Job Discussion Forums

[EnglishBrian]

dmb

Given one of Lithuania's most 'popular' exports are it's, erm, 'young ladies', for a while here my old director was seriously considering putting together some special classes to help them with the English needed for their 'work'. The Kama Sutra might have have made an excellent book to supplement with.

[Gregor]

(I know I shouldn't encourage him...)

Ahmed, a few points:

1) "Keep the present in front, and put the past behind." This is not a sentence I've heard before, but it sounds like it might have the weight of idiom going for it. Even so, it's not correct, strictly speaking. I'm talking about formal, written English - a preposition has to have a noun. It doesn't have to have the noun immediately after it - "Where are you from?" is a perfectly good sentence. But it has to have an object, somewhere.

2) You don't give the subject for "Open the door" because no subject is required in the imperative mood. That has nothing to do with objects, or the second person pronoun, anyway. A preposition just needs an object, strictly speaking. Why are you arguing with me??

3) I have no problem with "Lift your leg backward," grammatically speaking. I simply said that it could inpart a difference sense from "...behind.'

4) You think I'm not a native English speaker? Seriously?? Where are YOU from??

[Ahmed_ONLINE]

Gregor,
'A Preposition takes an object' no doubt. I'm not arguing with you on this front. I just wanted to draw your attention to some grammatical patterns being used by the 'native-speakers of English' in colloquial spoken English.
I never doubted your native English speaker status. In fact, I was simply surprised when you refused to recognise the sentence, "Lift you left leg backward." as a a grammatically and pragmatically correct sentence in your first email.
All what you talked about in strict terms is nothing but true and solid grammatical rules. On that front, I can't agree you more...

Ahmed

[Joe Gahona]

Most copy editors and teachers I've asked have sided with "you" in this sentence ("Lift your left leg behind you"). I don't think eliminating the object of the preposition clarifies anything; it makes it sound incomplete and awkward to me. I also disagree that "you" is redundant. The sentence is more precise with it.

I realize that reworking is always an option but that wasn't my question. I'm wondering what causes the reflexive to be used in two different ways. I'm beginning to think it's because it's short for "your body" and therefore a different kind of "you" than in the cases of "Think for yourself," "Get over yourself," etc.

[Chasgul]

/start pedantry/ 'lift your leg backward' IIRC is grammatically incorrect because it should read 'backwards' ./end pedantry/

In 'think for yourself' you need self to be the object of 'for'? And etymologically they used to be two words: your self.

Hope that helps.

[Ahmed_ONLINE]

Dear Sir,
It's almost impossible to speak irrefutably especially when you talk of grammar rules.
In today�s world of �descriptive linguistics� one needs to be a bit careful while expressing his Personal view of the grammatical validity of a sentence. I think you must go over your �seemingly irrefutable verdict� against the grammatical validity of the sentence, �Lift your leg backward�. You may look DOWN to seek the necessary guidance:

backward /bakwd/ adv., a., v., & n. As adv. & (rare) adj. also -wards /-wdz/. ME. [Aphet. f. ABACKWARD: later assoc. with BACK n.1] A adv. I Towards one's back, or the back of anything. 1 Of movement: in the direction of one's back or away from one's front. ME. b With verbs of continuous motion: with the back foremost, with the face to the rear. ME. 2 Of position: towards the back or rear of a place; away from the front. obs. or arch. LME. II Towards what is behind in position or course. 3 In the direction which (as regards one's ordinary position) is behind one, or from which one is moving

Now please don�t suspect my hands in the compilation of the OXFORD DICTIONARY!

[Gregor]

"Backwards"? Really? With an "s"? I didn't know that. I've been making that mistake for YEARS.

[Gregor]

Ahmed brings up an interesting point. I'm not completely in favor of descriptivist grammars. They're just not helpful. I prefer knowing what the conventions are, not what mistakes are becoming so rampant that they are soon to be acceptable.
I'll go along with changes, but I will do so grudgingly. Not because I'm against change, but because I'm against slap-dash change and sloppiness.
For this reason, I will try to remember to use "backwards' correctly, as I have continually fought against what I call the "U.S. presidential" mispronunciation of "nuclear," which is, of course, something like /'nu: kju:ler/. I don't think Clinton ever did this, but both Bushes and Mr. Reagan all did/do. Drives me NUTS.

[Cdaniels]

FYI President Jimmy Carter mispronounced nuclear and is probably most responsible for spreading this "alternative" pronunciation. The one controversial grammer example I sometimes like to bring up is Star Trek's "To boldly go where..." I was taught that its very wrong to split an infinitive ('to' and the infinitive 'go' should always stay together) However, Americans break this rule constantly, and the only real justification for keeping the infinitive together is so the phrase can more closely match Romance language verb forms. I've also had interesting conversations with a transplated Texan about the value and validity of "y'all" as the plural of "you." What seems like sloppy grammer actually might not be, and what seems like proper conventional grammer may not be.

[JonnytheMann]

Interesting read about split infinitives:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_infinitive

[Ahmed_ONLINE]

Who says you have been making a mistake, Gregor? Backwards is just a variant of the word backward. However, both are correct even if used with the same semantic purpose and in the same syntactic environment. Stick to your guns, you'r doing fine.

Was there any tradition to spell, 'grammar' as 'grammer'? Maybe a variant of the normal spelling 'grammar' in Proto Romance language! but, I don't think 'grammer' seems like 'grammar'? (Cdaniel)

[Chasgul]

I did say it was pedantry.

The fact that the general public is too ill-educated to use the 's' correctly doesn't justify their position from my POV. It's my POV and I can do what I like with it.

As for grammar: all derivatives of this root use 'a' - grammatical, grammarian, et cetera. I therefore find it likely that the root of the word and thence its correct spelling are with 'a'. It is also worth noting that foreign forms from the same root are also in 'a' and not all of them are Romance languages.

And please explain 'Proto-Romance Language'. Do you mean Latin? Or perhaps medieval French and Spanish? Having studied all three, I would be grateful for an explanation of this new term.

Almost forgot! Backward used to be the adjective IIRC, the 's' denoting the adverbial form: That backward boy put the cover on backwards.

[Ahmed_ONLINE]

I don't really know if a new school of thought, namely DESPOTIC linguists, has come to the fore but your tone shows as if you are the founder of this group of linguists....
I believe it's unwise, by all means and manners, to call the general public 'too ill-eduated' to decipher your POV. In fact, the general public disdains to justify its position against the VERY PERSONAL POV of an individual. I am not too sure if there is a place for TYRANNICAL POVs in language related matters.
You claimed to have studied many languages, yet I'm afraid you might have missed a few chapters on the basics of Lanauge Families. Well, it's never too late!
The word 'Proto-Romance' may be a new word to you, but it might well be a cliche' for many. For your information:
The common ancestor of a family (or branch) is known as its protolanguage (the prefix proto- means 'early' in Sanskrit). Sometimes a protolanguage can be identified with a historically known language. Thus, provincial dialects of Latin gave rise to the modern Romance languages, so the Proto-Romance language is more or less identical with Latin. Similarly, Old Norse was the protolanguageof Norwegian, Swedish, Danish and Icelandic. And Sanskrit was the protolanguage of many of the languages of the Indian subcontinent, such as Bengali, Hindi, Marathi, and Urdu. Still want to see the detailed language family tree including the Proto-Romance language? Have a Click:

http://www.orbilat.com/Languages/Romance/Proto-Romance.html

All what I quoted to show the validity of the word backward as an adverb was an extract from the OXFORD DICTIONARY, and not my personal POV along with a dodgy sentence! The reference was enough to convince those who, somehow, believe in the veracity of dictionary sources.

[Ahmed_ONLINE]

A traffic sergeant often sees a woebegone expression on many faces once the Red Light shines to dam the traffic flood.
Is it possible that we can see a pleasant shade on the faces of people when they see the stop sign?
I say �YES�. Follow the excellent example just set by the Admin (Kent).

Use a Sweet Smiley Sign to Stop the Speedsters.

Here I put on the brakes wholeheartedly!

[Chasgul]

I didn't say anyone had to justify themself, I merely stated my POV.

Thanks for the clarification on Proto-Romance; I studied the languages as opposed to their development, which is why I asked.

" Backward(s): as an adverb either form may be used; as an adjective 'backward' only." Fowler's Modern English Usage.

Perhaps there are problems understanding "IIRC", it means " If I Recall Correctly", id est "I am not 100% sure".

The inability to understand my posts added to persistent over-reactions to posts in general give me food for thought.