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.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Subjunctive VS. Indicative, Round Three
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.)
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.
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.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Till Death DO Us Part
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Conjugal Visits
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.
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.
Monday, April 20, 2009
For Whom the Bell Tolls
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.
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.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
To Be or Not To Be...the Predicate Nominative?
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.
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.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Gerund or Present Participle?
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.
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.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Back to the Future
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
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.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
The Pluperfect Principle
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
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.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Presently Perfect
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
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
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
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.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
God Save the Subjunctive!
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:
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)