Language & Grammar discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
Grammar Central
>
Ask Our Grammar "Experts"
I found myself agreeing with Mark's comment - and then with Caroline's most recent one, which is interesting, because Stirling Moss's achievements do live on in a sense (YouTube and elsewhere, I'm sure), but not in the same way that art, literature or music do. So what about an actor or film director: Olivier was or is a wonderful actor... Hitchcock was or is a great director?
Mod
Debbie wrote: "Hitchcock was a great director....his films are great works. Rembrandt was a great artist....his psaintings are great works of art. I maintain that to refer to the PERSON in the present tense impli..."How about, "Rembrandt is a great figure in the history of art."
It's clear in this sentence that, in the semantic deep structure, Rembrandt is just an entity that's being assigned to a category. You probably wouldn't want to say "Rembrandt was a great figure in the history of art." (until art historians changed their minds)
I think the problem is that, implicitly, when we say X is Y, we often mean X [is an instance of] Y, and this can be true even if X may otherwise be construed as a person -- and would be, in a different context. This goes to our idiolectal native speaker intuitions, and your mileage may certainly vary, but this is probably the best I can do by way of explaining why I think it's appropriate to use the present tense when assigning a token identified by a person's name to some category or other, and why it doesn't necessarily imply that the attribute of that token which is the person, him or herself, is still alive.
That said, we may just have to agree to disagree. :)
Mod
True, some people write, Gone Girl was a great book! I just loved it!" but I always switch it to the present and think IS a great book.
Mnemonic: Though you read it a week, month, year, or decade ago, the book and all events in it continue to transpire in real time before who knows HOW many readers' eyes at any given moment.
But I digress. And take us slightly off topic...
Mod
I don't know whether this is the right thread but: I have a question. Maybe someone can explain this: why does English always capitalize first person singular anywhere in a sentence it occurs and other languages do not except if it's the first word in a sentence? I've always wondered about this.Are we English speakers subconsciously all egotists? :)
Mod
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/mag...
I also learned the word majuscule (an opposite to miniscule).
Personally, I'm beginning to suspect that many of our grammatical conventions were instigated by printer's guild members. That whole thing of Upper case and Lower case being typesetting terms must play a role in this too.
Personally I've always been fond of those two-story lower-case s's that were part of cursive handwriting in so many colonial era documents.
Aha -- he's the culprit!!Very interesting article!!!!! Thank you!!!
You've taught me a new word: majuscule.
I did know up until say, 200 years ago, nouns in English used to be capitalized the way all nouns still are in German, but that fell by the wayside.
I wondered if someone would kindly help me with the following?Discussing the Russian KGB and its follow-on organisation the FSB, I have just typed the sentence "Both organisations for which Putin used to work" but it sounds wrong to me. Should it be "Both organisations for whom Putin used to work." Logic says the first but my heart says the second.....
(I'm sure I shouldn't start a sentence with "both" either, but I'm not worried about that...)
Mod
Thank you! I will change it now....
I think I would phrase it as, "Both organizations worked for Putin." :) :)
Mark wrote: "I think I would phrase it as, "Both organizations worked for Putin." :) :)"I thought it was kind of a rule: avoid the passive voice if you can.
Jane wrote: "Mark wrote: "I think I would phrase it as, "Both organizations worked for Putin." :) :)"I thought it was kind of a rule: avoid the passive voice if you can."
I think it is one of the rules of Russian political case grammar that Putin is always the beneficiary. :)
Mark wrote: "I think I would phrase it as, "Both organizations worked for Putin." :) :)"Indeedy! :-)
I have a question. When I was in school ages ago of course, we were taught to start every paragraph of our answers half an inch from the margin. I've been teaching this to my students too. Lately a student whom I tutor at home,from another school said they've been taught that the first paragraph should begin from the margin & the subsequent ones half an inch away. I know that is what is done in printed books, but for writing too is that the rule now? This girl said that her teacher had deducted 2 marks the time she hadn't followed thus rule,so I would like to know.
Mod
Thank you so much NE. Our school system is in a state of flux, so we often remain clueless.We have about 23 school boards across India and everyone follows their own rules.
Mod
Sonali wrote: "I have a question. When I was in school ages ago of course, we were taught to start every paragraph of our answers half an inch from the margin. ...I know that is what is done in printed books..."MLA and APA (and CMS) are revered and widely followed in the US, but barely heard of in much of the rest of the world.
Printed books vary, even within a country, never mind between different countries. It's a matter of stylistic preference without a definitive answer. Find out what's expected for the course you're teaching, and use that.
(In the UK, most people don't indent at all, but instead leave an empty line - as here - though novels and newspapers often have a small indent for the first line of a paragraph. I was never taught a specific measurement as a school pupil, or even when I trained to teach primary school pupils.)
Thank you to all of you, you've restored my confidence. I was worried that I was perhaps teaching incorrectly to so many trusting children. Of course, I'll tell the older children all you have said so that they are aware and can make their own choices according to necessity.
OH GRAMMAR GODS, I got this question from a friend and began to answer with great certainty and was suddenly racked by doubt."I have a stylistic question that has been bugging me: "People are what make it special" or "People are what makes it special" "make" or "makes"? neither sounds right to me...
I was going to say "make" since "are" is the main verb agreeing with "people." Right?
Ruth's version is better, but if you want to go with the original, then "makes" is correct. The subject of the embedded sentence, "what" or "the thing that" is singular, and it requires the singular form of the verb. I'll spare you surface and deep structure diagrams, unless you really want them.
Mark wrote: "Ruth's version is better, but if you want to go with the original, then "makes" is correct. The subject of the embedded sentence, "what" or "the thing that" is singular, and it requires the singula..."Ergo, you're saying each is ok? I'd think you could consider "what" as either singular or plural, depending on whether you consider "people" a group of several or a collective noun.
That's the sentence as I got it, without request to change. (I agree it's nice to bypass the problem and not decide what's correct but so it is.) I trust my grammar but don't pretend to be an expert - I would think the "what" represents the embedded "the thing that," so "makes" is correct. YET it sounds really wrong.
"What" and "that" are singular demonstative pronouns. ("What" is underlyingly "that which.") You wouldn't want to say "that make no sense," or "what make no sense are these sentences." On the other hand, it probably doesn't avail to be too prescriptivistic, and native speaker intuitions don't always reflect Fowler's Modern English Usage.
Thanks, Mark. At the same time "that" and "what" refer back to people, just as "who" would, and the verb that goes with "who" is flexible, depending on whether the referent is singular or plural.
"They are the ones who eat shrimp."
"He is the one who eats shrimp."
It cannot be correct that in the first sentence I should use "eats."
These are the factories that pollute the air.
This is the factory that pollutes the air.
Am I mixing apples and oranges?
still confused....
No, you're not confusing anything. It's somewhat arbitrary. "Who" can be a singular or plural, restrictive or nonrestrictive, ordinary or relative pronoun. "What" used as "the thing that" in an embedded sentence is always singular. In your later example ("the factories that pollute the air"), "that" is a plural restrictive relative pronoun that hangs off "factories" in the deep structure. In the deep structure of "what" in your first example, "that" is a relative pronoun that refers to "the thing."
That's interesting, that "what" is always singular! Perhaps it sounds weird because we expect flexibility as we do with "who" and "that." Thanks for the input. Personally I will continue to skirt the problem.
smile
Deep structure interpretation (if you like Syntactic Structures/Aspects of the Theory of Syntax):People are the thing [the thing makes it special].
These are the factories [the factories pollute the air].
S. wrote: "That's interesting, that "what" is always singular! Perhaps it sounds weird because we expect flexibility as we do with "who" and "that." Thanks for the input. Personally I will continue to skirt ..."
S. - Skirting the issue is always safe. I'm over sixty, and was weaned on a version of English that no longer exists in America. In olden days, glimpses of stocking were what was looked on as something shocking; now, Heaven knows, anything goes. :)
Mod
Send in your best running back and call an end run.
Newengland wrote: ""People are what makes it special" is one car-wreck of a sentence, an assault on one ear and battery on the other.Send in your best running back and call an end run."
Yes, but it's a grammatical car wreck, and isn't that all we should care about? :)
You're making my head hurt.
Kelly Maybedog wrote: "You're making my head hurt."What hurts is your head. :)
Say, do you know Chomsky called that construct a "pseudo-cleft transformation?" (useless facts about linguistics you wish you didn't know -- for 500, Alex)
"I hearken back to my youth, when I sweated through fog with linguists and contenders." -- Walt Whitman :)
Stop it. Tylenol--where's the Tylenol?
No person is your friend who demands your Tylenol.
Excellent point. Good thing I have two big bottles. (I lost one and bought another and then found the bottle again.) I use a lot of Tylenol. My kidneys are probably destroyed.
Kelly Maybedog wrote: "Excellent point. Good thing I have two big bottles. (I lost one and bought another and then found the bottle again.) I use a lot of Tylenol. My kidneys are probably destroyed."Not to worry. Tylenol is actually hepatotoxic, so I'm sure it has only destroyed your liver.
I'm allergic to NSAIDs so it's all I gots.Liver, then. Not like that isn't already a mess with my diabetes. Thank God I don't drink.
Kelly Maybedog wrote: "I'm allergic to NSAIDs so it's all I gots.Liver, then. Not like that isn't already a mess with my diabetes. Thank God I don't drink."
You really have to be careful about the dosage. The COX-2 inhibitors are all much more dangerous, though, so I guess you really are stuck with Tylenol. Sorry to have joked about it.
Mod
Mod
Newengland wrote: "I don't take any pain relievers. Too damn stubborn."I don't unless absolutely necessary and try to avoid them during the day. Luckily, I have a high pain tolerance.
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
Language & Grammar
Books mentioned in this topic
Little Women (other topics)A Tale of Two Cities (other topics)
Twilight (other topics)
The Associated Press Stylebook (other topics)
Someday This Pain Will Be Useful to You (other topics)
More...
I was thinking how differently you would apply this to racing drivers. There is no context in which you would say "Stirling Moss is a great racing driver." Our admiration for his driving was for what he did in the past, and we would always say that he WAS a great racing driver. Art on the other hand sort of lives on in the present, continuing past an artist's death.
(I shouldn't really enter into this conversation though, I am very soon going to be out of my depth!)