A common grammatical error made by 'smart' people

[CRGreathouse]

And I don't see how either sentence is a cupola. (Yes, I'm taking some liberty by beginning a sentence with "and".)

The copula that D H mentions is the word "is", not the sentence. "Copula" refers to the basic, generic verb expressing existence. The only copula in English is "to be" in its various forms, though not every use of "to be" is a copula.

 

[D H]

I don't understand your argument at all. How can you have a sentence without a subject (at least implied)?

Examples, from http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxitsmev.html

I believe that he is I. Who do you believe that he is?
I believe him to be me. Whom do you believe him to be?​

More on "It's me", from the NY Times "On Language" column, http://www.nytimes.com/1996/07/28/magazine/on-language-breaking-the-rules.html

USE "IT IS I," NOT "IT IS ME." The pronoun police can't help making a felony out of what is at worst a simple misdemeanor. Never mind that some of the fussiest grammarians now accept constructions like "It is me" and "That's him" in all but the most formal writing (instead of the stuffy "It is I" and "That's he"). As Jespersen said, "It is and has long been natural to use the objective in the predicative." In fact, it was natural back in Shakespeare's day: "That's me, I warrant you" ("Twelfth Night," Act II, Scene 5).​

Give me a well formed English sentence with "me" as the subject.

I not only used a terrible example (John Donne's poem), I misquoted the poem.

Woe is me!

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Examples, from http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxitsmev.html

I believe that he is I. Who do you believe that he is?
I believe him to be me. Whom do you believe him to be?​

More on "It's me", from the NY Times "On Language" column, http://www.nytimes.com/1996/07/28/magazine/on-language-breaking-the-rules.html

USE "IT IS I," NOT "IT IS ME." The pronoun police can't help making a felony out of what is at worst a simple misdemeanor. Never mind that some of the fussiest grammarians now accept constructions like "It is me" and "That's him" in all but the most formal writing (instead of the stuffy "It is I" and "That's he"). As Jespersen said, "It is and has long been natural to use the objective in the predicative." In fact, it was natural back in Shakespeare's day: "That's me, I warrant you" ("Twelfth Night," Act II, Scene 5).​

I not only used a terrible example (John Donne's poem), I misquoted the poem.

Woe is me!

"It tolls for thee".

As I've been saying all along: There's the rule and there are the exceptions to the rule granted by usage.

EDIT: Re: Your post 32: All of the sentences (including independent clauses) you used at the top of your post have explicit subjects. In the interrogative sentences, 'you' is the subject.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

The copula that D H mentions is the word "is", not the sentence. "Copula" refers to the basic, generic verb expressing existence. The only copula in English is "to be" in its various forms, though not every use of "to be" is a copula.

I was referring to the the John Donne 'quotes' where DH mentioned two cupolas.

 

[atyy]

An even more common error is "It's me!" This is almost universal, to the point that it's probably an accepted exception to the rule now; but how many people even know the rule? This is not equivalent to the French "C'est moi!" which is correct. Again, does anyone know why?

You are wrong. This is idiomatic.

 

[D H]

The only copula in English is "to be" in its various forms, though not every use of "to be" is a copula.

That isn't true. I feel tired.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

You are wrong. This is idiomatic.

Wrong about what? I've been saying that usage has made "It's + objective case pronoun" an exception to the rule governing predicate nominatives. What's the difference between an idiom and an exception? It doesn't occur in Dutch or German which uses the nominative case in this situation(see previous posts by others). An idiom is defined as peculiar to one language but idioms usually do not violate basic rules of grammar.

Who or what decides when exceptions become part to the standard dialect? In France and Spain at least, government affiliated agencies decide. Who decides what's incorrect vs what's a "correct" idiom in English?

In any case, I say in subsequent posts that no one says "It's I." In French the only grammatical way to say "It's me." is "C'est moi."; never "C'est je." That's because "moi" is a disjunctive pronoun which is used in certain well specified situations where the nominative case or the objective case can apply. I suspect this may be where this peculiar English usage came from, but we didn't follow through and adopt the whole French system of disjunctive pronouns.

 

[tiny-tim]

see wikipedia

It seems the issue is whether English should follow the German rule ("ich") or the French rule ("moi").

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject_complement#It_is_I.2FIt_is_me, there were two camps as long ago as 1761.

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disjunctive_pronoun

 

[atyy]

Who decides what's incorrect vs what's a "correct" idiom in English?

Me! It is I that decides.

 

[D H]

Me! It is I that decides.

Ohh! Which country is right on the use of the serial comma?

 

[CRGreathouse]

That isn't true. I feel tired.

I would certainly consider this a 'linking verb', but is it a copula? I'll have to look this up. I wouldn't have considered it so. (If I'm wrong, thank you in advance for pointing that out.)

 

[atyy]

Ohh! Which country is right on the use of the serial comma?

What's right is that which communicates the intended meaning clearly and unambiguously.

 

[atyy]

Ohh! Which country is right on the use of the serial comma?

BTW, what's your opinion on "which" and "that"?

 

[atyy]

It seems the issue is whether English should follow the German rule ("ich") or the French rule ("moi").

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject_complement#It_is_I.2FIt_is_me, there were two camps as long ago as 1761.

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disjunctive_pronoun

"It isn't Her!" - I understand there's a point when it's the verb to be, but does it really apply when it's the verb to not be

 

[Kenneth Mann]

One of my peeves comes from supposedly knowledgeable TV personalities (like newscasters) who use phrases like "It's so fun"!

The word "so" is almost always an adverb. Probably the only use of "so" as an adjective, occurrs in the case in which it is stated to mean "like that" ( such as when Captain Piccard says "Make it so".)

KM

 

[Kenneth Mann]

From personal experience, I can say that non-native English speakers who made the effort to learn to speak correct English will spot grammatical errors immediately and they will not be impressed by native speakers making mistakes or speaking in dialect. (ex: a recently retired US president.)

I think most non-native speakers are trying to be as correct as they can. Many of the native types have never really cared. Some, in fact, even carry a disdain for correct use of the language.

Speaking of presidents - - - Of all that I have heard speak, all but three have pronounced the word "nuclear" to sound like "nuc-u-lar", and this includes all since Eisenhower. (I have not heard Obama yet.) One (I won't give his name, but in the navy, he was a nuclear submarine type) had a pronunciation that I could never quite make out. The other (whom I also won't name) was the only one who got it correct, but with a heavy Boston accent.

KM

 

[Kenneth Mann]

What's right is that which communicates the intended meaning clearly and unambiguously.

'Amen' - - - and what communicates meaning most clearly is correct use of the language. Over two hundred years ago, language experts realized that from century to century muct of the ability to comprehend what was written generations earlier was being lost - - - mainly because the language was being changed too much from generation to generation (it may be 'cool', but it is also detrimental.) As result, considerable effort was devoted toward codification of the language and defining the rules of its use. This worked well until the "hippie" generations came along and tried to throw out all the rules (language and almost everything else). Since, it is my opinion that the language has, to a great extent, been set adrift again. Generations do differ.

KM

 

[CRGreathouse]

This worked well until the "hippie" generations came along and tried to throw out all the rules (language and almost everything else). Since, it is my opinion that the language has, to a great extent, been set adrift again.

Every generation has said that about the next.

I think the biggest rift in the English language came around the late 1400s. It's so much easier to read something published in 1510 than something from 1460.

 

[D H]

I think the biggest rift in the English language came around the late 1400s. It's so much easier to read something published in 1510 than something from 1460.

1066.

From the wikipedia article on Middle English:

1000:

Syððan wæs geworden þæt he ferde þurh þa ceastre and þæt castel: godes rice prediciende and bodiende. and hi twelfe mid. And sume wif þe wæron gehælede of awyrgdum gastum: and untrumnessum: seo magdalenisce maria ofþære seofan deoflu uteodon: and iohanna chuzan wif herodes gerefan: and susanna and manega oðre þe him of hyra spedum þenedon.​

1400:

And it is don, aftirward Jesus made iourne bi cites & castelis prechende & euangelisende þe rewme of god, & twelue wiþ hym & summe wymmen þat weren helid of wicke spiritis & sicnesses, marie þat is clepid maudeleyn, of whom seuene deuelis wenten out & Jone þe wif off chusi procuratour of eroude, & susanne & manye oþere þat mynystreden to hym of her facultes.​

Modern:

And it came to pass afterward, that he went throughout every city and village, preaching and showing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God: and the twelve were with him, and certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils, and Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod's steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him of their substance.​

 

[anonperson]

If you don't see it, you need to study English grammar even you are a native English speaker.

Is this error on purpose? Or shall we forgive and forget?

 

[CRGreathouse]

1066.

From the wikipedia article on Middle English:

1000:

Syððan wæs geworden þæt he ferde þurh þa ceastre and þæt castel: godes rice prediciende and bodiende. and hi twelfe mid. And sume wif þe wæron gehælede of awyrgdum gastum: and untrumnessum: seo magdalenisce maria ofþære seofan deoflu uteodon: and iohanna chuzan wif herodes gerefan: and susanna and manega oðre þe him of hyra spedum þenedon.​

1400:

And it is don, aftirward Jesus made iourne bi cites & castelis prechende & euangelisende þe rewme of god, & twelue wiþ hym & summe wymmen þat weren helid of wicke spiritis & sicnesses, marie þat is clepid maudeleyn, of whom seuene deuelis wenten out & Jone þe wif off chusi procuratour of eroude, & susanne & manye oþere þat mynystreden to hym of her facultes.​

Modern:

And it came to pass afterward, that he went throughout every city and village, preaching and showing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God: and the twelve were with him, and certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils, and Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod's steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him of their substance.​

Certainly it's harder to go from modern to 1066 than from modern to 1400, but I think that the changes from 1066 to 1460 were smaller, year-by-year, than those from 1460 to 1510. (I reserve the right to fiddle with the precise years!)

 

[SW VandeCarr]

And it is don, aftirward Jesus made iourne bi cites & castelis prechende & euangelisende þe rewme of god, & twelue wiþ hym & summe wymmen þat weren helid of wicke spiritis & sicnesses, marie þat is clepid maudeleyn, of whom seuene deuelis wenten out & Jone þe wif off chusi procuratour of eroude, & susanne & manye oþere þat mynystreden to hym of her facultes.[/indent]

Did they really use '&' in 1400? Where can I get those other cool Olde and Middle English characters?

 

[tiny-tim]

ðÞþÿß …

Did they really use '&' in 1400? Where can I get those other cool Old and Middle English characters?

(If you can read 'em, then you got 'em! )

On the Mac character palette, they're in the ISO-8859-1 list between A01 and F0F

 

[D H]

Certainly it's harder to go from modern to 1066 than from modern to 1400, but I think that the changes from 1066 to 1460 were smaller, year-by-year, than those from 1460 to 1510. (I reserve the right to fiddle with the precise years!)

The change from Middle to Modern English resulted from invasions of little rats. The plagues forced rich and poor to move and commingle. The language changed as people changed their speech to find a common ground. The invading rats of course did not speak. The change from Old to Middle English resulted from invasions by much bigger pests, the Normans. The language changed in 1066 because these earlier invaders spoke. They introduced a new language. Middle English is a meld of two languages. Modern English is a meld of multiple dialects of one language.

 

[CRGreathouse]

The change from Middle to Modern English resulted from invasions of little rats. The plagues forced rich and poor to move and commingle. The language changed as people changed their speech to find a common ground. The invading rats of course did not speak. The change from Old to Middle English resulted from invasions by much bigger pests, the Normans. The language changed in 1066 because these earlier invaders spoke. They introduced a new language. Middle English is a meld of two languages. Modern English is a meld of multiple dialects of one language.

I'm quite familiar with this, yes. I've studied linguistics, particularly Indo-European languages.

Modern linguists would not call it a meld: the substratum is decidedly Germanic. The language did import around 2/3 to 3/4 of its vocabulary from Italic languages (French and Latin). As for dialects, it was certainly influenced by many, though the West Saxon dialect was probably more influential than all the others together. (Just historic happenstance, as usual.)

Did they really use '&' in 1400? Where can I get those other cool Olde and Middle English characters?

& was much more common in 1400 than it is today. It was a typographic alteration of the script form of "et", Latin for "and"; you can still see the letters in some of the fancier (=older, naturally) ampersands. ("ampersand", incidentally, comes from "and per se".) It was also used in abbreviations: &c. for et cetera "and other things", today written "etc.".

Unicode has the thorn, ash, eth, wynn, yogh, the long s, and so on.