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.