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.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
This Jussive!
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Grammar 101
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.
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.
Monday, April 27, 2009
World's Dumbest Words and Constructions
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:
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.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
"HE" Is Such a "SHE"
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.
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.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
No Synergy in Synesis
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.
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.
Friday, April 24, 2009
The Declension of the English Declension
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)