some errors that really bug you that I might have missed.

"HE" Is Such a "SHE"

2009-04-26T07:47:00.000-07:00

You know, I seem to talk about grammar way too much on this blog. Don't worry; I'll switch up later on when I start to run out of ideas to palaver about. With that said, let me move on to the topic of conversation today—the epicene pronoun in English.

Well, English really doesn't have one so it has to make do. In order that it make do, it had for centuries borrowed the French "sexist" construction to do so. In French, sexism reigns supreme. Everything in French is determined to have a sex—whether it be nouns or articles or adjectives or so on. The French even have two forms of "they"—"ils" and "elles". "Ils" is used for "they" when it describes a group of men or a group that has at least one male in it whereas "elles" must be a group of all women. That means there could be a group of 100 women, but should there be one man there, "ils" must be used.

In Modern English, it has become gauche to use such a construction as the French do, but normative grammar rules still adhere to this rule. That means that the masculine pronoun, "he", along with all of its declensions, rules as the neutered pronoun to an extent and I shall explain the extent of it below:

Example: It is important that [every single person] do his own work.

Here, the subject is singular so the possessive pronoun "his" must synergize with its subject. Although this subject might be talking about a co-ed class, it still must take a masculine pronoun because, by rule, only one male has to be in that group to make it be the neutered "his" form.

The rule of course changes whenever the collective group might consist of all women or a woman is more likely to perform the task than a man is. For example:

Example: It is important that [every single person] do her own work.

The subject is obviously collective again and although it might be a simulacrum of the first example, this one is more likely to be said by someone who is working at an all-female school. Furthermore, there are some examples wherein women are more likely to perform the task such as these two:

Example: I think [someone] has forgotten her purse.

Example: [Every nanny] should know what she is doing.

A purse is usually carried by a woman and a nanny is usually female; therefore the neutered "her" and "she" versions must be used in these examples. These constructions have become shunned in recent time as people have become more politically-correct in their mannerisms. There are many who like the stilted, politically-correct version and the ungrammatical version such as the two below:

Example: Everyone should know [his or her] assignment by tomorrow.

Example: Everyone should know [their] assignment by tomorrow.

The first example is one that incorporates both males and females whereas the second one replaces it with the neutered third person plural pronoun "their". This is incorrect, though because "they" and its declensions cannot be used to represent a singular pronoun. This would fall under the topic of "synesis" as we discussed in yesterday's article. Furthermore, it is confusing as to whom the speaker is talking about in an example like the one below:

Example: The [bank robber] said they would shoot [anyone] if they tried to stop them.

In the above example, pronouns denoting the subject of the apodosis are in red whereas pronouns denoting the subject of the protasis are in blue. Here, one can see that "bank robber" is a singular pronoun, but it is being represented in pronoun form by third person plural. This is also seen in the subordinate clause of the apodosis with the word "anyone", which is singular and its form in the protasis, which is "they".

This is a very classic form of Modern English synesis. Here, the speaker does not want to divulge the sex of the "bank robber" perhaps because the speaker is unaware of the bank robber's sex. The speaker is also pluralizing the collective pronoun, "anyone", which is incorrect under normative English syntax. The example should read:

Example: The [bank robber] said he would shoot [anyone] if he tried to stop him.

While this is correct, it's very confusing. One should steer clear of using this example by trying to reword it. Of course, if there should only be one bank robber, one cannot say "they" so "he" is correct in this sense, but regarding the pronoun, "anyone", it might behoove the speaker to change that word so that it be an actual plural noun.

However you may look at it, just remember—it is best that you try to circumvent these constructions because they are now really considered "sexist" in nature and the best way to keep yourself from looking sexist is to eschew it whenever it be possible.

No Synergy in Synesis

2009-04-25T00:01:00.000-07:00

If there were ever a thing about grammar I hate, it would be synesis. The fact that this error has been allowed to fester and suppurate is, in and of itself, a mistake. It's one thing if one want to say it in his everyday speech and informal writings, but it's another thing if HE want to say it in a high school or college paper. These papers are supposed to be formal articles of writing; they are meant to test your mettle and your knowledge so that the teacher or professor know that you understand not only the topic, but the syntagm of your sentences and paragraphs.

With that said, here's the definition of the word "synesis" with its etymology:

synesis: (noun) A construction wherein a form, such as a pronoun, differs in number, but agrees in meaning with the word governing it.

[Greek sunesis, union, understanding, from sunīenai, to understand, bring together : sun-, syn- + hīenai, to send, hurl; see yē- in Indo-European roots.]

An example of synesis is very simple to construct because it normally occurs in English whenever one may mention a compound noun that is singular, but acts as though it were plural in nature. For example:

The team was struggling, but they didn't give up.

Here, "team" is a collective noun, but, in American English, it normally takes a third person singular verb conjugation because it is representing the pronoun, "it". In the second clause, one can see that "they" is a pronoun that is representing a plural noun so this construction, while pragmatic, is not semantically or syntactically correct.

This construction can easily be avoided in English; simply change the sentence around like this:

The team players were struggling, but they didn't give up.

The team was struggling, but it didn't give up.

These constructions are much better than their predecessor. These constructions are synergized so that now the reader will know exactly what idea the writer is trying to convey. Please be advised that removing synesis can sound awkward and stilted in some situations such as in the example below, so it is always best that one steer clear of this one whenever possible:

Everyone is going to turn in his own English paper.

The above sentence is grammatically correct. "Everyone" is a collective pronoun that means "every single person" so it must take a singular possessive pronoun in this case. I'll explain this construction of neutered pronouns later on in another article. One might want to remove this from a stilted construction like the one above so that it sound more euphonious:

All students are going to turn in their own English papers.

As I have stated above, I shall discuss "neutered pronouns" in another article. The fact is that synesis and neutered pronouns seem to go hand in hand in some respects. My answer to this is plainly simple, though—whenever writing a formal paper, one should try to stay away from synesis construction of sentences. In normal speech, though, nobody really cares.

The Declension of the English Declension

2009-04-24T08:33:00.000-07:00

The English language once had an extensive declension system similar to modern German or Icelandic. Old English distinguished between the nominative, accusative, dative, genitive, and instrumental cases. Declension fell into disuse during the Middle English period when accusative and dative pronouns merged into a single objective pronoun. Modern English no longer uses declension, except for remnants of the former system in a few pronouns.

Evolution (or Devolution) of the English Declension

Interrogative Pronouns

Case_______Old English__Mid. English__Modern English

Nominative:______hwā__________who____________who

Accusative:___hwone / hwæne____whom___________whom

Dative:______hwām / hwǣm _____whom___________whom

Instrumental:__hwȳ / hwon______whom___________whom

Genitive:_______hwæs__________whos___________whose

As one can see, the accusative, dative, and instrumental cases have combined in English to form the objective interrogative pronoun, "whom". In Modern English speech, it is common for one to hear "who" when it should be "whom". This is just another example of the declension of the English declension.

In personal pronouns, there is still a declension, but the accusative and dative have merged in Modern English and the instrumental does not apply in this aspect. So for first person singular, one would see "I" as nominative, "me" as accusative or dative, and "my" as genitive. This pattern is followed for every personal pronoun in Modern English.

Now as for the declension of nouns and adjectives, this is very rare in English. Nouns are declined normally when they are pluralized in English so the syntactic variations of "book to books" would be an example of a nominal declension:

Nominal Declension

ox-singular
oxen-plural

Another nominal declension is one borrowed from French. It distinguishes between masculine and feminine in this case. All English nouns like the examples below have been borrowed from another language—usually French or Latin because each one distinguishes between gender:

Rare Nominal Declension

Masculine singular: alumnus/fiancé
Feminine singular: alumna/fiancée
Masculine plural: alumni/fiancés
Feminine plural: alumnae/fiancées
Neuter singular: alumnus/fiancé
Neuter plural: alumni/fiancés

Then there are of course the adjective declensions. In Modern English, this is very rare. In Modern French, it's very common such as the difference between "nouveau" and "nouvel" and "nouveaux" and so on. For English, though, we can only see this in borrowed words, mainly French words like the one below:

Rare Adjectival Declension

Masculine: blond
Feminine: blonde
Neuter: blond

This is a pretty easy thing to grasp in English because declining nouns, pronouns, and adjectives is really a premise for the days of yore. I hope that this might have helped you out in understanding it in Modern English.

Subjunctive VS. Indicative, Round Three

2009-04-23T13:07:00.000-07:00

First, I want to say that if one were to compare the subjunctive and indicative that I have explained in a language such as French, he would see that it is pretty close to that in English with some differences. I am not going to palter over silly indiscriminate minutiae. I am just going to try to point out once again why something is subjunctive and why something is indicative. Remember that indicative means it INDICATES something that is happening, has happened, or will happen whereas subjunctive brings you into a different reality or adds a sense of uncertainty and so on. Without further adieu, here goes:

I ran to my house yesterday.

Fine, we all know that "ran" is the simple past indicative of "to run". No one is arguing this point because it is plainly obvious that all INDICATIONS point to something that has occurred in the past. Now to my next example:

If I ran a drug cartel, I would go to prison.

We see that "ran" here is not talking about something that has occurred in the past; it's talking about something that is hypothetical. I have never run a drug cartel—I didn't run one last week—not the month prior—I have never run one period. In this instance, the verb, "to run" is in the past subjunctive mood.

The past subjunctive is important to understand, but it is only plainly visible in 1st and 3rd person singular in the "to be" verb because this is the only remaining verb in the language that has a different past indicative form for different persons, i.e., I was, You were, she was.

The present indicative can be seen in this example. It indicates something that happens or is happening in the present time:

He has better vision than most people do.

We see that the sentence is indicating that the subject has better vision than the average person does; therefore it must be in third person singular present indicative "to have". Now let's try to put it in the subjunctive mood:

If he have better vision than most people do, he will be able to read this print with no problem.

Here, the person who is speaking isn't 100 percent sure that the person has better vision than most people; he merely has an inclination or he knows that it's possible that this person have this really good vision. If he were positive (which he is not), he would put it in present indicative:

If (Since is what "if" means here) he has better vision than most people do, he will be able to read this print with no problem.

Do you see the semantic difference here? I should hope so. The present subjunctive is normally not spoken like the one above in Modern English because the language is now syncretic, but it does exist. Another way that one can take it out of subjunctive is with the word "should":

Should he have better vision than most people do, he will be able to read this print with no problem.

If he should have better vision than most people do, he will be able to read this with no problem.

Now here are some examples below with the answers next to them:

1. If his father died, he would stand to inherit his fortune. (3rd person singular simple past subjunctive "to die" because his father has not died yet; this is hypothetical.)

2. We went to the store to pick up some eggs yesterday. (1st person plural simple past indicative "to go" because all indications point that this happened yesterday.)

3. I pray that you (all) win. (2nd person plural simple present subjunctive "to win" because the speaker is not talking about any indication that the person wins or has won.)

4. One can only hope that God have mercy on his soul. (Third person singular present subjunctive "to have" because God has not taken time out of His busy day to have mercy on this man's soul; the speaker is making a supplication of some sort or perhaps a wish.)

5. I think he sees us. (Third person singular present indicative "to see" because all indications point to the fact that this person does see them.)

6. God be with you. (Third person singular present subjunctive "to be" because I doubt God is with you right now, is He? God may be all around, but He is not visiting you now; He's very busy; I think most of His time is spent talking to Pat Robertson anyway.)

7. You (singular) know your friends well enough. (2nd person singular present indicative "to know" because it is indicating that the person does know this.)

8. If we had gone to school yesterday, we would not have missed our test. (1st person plural past perfect subjunctive "to go" because we did not go to school yesterday; it's a hypothetical condition in the past.)

9. If he [so much as] have looked at my daughter incorrectly, I will break every bone in his body. (Third person singular present perfect subjunctive of "to look" because the speaker is not sure that he HAS looked at his daughter incorrectly; he's just stating that it is possible that he might HAVE looked at her incorrectly and this will be the consequence of that leer.)

10. If I [so much as] be in the same room with him, I know I'll do something that I'll regret. (1st person singular present subjunctive "to be" because I AM not in the same room, but it is possible that I might BE at some point. Try saying "I so much as am" or "he so much as is" and it's almost impossible.)

11. I was home sick yesterday from school. (1st person singular past indicative "to be" because this DID happen.)

12. I wish I were God. (1st person singular past subjunctive "to be" because I am not God; I never have been God; I was not God yesterday; I wouldn't want His job because He's doing a great job.)

13. I wish I knew the answer to your question. (1st person singular past subjunctive "to know" because I do not know the answer; I did not know it yesterday; I have never known it.)

14. What if God were one of us? (3rd person singular past subjunctive "to be" because He is not one of us. Don't you hate that song, too, and it puts "was" there...yuck!)

15. If we saw a ghost, we would probably scream. (1st person plural past subjunctive "to see" because we did not see a ghost. It's hypothetical.)

16. If he do bleed, / I'll gild the faces of the grooms withal, for it must seem their guilt. (Macbeth, Act 2, Scene 2, Lines 71-72) (This is not only 3rd person singular present subjunctive "to do", but it could be classified as third person singular emphatic present subjunctive "to bleed".)

17. For murder, though it have no tongue, will speak with most miraculous organ. (William Shakespeare's Hamlet Prince of Denmark (Hamlet at II, ii)) (Third person singular simple present subjunctive "to have" because the speaker is unsure about what he is saying. One could insert the modal "may" or "might" here and it would still be correct, but it would not be subjunctive anymore.)

Need I say more? The subjunctive in English is hard to see because the language has syncretized. If you SPOKE another language, it would jut out like a pimple on a pubescent boy because most languages are inflectional. It just so happens that English is a rarity.

Till Death DO Us Part

2009-04-22T07:56:00.000-07:00

I know I have talked extensively about the subjunctive mood in English before, and I have explained that, for the most part, it is not necessary that one SAY it in many of its older forms, but there are times that it is important that one USE it. With that said, I shall once again exposit on this idea until everyone GET it right.

What is the subjunctive mood? It's one of three moods (or four, to some people) in the English language. It is the rarest of all moods in that its use has died out in the last one hundred years, and really over the past three hundred years as verb conjugations in English have reached a near entropic state. When 2nd person singular, "thou" died around AD c1700, English lost one of its final two verb conjugations. All that remained now was third person singular present indicative and the "to be" verb. All other verbs had a uniformed conjugation in all persons whether it be past or present indicative or past or present subjunctive.

Somehow, as explained in the previous article, 3rd person singular, instead of dying out, morphed from an -[e]th suffix to an -[e]s suffix. Who knows why this happened? The only thing one knows is that it did happen. Here is the best way to describe it in modern English examples:

Example: I hope that you (might) be as happy with your new life as I am with mine.

Example: I hope that he (might) have time to do it.

The infinitive "to do" here is also a subjunctive verb. Most infinitives in English are subjunctive in nature, but the fact is that, when conjugated, English has replaced their subjunctive forms with modals such as can, shall, will, could, would, may, might, should, and so on. I'll show it below in the first example:

Example: I hope that he (might) have time [so that] he can do it.

Example: I can only hope not to have been seen by the guards.

Example: I want you to make sure that he (shall) have it done by tomorrow.

Example: If I (should) die before I wake, I pray the Lord my soul to take.

A thousand years ago, before modals, when the subjunctive in English flourished, this concept in the above examples would have easily been recognized as being subjunctive by the naked eye. Also, as highlighted, one can see that "can do" is subjunctive in nature since it is following the conjunction, "so that" in example one. This version can be seen in other modern languages as being subjunctive in nature and would have easily jutted out in Old and Middle English. In fact, if one were to take a French course, he would see that the conjunction "so that" in French also opens up a subjunctive clause. In fact, it does this in English, too, but very few people say it with one:

Example: I shall do it myself so that nothing go wrong.

Example: I bless this house in the name of God so that peace be brought unto this family.

Example: When(ever) he arrive, he shall do it. No matter what the weather be like; whether it be cold or warm, be it sunny or cloudy, he shall have it done. Nothing shall keep him from doing it.

The third example above is one that has changed over the last one hundred and fifty years. A person can say it like the example above, but if he were to say any of those in the present indicative except, "be it sunny or cloudy", he would still be grammatically correct under modern English syntax because grammatical rules have attenuated in an effort to remove the subjunctive from the language. This means that examples like, "He'll do it when(ever) he have time" can read, "He'll do it when(ever) he has time" or "He'll do it when(ever) he may have time".

Below are some more examples of "infinitive" subjunctive verbs with their conjugated subjunctive form's being subjacent. The conjugated forms may sound very stilted because in Modern English, they are hardly ever put into these forms; they almost always exist in the infinitive subjunctive form so if you be a novice to the English subjunctive mood, then you should sit back because this might test your mettle:

Example: It's (un)likely for him to attempt suicide in the next forty-eight hours.

Example: It's (un)likely that he attempt suicide in the next forty-eight hours.

Example: It's (im)possible for him to know that information.

Example: It's (im)possible that he know that information.

Example: It's critical for her to pass.

Example: It's critical that she pass.

Example: It was good (bad) for him to learn the subjunctive.

Example: It was good (bad) that he learn the subjunctive. (try to stay away from this construction and some others like it because the slightest error can change the entire meaning and it sounds stilted)

The examples below are showing when to use the subjunctive in the below situation so that you not put the wrong verb in the sentence in the present subjunctive mood:

Example: [It is good] to know that you are learning something useful.

Example: [It is good] that I (or one) know that you are learning something useful.

Example: [It is good] that you are learning something useful.

Then there is the past subjunctive. It's the easiest because the only verb change in all of English is the "to be" verb and it only happens in 1st and 3rd person singular so there is a one out of three chance that one will not have to think about it. As for the rest of the verbs, you just have to remember that every other verb form in Modern English is now a doppelganger of its Past Indicative. That's simple enough, isn't it?

Furthermore, the past subjunctive normally occurs in nonrestrictive clauses except for a few exceptions such as desiderative cases (wishes). Remember that the Past Subjunctive in English is not expressing anything that has occurred in the past. It is expressing a situation or event or something that is totally hypothetical or contrary-to-fact. It is meant to bring you into a different form of reality in either the past, the present, or the future that goes against what has happened, what is happening, or what will happen. With that said, here goes:

Example: Unless I were on my death bed, I wouldn't divulge anything to you.

Example: I would not go until (or unless) I were absolutely sure that it is safe.

Example: He wouldn't do anything of the sort except in the unlikely event that his life were threatened.

Example:
Past subjunctive: He would be really tired if he climbed that hill.

Present subjunctive: He will be really tired if he climb that hill.

The example below is a hypothetical story being told by a megalomaniac:

Example: Snively, I can't stand being treated like this by that vile wretch of a king. If I could, I would crush him like the bug that he is. Then, once I were in power, I would raze this kingdom as if it were a mere ant colony; thus eviscerating the rabbles that might try to regain the crown from me.

Oh Snively, how I have longed that I have (present subjunctive) the power and the resources to perform (infinitive subjunctive) such an undertaking. Just think, if I were in power and you were still with me, you could be my right-hand man—my warlord—my puppet. Ahhhh...God save (present subjunctive) us all, Snively, especially He save (present subjunctive) the king!

The above story is totally hypothetical. Notice that the speaker is in a trancelike, irreal state. He is not telling something that has already happened; he is telling something that he wishes were going to happen. This is sometimes a hard concept, but simple English subjunctive is normally pretty easy. I should hope that I might not have to expatiate on this subject again.

Conjugal Visits

2009-04-21T08:33:00.000-07:00

There has been a question brewing in English for quite some time as to why we conjugate only third person singular in Simple Present Indicative cases. One of the reasons that this question has been posed over the years is that English has syncretized over the centuries as it has gone from Old English to Middle English to Early Modern English to Present English. The diachrony of English is hard to explain, but below is a conjugation of the verb "to climb" as it existed in Middle English. In parentheses is the modern day conjugation of the verb "to climb":

MIDDLE ENGLISH SYNTAX (AD c1066-c1500)

Infinitive
clīmben (to climb)

Indicative: present
1 sg
clīmbe (I climb)
2 sg
climbst (You climb)
3 sg
climb (He climbs)
1 pl
clīmbeþ (We climb)
2 pl
clīmbeþ (You climb)
3 pl
clīmbeþ (They climb)

Indicative: past
1 sg
clǭmb (I climbed)
2 sg
clǭmbe (You climbed)
3 sg
clǭmb (He climbed)
1 pl
cloumben (We climbed)
2 pl
cloumben (You climbed)
3 pl
cloumben (They climbed)

Subjunctive: present
1 sg
clī̆mbe (I climb)
2 sg
clī̆mbe (You climb)
3 sg
clī̆mbe (He climb)
1 pl
clī̆mben (We climb)
2 pl
clī̆mben (You climb)
3 pl
clī̆mben (They climb)

Subjunctive: past
1 sg
cloumbe (I climbed)
2 sg
cloumbe (You climbed)
3 sg
cloumbe (He climbed)
1 pl
cloumben (We climbed)
2 pl
cloumben (You climbed)
3 pl
cloumben (They climbed)

Imperative
2 sg
clī̆mb (climb)
1 pl
clīmbeþ (climb)
2 pl
clīmbeþ (climb)
3 pl
clīmbeþ (climb)

Participles
Present participle
clīmbinde (climbing)

Past participle
ȝecloumben (climbed)*circumfixed

In Early Modern English (c1476-c1700), there were only two conjugations that had survived the metamorphosis—second person singular, "thou", which took an -[e]st ending and third person singular, which took an -[e]th ending—and by this time, "thou" was becoming anachronistic in the speech and writing. At this time in history as it also exists today, the present subjunctive would drop the conjugative suffixes and just keep the bare stem of the verb; therefore the present indicative would be, "he doeth/doth" and "thou doest/dost", but in the present subjunctive, it would just be, "he do" or "thou do".

There is no real reason why we still conjugate third person singular present indicative and no real reason why it has evolved from an -[e]th to an -[e]s conjugation. The only thing one can conclude is that the pronouns, "he/she/it" have not changed since the metamorphosis of 2nd person singular so there would be no real reason why it would disappear from the language.

The theory of how the 2nd person singular form disappeared is predicated on the fact that the 2nd person plural had already syncretized centuries earlier. During this time, "ye" was the subject and "you" was the object of the 2nd person plural and there was no conjugative change so one would say, "ye do it" or "I love you".

When the objective pronoun, "you" usurped power from the subjective pronoun, "ye" so that it could exist in both instances, it then made its way into usurping power from 2nd person singular, "thou" to form Modern English's version of an equal 2nd person singular and plural syntagm. Since the new subjective pronoun, "you" now had power, it eviscerated the 2nd person singular conjugation for its own construction, which had been the present subjunctive conjugation of 2nd person singular, "thou".

As for third person singular present indicative, it really is amazing that it has survived. It is the last inflectional verbal base in a conjugative system that syncretized many centuries ago. Will it still exist one hundred years from now or two hundred years from now? Well, the answer to this question is unclear because there are many native speakers who have started to syncretize this construction in their everyday speech when it clearly should be in the present indicative. One can only answer by saying that that's how language works in a nutshell—it evolves, or sometimes, it devolves to a uniform state as has English over the last one thousand years.

With that said, one thing is for sure—it has weathered the test of time for more than a thousand years so it's possible that it may evolve in the future, but there's a very good chance that people will still be conjugating third person singular verbs in the present indicative tense a thousand years from now.

For Whom the Bell Tolls

2009-04-20T07:40:00.000-07:00

As you are most eminently aware, there is, for lack of a better word, much tumult regarding how to use "who" and "whom" in formal English writing. As for modern, colloquial speech, "who" has usurped all power as the dominant interrogatory pronoun of the two. Suffice it to say, it is still important to know how to use it in formal speech and writing so that it not pose as something deleterious to one's argument. With that said, here is an explanation of it below:

Subjective Pronouns: who
Examples: I, you, he, she, it, we, they

Who saw what happened here? Answer: I saw it.

Objective Pronouns: whom
Examples: me, you, him, her, it, us, them

Whom did you see? Answer: I saw him.

Possessive Pronouns: whose
Examples: my, your, his, her, its, our, their

Whose book is this? Answer: It's his book.

That is how it works in a nutshell. Remember that pronouns have to correspond with each other. For example, I shall create a sentence below that uses an interrogatory pronoun that does not correspond with the pronoun it has replaced. Below that, I shall give its redacted version:

Wrong: My beautiful mother, who I ardently love, has fallen ill.

Correct: My beautiful mother, whom I ardently love, has fallen ill.

If one were to remove the nonrestrictive clause, "whom I ardently love", the sentence would read, "My beautiful mother has fallen ill". This is the part that people have trouble with all of the time. They think that a restrictive or nonrestrictive clause that starts with "who[m]" must correlate with whatever it might be modifying. The problem with that is that they presuppose that it is modifying the subject of the sentence, which is "mother", thus it must be replaced with a subjective interrogatory pronoun [who]. This is incorrect because it is its own clause and "whom" is the direct object of the verb "love"; therefore, if one were to separate the nonrestrictive clause from the main clause, it would look like this:

whom I ardently love/I ardently love whom
I ardently love her
(One would not say I ardently love she, right?)
(In this instance, "whom" is "mother".)

There is a show on television called Paranormal State. The show is a reality series whereon camera crews follow these paranormal investigators as they search alleged haunted places. In the show, the lead investigator, Ryan, always asks this when he is trying to summon a spirit to answer:

I am speaking to whomever is in this house.

This irritates me because this is an error in which he is trying to be hypercorrect. He really should say:

I am speaking to [whoever is in this house.]

(One would replace "whoever" with a pronoun such as "he" so that it read, "he is in this house".)

The reason he is confused is that he is thinking that this is the indirect object of the present participle, "speaking", thus, "I am speaking to him". The fact is, though, that the preposition, "to" has opened up a prepositional phrase in this instance. The subject of the sentence is the interrogatory pronoun, thus it must be "whoever". No one would ever say, "him is in this house", right?

I hope that this might have helped. Remember, though, speaking informally and writing formal papers for your high school or college classes are two totally separate entities. You just have to know the difference and you will be fine.

To Be or Not To Be...the Predicate Nominative?

2009-04-19T22:48:00.000-07:00

In English, there are verbs and then there is the "to be" verb—a copula—and the most irregular verb of all of the irregular verbs in the entire language. This is a verb that gives fits to native speakers. Its sheer ontology is fuddled by even the most educated of speakers around. It is a verb that creates its own set of rules and I shall explain how these rules work.

First, it's a copula, or a linking verb. There are a slue of linking verbs in English such as to become, to feel, to taste, to look, and so on. Now, these verbs listed are not arrant copulative verbs; they can be action verbs as well. It just depends on how they are used.

Now, in English, there are only a couple of copulas that can form a predicate nominative and one is the "to be" verb. Below is an example of the "to be" verb using the predicate nominative:

It is I [who am to blame.]

The subject of the sentence is bold (It), the copula is italicized (third person singular present indicative "to be"), and the predicate nominative or subject predicate is bold and incarnadined (I). The restrictive clause is started with the interrogatory pronoun, "who" and must correspond in conjugation of its verb with the word it is modifying, which is "I" in this sentence.

Here, many speakers would never construct this sentence correctly in both the predicate nominative part and the restrictive clause part. A native speaker would probably utter something like, "It's me who's to blame", but this is totally wrong under normative English grammar rules.

First off, "me" is the objective pronoun of "I" and needs to be a direct or indirect object of an action verb that it is modifying for it to be formed this way. "To be" is not an action verb; ergo "me" cannot modify it because it cannot have a direct object. "To be" is a copula that is linking the subject of the clause, "It" to its subject predicate, "I". The subjective interrogatory pronoun, "who" is modifying the predicate nominative, "I" so its verb conjugation must correlate with its modifier; thus the conjugation of first person singular present indicative "to be" is "am" so the syntagm is "who am" in this case.

"To be" is strange when it is in its infinitive state. It mimics what it modifies so that's how one knows what pronoun to use. If the infinitive have no subject, it will take a subjective pronoun; if it have a subject, it will modify its subject. Let me show some examples:

1. If anyone should win that prize, it is going to be I. (This could also say, "it will be I" or "it shall be I", but the main point to remember is that "to be" is modifying the subjective pronoun, "It" so it must have a subjective pronoun follow.)

2. I want the winner to be him. (Here, the subject of "to be" is modifying the direct object of the verb, "want"; therefore an objective pronoun must supervene.)

3. I was thought to be he. ("To be" has no subject here so it must be in the subjective form. If you invert the sentence, "He was thought to be I" means the exact same thing.)

4. They thought me to be him. (The subject of "to be" is "me" so this must match up; therefore an objective pronoun must be used. If you invert it, "They thought him to be me" means the same thing.)

I know that many people do not talk this way, but this is normative grammar at its finest and, to be blunt, all of these constructions can be avoided in formal writing so don't throw yourself in a pother over it. It's important that you know it, but you do not have to use it. This is supposed to be an exercise to help everyone understand how English works in this sense. I hope that this might have helped you a little bit. If you should have any questions, please feel free to ask.

Gerund or Present Participle?

2009-04-18T08:17:00.000-07:00

If you have never heard of the words, "gerund" or "participle", don't feel bad. They're not words that one throws out in everyday speech. "Hey man, did you hear that gerund he used?" "No, John, I didn't because I think it was actually a present participle."

With that said, I am going to expatiate on this topic because, in English, unlike in other Indo-European languages like French and Spanish, gerunds and participles are simulacra of each other. Here's an example using the "to be" verb:

Gerund: being

Present Participle: being

It is important though that one not scratch his head and say that these are exactly the same because they are not. A gerund masks itself as a noun whereas a present participle masks itself as an adjective. As everyone knows, nouns and adjectives are entirely different concepts so this is still important. Here are some examples of them and I shall explain what they are:

1. I don't think that my being here is necessary. (Here, "being" is acting as a noun so it's a gerund. The possessive pronoun "my" is evincing ownership of the gerund "being", although the word "being" is not a physical noun to possess.)

2. I am being taken advantage of and I won't stand for it! (Here, "being" is acting as an adjective so it's a present participle.)

This concept appears relatively easy to understand, but confusion occurs especially when the subject of a sentence is a gerund (especially if the sentence be posed in a negated sense) or when two clauses are combined with the second one's being a gerund or present participle. Here are some examples:

1. I saw him running down the street earlier. ("Running" is a present participle. The first clause is "I saw him" and the second is actually "He was running down the street earlier", but a person must drop the "He was" part so that these two clauses can be fayed together.)

2. His not coming with us is not a big deal. ("Coming" is acting as a noun so it's a gerund here. Many native speakers would use the objective pronoun "Him" in front of this, but "him not coming" in this instance is grammatically incorrect because that would make "coming" a present participle and it clearly is not. The subject of this sentence is italicized, "His not coming with us" whereas the predicate is "is not a big deal" so the subject could be replaced by "It" and so it would say, "It is not a big deal".)

3. I am talking about your doing your homework when it is assigned. ("Talking" is a present participle, but "doing" is a gerund. In fact, the preposition "about" opens up a prepositional phrase; therefore an -ing ending word will always be a gerund.)

The key to remember is that a gerund must be possessed; therefore it can only have a possessive pronoun in front of it because it is acting like a noun. The possessive pronoun must be an attributive adjective for it to work in front of a gerund. With that said, constructions such as "Me winning is all that matters" is incorrect because "me" is an objective pronoun; not a possessive pronoun. The possessive pronoun is "my"; therefore the sentence should read, "My winning is all that matters".

With that said, below is a list of pronouns so that everyone understand just what certain pronouns are:

MODERN ENGLISH PRONOUNS

*Archaic pronouns that are still used in modern English writing and speaking are shown below.

Possessive Case

1. my (attributive adjective of I)
1. mine (predicate adjective of I)
1. mine (attributive adjective of I for nouns beginning with a vowel or a silent h)*archaic
1. our (attributive adjective of We)
1. ours (predicate adjective of We)
2. your (attributive adjective of You or Ye)*Ye is archaic plural/polite singular or modern humorous
2. yours (predicate adjective of You or Ye)
2. thy (attributive adjective of Thou)*archaic
2. thine (predicate adjective of Thou)*archaic
2. thine (attributive adjective of Thou for nouns beginning with a vowel or a silent h)*archaic
3. his (attributive/predicate adjective of He)
3. her (attributive adjective of She)
3. hers (predicate adjective of She)
3. its (attributive/predicate adjective of It)
3. their (attributive adjective of They)
3. theirs (predicate adjective of They)

Above is a cursory brushup of possessive pronouns. This is just another reminder that gerunds take possessive pronouns that are attributive adjectives. They never take a predicate adjective. The list above was to show you which possessive pronouns happen to be attributive adjectives and which ones are predicate adjectives.

I can only hope that this might have helped those of you who are interested in learning more about English or who are trying to learn another language and want to compare it to English in this respect. One thing you will notice is that gerunds and present participles may be easily recognized in the language that you might be studying, but, in English, it takes a super sleuth to figure it out. With that said, good luck deciphering it on your own.

Back to the Future

2009-04-17T02:24:00.000-07:00

English is a very outré language in that it does not have an inflected conjugation for its verbs in Simple Future tense. In fact, it technically has no Future tense at all—all it has is a way to form a clause in the future, but there is no inflectional base as can be seen in the Present and Past tenses.

For starters, its Simple Past tense is usually made up of verbs that are inflected with -ed morphemes to form a weak past tense such as can be seen in verbs like cambered, sneaked, wrecked, and granted. Other verbs have a strong past tense as seen in verbs such as did, ran, spoke, and brought. Then there are verbs that can be both like stove/staved, rove/reeved, gelt/gelded, and smelt/smelled.

Since English has no actual future conjugation, it must be constructed using two modals usually. Those modals are "shall" and "will". It can also be constructed by using a conjugated form of the "to be" verb as seen below:

To Be + Going+Infinitive=Future Tense

Example:

I am going to be there shortly.

Now getting back to the modals "shall" and "will". In modern English, these two auxilliary verbs are easily the most confounded of all. For the most part, the modal, "will" has superordinated itself as the dominant one of the two, yet there is still a semantic difference and below I shall give it to you:

MODERN ENGLISH SYNTAX
Simple Future Tense: to be

I shall be
You will be
He/She/It will be
We shall be
You will be
They will be

In modern English, the Simple Future takes "shall" in 1st person constructions whereas "will" assumes control of 2nd and 3rd persons. Although this is the technical, semiotic construction, it is seldom spoken like this in, at least, American English wherein the modal "will" arrogates 1st person as well. For the most part then, "shall" only survives in its interrogatory form as shown below:

Examples:

Shall I call a taxi?

Let's go, shall we?

Shall we go to the movies?

There is another construction, though for those of you who want to know whether "shall" can be used in 2nd and 3rd person and here it is:

Emphatic Future Tense: to be

I will be
You shall be
He/She/It shall be
We will be
You shall be
They shall be

The Emphatic Future tense is used when one wants to make an exclamation. Instead of predicting what is probably going to happen, it states that nothing is going to stop it from happening or that whatever is about to happen is guaranteed to happen. Below are some examples:

You shall obey me! (This is a command. The person is being ordered to obey the speaker.)

You will obey me! (While many native speakers say it this way and while grammatical rules have attenuated on this matter, a semiotician would still say that the speaker is predicting that this person is going to obey him sometime in the near future.)

Mrs. Olsen, I shall not be in school tomorrow. (The speaker is predicting to Mrs. Olsen that he is going to be absent from school tomorrow for some unknown reason in the sentence.)

Mrs. Olsen, I will not be in school tomorrow. (The speaker is not predicting anything here; he is telling Mrs. Olsen that there is no chance of his being in school tomorrow either because he refuses to go to school or something so important has happened or is going to happen that nothing on Earth could make him attend school. In other words, this is either a refusal to attend or the speaker is guaranteeing that he is not going to be there.)

I will win this game. I will not stop until I have won. (Nothing is going to stop the speaker from winning. He is not predicting that he is going to win; he is guaranteeing it.)

We will return! (And nothing shall stop us.)

In the end, it can be really confusing so if you should still be confused as to how to use the modal "shall," then you ought to stay away from using it as much as possible. It's one thing to know how to use it, but if you plan on throwing it out for everyone to hear, you had best be prepared to get some looks because it brings with it an air of pretension.

With that said, it is still necessary to understand because its meaning does change when a person tries to use "shall." For instance, Fowler, a renowned English lexicographer, once wrote a famous example of the semantics involved here in his famous treatise on "shall" and "will." He said this in his treatise to explain the semantic difference:

I shall drown. No one will save me. (Fowler considered this to be a cry for help from a person who is in imminent danger. This person wants someone to save him from a certain death.)

I will drown. No one shall save me. (And no one will because this is a suicide cry. The person wants to drown and does not want anyone to save him from his certain death.)

While the above sentences may sound silly and utterly pedantic to say the least, the literal meaning still exists there. This is the reason that it is best that one not throw out the word "shall" without knowing how to use it. In the end, however you might choose to couch your words is your choice alone, but you should take this as a caveat—"shall" is a dangerous word in English so use it wisely.

The Pluperfect Principle

2009-04-16T07:28:00.000-07:00

The Past Perfect Indicative is always an involute topic of conversation because many native speakers do not use it all that often (even when they are supposed to) and other times they invert the usage. Below is a conjugated form of the verb to speak using Past Perfect Indicative:

MODERN ENGLISH SYNTAX
Past Perfect Indicative (Pluperfect): to speak

I had spoken
You had spoken
He/She/It had spoken
We had spoken
You had spoken
They had spoken

The Past Perfect Indicative, also known as the pluperfect, is used when one wants the reader or listener to know which event had come prior to another past event. Here are some exemplars below to illustrate this concept:

Examples:

1. I had spoken to the boy before he went to school. (The speaker first spoke to boy then later in the past the boy went to school.)

2. I ran to my friend's house after I had finished playing baseball. (The speaker first played baseball then he ran to his friends house.

3. I had eaten dinner prior to taking a shower. (Eating dinner came first then the shower.)

In English, the Past Perfect Subjunctive is exactly the same as the Past Perfect Indicative. The only difference is how a person uses it, but if anyone were to look at it, at first glance, he would probably assume it was a simple Past Perfect Indicative case.

Furthermore, many native speakers have confused the Past Perfect Subjunctive clause with a conditional clause; therefore many now drop the word "had" and replace it with "would have," although this is grammatically incorrect. A version of this is also being done now in the protasis of other subjunctive clauses to replace the present or past subjunctive with a form that should only appear in the apodasis of these statements. In this instance the modal, "would" is inserted between the opening subject and present subjunctive verb to form two clauses (the protasis and the apodasis) that begin with the modal "would." Such a construction can be seen in some languages such as Spanish, but in English, this is a syntactic error. As for when it's a past subjunctive, the verb is then removed from past tense and placed into a present subjunctive tense to allow this error to fester.

Past Perfect Subjunctive (Pluperfect): to speak

I had spoken
You had spoken
He/She/It had spoken
We had spoken
You had spoken
They had spoken

Once again, you may notice that the construction is equivalent to its counterpart. The examples below will show you how you can decipher which one is in the indicative and which is in the subjunctive:

Examples:

1. If I had spoken to your girlfriend yesterday, she would have told you. (But I did speak to her yesterday.)

2. If I had had more time, I would have finished my test. (But I did not have more time.)

3. I would have done it for free provided I had had the resources. (But I did not do it for free and I had no resources.)

4. Had they seen you, they would have called the police. (But they did not see you so the police were not called.)

There is the pluperfect in so many words. I hope that this might have helped those of you who are learning another language by seeing it in your own native tongue. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

Presently Perfect

2009-04-15T11:29:00.001-07:00

The Present Perfect Indicative is very common in English. It is used to replace the Simple Past Indicative when dealing with ideas or events that have occurred at some indefinite time in the past. Here's a construction of it using the verb to see:

MODERN ENGLISH SYNTAX
Present Perfect Indicative: to see

I have seen

You have seen

He/She/It has seen

We have seen

You have seen

They have seen

Examples:

1. I have seen the movie. (This is at some indefinite time in the past.)

2. I saw the movie (yesterday). (This is at a definite time so it is in Simple Past Indicative.)

3. I see the movie (now). (This is occurring right now in the present.)

There is also a rare tense in modern English called the Present Perfect Subjunctive. In many Indo-European languages like Italian, French, and Spanish, this is a very prevalent tense, but in English, it has almost disappeared, and what little remains is almost never subjoined (put into subjunctive mood) thus the Present Perfect Indicative prevails in most cases. Here's a conjugation of the verb to see in Present Perfect Subjunctive:

Present Perfect Subjunctive: to see

I have seen

You have seen

He/She/It have seen

We have seen

You have seen

They have seen

Negated Example: He have not seen

Notice that the only difference is in 3rd person singular wherein the infinitive form reigns supreme over the conjugated form "has". This construction is seldom ever used by native speakers even when it is supposed to be constructed in this way under normative grammatical rules. Here are some situations using several different past participles:

Examples:

1. I pray that he have seen the glory of God. (One could put the modals "may/might" before the verb have to take this out of the subjunctive mood.)

2. It is important that the candidate have worked with children before.

3. If he so much as have laid a finger on her, I will kill him. (The idiom "so much as" is sandwiched between "he have". Notice how this construction may sound off kilter without the idiom, but with the idiom, it sounds very awkward trying to say "he so much as has".)

4. It is necessary that a person have graduated from high school before being allowed to attend college classes.

In the end, this is the English Present Perfect. I hope that this might have helped some of you who were a little leery about this part of speech. Maybe this will help those of you understand how to say it in French and Spanish.

God Save the Subjunctive!

2009-04-14T21:04:00.000-07:00

In many languages like French and Spanish, the subjunctive mood flourishes, but because English is a syncretic language (one with a weak inflectional base), what little of the subjunctive mood that still exists is marginally used to say the least.

This article is meant to expatiate on the topic of the English subjunctive mood—to point out the facts as well as the fallacies so that there be no more confusion among the laity anymore. Without further adieu, here goes:

MODERN ENGLISH SYNTAX

Simple Present Indicative: to be

I am
You are
He/She/It is
We are
You are
They are

Examples: (all conjugated forms of present indicative to be)

I am the king of England.

They are here for only one reason.

She is the only one for me.

Simple Present Subjunctive: to be

I be
You be
He/She/It be
We be
You be
They be

Negated Example: You not be

Examples: (all conjugated forms of present subjunctive to be)

I demand that they be there when I come home.

I ask that he not be at the party.

It's time we be the ones in charge.

Let there be light!

THE BASIS

In English, except for the verb to be, the present subjunctive is relatively simple to conjugate because its construction is the same as the simple present indicative except in 3rd person singular form and when it is negated using the adverb "not." Furthermore, it is hardly ever used in modern English. Its usage mainly occurs during certain fixed expressions (God save the subjunctive!) and "that" clauses that deal with supplications, hopes, prayers, yearnings, and desires. It can also appear in the protasis of if/then clauses when the clause is being used to express something that the speaker is unsure of. Such an example would be:

If John go to the store, he will be late for dinner.

Here, the speaker is expressing uncertainty as to whether John will go to the store. If the speaker were to say "John goes," then the sentence would semantically mean that it is a proven fact that John is going to the store. There would be no vacillation in this context, although, in spoken English, many native speakers would find a construction like the one above to be stilted to say the very least.

There are a couple of ways to remove the above clause from present subjunctive mood while still allowing it to appear as though it were a subjunctive statement. The most common way is to use the modal "should" between the subject and the present subjunctive verb. Below are some examples:

1. If John should go to the store, he will be late for dinner.

2. Should John go to the store, he will be late for dinner.

The simple past subjunctive in English is the simplest one to construct because its conjugations, except for the verb "to be," are the exact same as the simple past indicative. The Past subjunctive is formed in fixed expressions like:

as it were
Would that it were
Were I you

The past subjunctive also occurs in hypothetical, contrary-to-fact statements as well as wishes. It is meant to take the reader out of reality to an irreal place or situation. Here is how to conjugate the verb to be in its simple past indicative form with its past subjunctive form in parentheses:

Simple Past Indicative (Subjunctive): to be

I was (were)
You were (were)
He/She/It was (were)
We were (were)
You were (were)
They were (were)

Negated Example Simple Past Indicative: I was not

Negated Example Simple Past Subjunctive: I were not

Here are some examples of the Simple Past Subjunctive:

If I were president, I would cut taxes. (But I am not the president.)

If he went to school, he would actually pass the 10th grade. (But he does not go to school.)

I wish I were living on campus. (But I am not living on campus.)

Suppose it were right, then what would happen. (But it is not right.)

Would you still love me even though (or even if) (or though/although) I were maimed by a wild animal? (But I am not maimed.)

If I played baseball, I would have a lot of fun. (But I do not play baseball.)

Assuming (or supposing that/granting that) (or in the event that) this house were for sale, would you buy it? (But it is not for sale.)

This is a basic understanding of the English simple present and past subjunctive tenses. There is actually more to it, but that will be explained in a future article. Remember that many speakers do not speak this way because the subjunctive mood is considered by many native speakers to be outmoded. This is just a brief excursis for those of you who are learning a second language and have noticed this precept called the subjunctive mood and have asked yourselves, "Do we have it in our own language?" The answer is YES, we do, but, in modern times, it is as old as perhaps Shakespeare himself.