BS: English grammar question

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Slag
Date: 22 Dec 10 - 05:37 PM

Me and you and a dog named Boo works because "Me and You" function as a plural. Rephrased it would be "We and a dog named Boo" not poetic but you see my point, don't you?

re Shrimp: It's funny that most of our finny little friends and venison of the deep (just joking, as I am now sure that some here just love to jump on word play as though it was the original sin) have names that are the same whether singular or plural. Fish or fishes works but having caught a fish or several fish seems simpler. Trout is fine but "trouts" is certainly awkward. Shark and sharks sounds fine either way. Ass and asses if fine for the land dwellers but bass, and no basses.

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: The Sandman
Date: 22 Dec 10 - 06:05 PM

I bept my horn and I blew my own trumpet

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: framus
Date: 22 Dec 10 - 09:09 PM

Schweik - are you double jointed?

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 23 Dec 10 - 04:24 AM

Slag (22 Dec 10 - 05:37 PM), "Me and you and a dog named Boo" has that "me" for subject as mentioned by other posters above, it should be "I" (in noncolloquial contexts). Secondly, by conventional modesty, "I" should come after "you". Also, "a dog" would be wrong stylistically, because the fellow traveler being addressed will know the dog already.

"You and I and that dog named Sly" might be better. But then, lyrics for feel-good songs are often "incorrect" on purpose, to symbolize freedom from pedants like us [objects!]. We just gotta know in case we write texts for more formal purposes.

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: GUEST,Bristol
Date: 23 Dec 10 - 06:14 AM

Or as it is here in the South West me and thee and a dog named Smee.

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 23 Dec 10 - 12:56 PM

Should meself be penalized for colloquial usage?


I'll get me hat!

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 23 Dec 10 - 02:33 PM

Q, who is penalizing anyone? If you happen to ask me (who learned his first English word at the age of 10), use your dialect whenever adequate. I wrote about noncolloquial contexts, i.e. not colloquial.

BTW, to all of you: The postponed preposition, preposterous so-to-speak, has been taught to me as a peculiarity of English language. Certainly there is no logical argument forbidding it. Which authoritative source declares it wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 27 Jan 11 - 02:35 PM

To humorless Griska, I'll not tip me hat.

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 27 Jan 11 - 03:36 PM

No problem with humour or even humor here. I just felt I should disclaim any authority, in case someone seriously believed otherwise.

Write 50 times: "Me teacher's always right, not me."!

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: The Sandman
Date: 27 Jan 11 - 04:28 PM

humour not humor,
you can have 7 shrimps on your plate, but if you are vegetarian you cannot eat them.
"We just gotta know in case we write texts for more formal purposes".
What appalling English,it should be.. We have to know in case we have to write etc

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: meself
Date: 27 Jan 11 - 04:56 PM

So do I go to the penalty box or not?

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 27 Jan 11 - 05:11 PM

I see, GSS. What about "It is imperative to be aware of the aforementioned provision ..."?

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: The Sandman
Date: 27 Jan 11 - 05:28 PM

a bitten Verbose, old bean

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Slag
Date: 27 Jan 11 - 05:31 PM

Us and Gus and a dog named Cuss, gassin ' and a quibblin' in the band.

In speech, if you elaborated on the line, it might sound something like a Michael J. Fox line out of Back to the Future "me and you (pause) we....and you (pause) and a dog named Boo (pause), a traveling and a living off the land..." (with due apologies all around). Me and you functions as "we". Therefore, "we and a dog named Boo" it works lyrically and is grammtically okay, albeit marginal. Throw in a little poetic license and your their! (bait warning!).

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 27 Jan 11 - 06:38 PM

Me and youse and a bottle of booze?

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 19 Feb 11 - 10:05 AM

To intimidate - to make timid. Why not timidate?

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: The Sandman
Date: 19 Feb 11 - 12:58 PM

Steve, why not? because its wimpish, intimidate sounds exactly right intimidating, timidate sounds like a mouse has got a date with another mouse

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 19 Feb 11 - 02:16 PM

intimate to timate?
inane to ane? Insane to sane? Would not work as a rule.

'Timate' not in the OED; so coin your own meaning and invent a new word.

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: r.padgett
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 01:47 PM

"Youse" seems to be a plural form of "you," as coined maybe in Scotland or Liverpool?

Ray

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 03:03 PM

'youse', better written as 'yous', is common in lower class Dublin speech.
I have just finished reading "Faithful Place", a novel by Irish novelist Tana French, in booklists as a mystery, but really about family relations.
For the next few weeks, I am afraid that some of those usages will be part of my speech.

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 21 Feb 11 - 02:18 PM

I sometimes ponder whether to use "may" or "might", for example:

"You may not have heard...."
"You might not have heard...."

Is there a difference in meaning, between "may" and "might"?

I remember teachers drilling us on the difference between "can" and "may", but the difference between "may" and "might", if there is one, never came up.

It seems odd that two such common words could be totally interchangeable, without having some nuance of difference between them.

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 21 Feb 11 - 06:34 PM

According to an old grammar book I have (and also in Bartleby on line)-
Might I express my opinion conveys less insistence than May I express my opinion.

I dunno. I have heard people in heated argument use both MIGHT I EXPRESS...., and MAY I SAY....; both very insistant about their viewpoint.

(Years ago I went out the back door of a used book shop to get to parking, and saw a trash barrel full of books. Some were on English usage and grammar, and I took a few. I still have one or two, but I followed the book dealer's example with most of them.)

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 21 Feb 11 - 07:05 PM

As the years pass, g sounds and y sounds tend to hop back and forth, changing places. Have you seen 'yett' for 'gate'? I have. And foryive for forgive?

I believe that may and might (which at one time would have had a gutteral sound at the end) were probably come from the same root, and there is no real difference between them.

I tried to do the right thing and look up the verb 'might' in my unabridged dictionary, and to my shock discovered that it's not there. I want my $1.00 back!

Well, they do offer one line of print which says that 'might' is the past tense of 'may'. How they figure that, I do not know.
=========
By the way, 'may' comes from the Anglo-Saxon 'maeg' meaning 'I am able to.' Sounds the same as 'I can,' doesn't it? I suspect the difference between 'can' and 'may' is something that someone thought OUGHT to exist. The distinction does make sense, but somehow it has never caught on.

I enjoy Joan Hess's novels of Arkansas, where people use nifty double constructions such as, "You might should call her and make sure she's all right."

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 21 Feb 11 - 11:05 PM

Recently I astonished my wife by using the expression, "I might could..." meaning "Maybe I could...." I don't know why that expression popped into my head. I must have heard it years ago.

My mother came from Arkansas, but I don't think it's something she would have said.

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 21 Feb 11 - 11:38 PM

I have heard 'I might could' in East Texas (near Arkansas), so it could be a regional usage.
I'll look up may and might in my handy-dandy 20 volume OED tomorrow, it's getting past my bed time.

Starlight, star bright, First star I see tonight,

Wish I may, wish I might, have the wish I wish tonight.

And so to bed.

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 22 Feb 11 - 03:18 AM

Both "may" and "might" (the latter originally being the past tense or conditional of the former) have various distinct meanings in current English, cf. dictionaries.

When used to qualify statements like "You have heard", "may" gives it a probability between 20% and 90%, "might" would be between 5% and 20%, the remaining range being covered by "almost certainly" resp. "there is a faint chance" etc. Exact numbers of course vary.

However, given the English sense of irony, "might" is even used for absolute certainty in phrases like "You might prefer being late to being dead."

Ironic usage can modify many academic distinctions. For example: my English teacher told me that "ought to" could be used in lieu of "should" only when talking about a moral obligation. Well, how often do we encounter people saying "That ought to be sufficient", not realising they are being ironic.

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 07:29 PM

Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary-
may verbal auxiliary, past might; pres. sing & pl may(ME) (1st & 3rd sing pres. indic), fr. OE m&@230;g akin to OHG mag (1st & 3rd pres. indic.) have power, am able ...
1a archaic: have the ability to b:have permission to (you --go now): be free to (a rug on which children -- sprawl- C. E. Silberman)- used nearly interchangably with can
c- used to indicate possibility or probability (you --be right) (things you -- need); sometimes used interchangably with can (one of those slipups that --happen from time to time -Jessica Mitford) (copula --optionally be deleted-J. D. McCawley); sometimes used where might would be expected (you --may think from a little distance that the country was solid woods -Robert Frost
2- used in auxiliary function to express a wish or desire esp. in prayer, imprecation or benediction (long --may she reign) 3- used in auxiliary function expressin purpose or expectation (I laugh that i --not weep) or contingency (she'll do her duty come what --) or concession (he --be slow but he is thorough) or choice (the angler -- catch them with a dip net, or he -- cast a large, bare treble hook -Nelson Bryant) 4: SHALL MUST --used in law where the sense, purpose, or policy requires this interpretation usage see CAN

Someone else (has my permission to) -- continue with might

Or, if one wishes to be pedantic, see the Oxford English Dictionary.

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 07:34 PM

I see from the above that I should hire a typist.
In 3- expressin =expressing

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Jun 11 - 07:19 PM

Offer discount is very nice indeed and coupled with engrish grandma is offer we cannot diffuse...


DtG

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 05:24 AM

Offer discount is very nice indeed and coupled with engrish grandma is offer we cannot diffuse...
Why are we offering a discount on Joe?
Is his Grandma really english?

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: GUEST,Songwronger
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 11:15 PM

May vs might.

May is more forceful. You may want to listen to this.

Might is less forceful. You might want to listen to this.

Or so I recall from one of the standard grammar guides. I know that people respond better to suggestions when I use "might." Using "may" seems to make people tense. I think they may be recalling episodes in school where teachers pulled the can/may semantical thing on them. "I'm sure you can go to the bathroom, but the question is may you."

But then I might be wrong, mayn't I?

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 03:05 PM

In my experience (not being a native speaker, as I said), "You may want to ..." is a fixed idiom, of slight irony, meaning "I urge you in your own interest to ...". The irony may be taken further in phrases like "You may want to pay me $ 100 to prevent me from telling your wife about your whereabouts last night."

"Might" mightn't make it any better.

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: G-Force
Date: 23 Jun 11 - 08:53 AM

In these days of appalling speech and grammar, what a pleasure it is to read a civilised discussion about the english language.

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 23 Jun 11 - 11:13 AM

Thanks, G-force. I have observed that there are more discussions of language on the Mudcat than anywhere else around. It's one of the reasons I'm a regular here.

If you really want to be impressed, join in when we start a discussion on Middle English.

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Lighter
Date: 23 Jun 11 - 12:19 PM

Actually, English speech and grammar has always been appalling.

We just don't notice the gaffes of ancient times because now they're established. Also, most of us are likely to be exposed only to the most polished, most gracefully and effectively written documents of the past, because those are the ones that were most likely to survive.

Even before the Normans in 1066, Old English was simplifying its complex grammar in a way that would have shocked King Alfred - if he cared that much.

And remember, Classical Latin turned into French, Italian, etc., solely because of appalling speech and grammar.

Not that I encourage the truly appalling. Far from it. But it often wins out with no serious consequences that are obvious to future generations.

What's more appalling than sloppy speech and grammar is poor reasoning, clumsiness, insistent vulgarity, deception, and so forth. Of course, those things have always been with us as well.

They just didn't have electronic communications media to make them even more popular.

Subject: BS: English grammar question
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jun 11 - 12:15 AM

Lighter, next time you have nothing to do, read Sir Ernest Gowers' old book on "Plain Words". He will deal with your arguments better than me, which I choose to say rather than "better than I". If we'd all used perfect grammar - meaning speaking as out grandparents did - we'd be speaking the proto-language of the first humans. A good thing maybe?

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 24 Jun 11 - 02:53 PM

What, me worry?

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 24 Jun 11 - 05:19 PM

Of course, I should have said "have" always been appalling, but who's counting?

I've read Gower's book and many more. They mainly discuss style, not the other things. A list of 100 obnoxious usages would still be only 100 out of a hundred thousand. Of course, there's always room for improvement.

I suspect that the average person's writing style too has always been appalling, particularly since most of the population has never had to do much formal writing. It may seem worse now because we're exposed to more of it in the media (including online postings), and because it's very hard to teach writing to students who'd rather rock.

Much current journalism (to take an example) is too trivial and breezy for my taste. On the other hand, 99% of it is lucid and lively.

But I don't have any definite statistics, particularly comparing now with then. I'm not even sure that any could be established. There seem to be too many variables involved. And how do you measure taste?

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: maire-aine
Date: 19 Jul 11 - 01:01 PM

Just saw a news headline that said "Rupert Murdoch attacked whilst giving evidence to MPs (www.thejournal.ie)". I was surprised to see the word "whilst" used. Does one pronounce it with a short "i" or a long "i"; left on my own, I'd say "short". Is is still common, and are there rules for when one uses instead of the common US "while".

Thanks,

Maryanne

PS: I love this thread, and keep coming back to it. I hope it doesn't go off on a Murdock tangent.

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jul 11 - 01:20 PM

Well I'd say it's archaic and can easily be replaced by 'while'. In fact if I see it I don't think so highly of the writer. I imagine most style guides would advise not using it.

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 19 Jul 11 - 02:24 PM

While- not really a grammatical question, but worth a few remarks. The Harbrace College Handbook, by editors of Harcourt Brace Jovanovitch, publishers, cautions "Do not overuse [while] as a substitute for 'and' or 'but'. The conjunction 'while' usually refers to time."
No mention of whilst, but I had an English co-worker who said that he was taught to use it in school. When I was editing papers for a journal, I changed it to while, but the journal was American. I don't know if it would be acceptable to an English editor, but I suspect some publications would accept it and some not.

Many handbooks on 'style' and usage. For North America, the Chicago handbook is most followed.
There has been much discussion in previous threads.

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: GUEST, topsie
Date: 19 Jul 11 - 02:58 PM

I hadn't realised that while/whilst was a UK/US difference. I would be inclined to use "while" for things that just happen to be going on at the same time, but "whilst" where there is some kind of contrast, but I have discovered that authors can get VERY irate if you want to change their "whilst" to "while" so I usually leave well alone.

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 19 Jul 11 - 04:30 PM

Both sound fine to me, but I've learned to prefer "while."

Maybe people object to "whilst" because they think it's like "oncet."

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 19 Jul 11 - 05:32 PM

Doesn't oncet have an apostrophe? Never mind, I'll go quietly.

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 19 Jul 11 - 07:12 PM

Among – amongst
Amid – amidst
While – whilst
Again – against ?????

False analogy, you will say, but could there be some historical connection?

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Tangledwood
Date: 19 Jul 11 - 07:23 PM

Does one pronounce it with a short "i" or a long "i";

I've only heard it pronounced like "while" with an added "st".
I would be very surprised to hear it used in everyday speech although I don't think that it is so unusual to see it in print.

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Newport Boy
Date: 18 Aug 11 - 05:15 AM

There was a good discussion about whilst and while in the Guardian's Notes & Queries a while ago (sorry!).

Phil

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: GUEST,Sally
Date: 18 Aug 11 - 05:26 AM

I am swept away by the sweepings from your minds.

I have been mystified by the sudden (to me) change in the word "strength". I heard it once, in something by a Canadian popular group, as "strenth" and now that seems to be a common usage. Did it leap the pond? How did it get here? Anyone know?

I notice, too, that on the WWW the old folks similar to myself go to "sites" (places) on the net, and the young folks go to "Sights" (something to see) instead. MHOP is that they simply didn't learn about sites early enough. Perhaps I am wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 18 Aug 11 - 02:29 PM

The 'g' in strength has become silent in much of North America; Webster's Collegiate gives both pronunciations.
The Oxford Dictionary gives weight to the 'g', but I wonder how general this usage is in UK or if there are regional differences.

Subject: RE: BS: English grammar question
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 19 Aug 11 - 04:39 AM

The 'g' still seems to be in current usage over here. It goes from strength to strength.

Most people seem to have lost the first 'n' in government though!


300