"It's a dog eat dog world".
Can anyone help with breaking down the sentence. Primarily with the "dod eat dog" part. Larry Latham has some good ideas on the Elementary site, but other contributions would be interesting.
Thanks, John.
Dogs eating dogs.
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
It's a 'dopg eat dog' world:
I haven't seen Larry's reply yet, so here goes my attempt:
the 'dog eat dog' part is a phrase that needs further breaking down: Subject-verb-object, and the verb 'eat' is used in the imperative form, not in the indicative form ('eats'). I would say both the indicative and the imperative forms can be used.
This phrase qualifies "world".
So, you have a sentence with a SVO: It is a ... world.
What kind of a world is it? It is a world in which dogs eat dogs. Substitute any synonymous adjective: Cruel, brutal, barbarous.
You will see that 'dog eat dog' is more expressive, a good colloquialism.
I haven't seen Larry's reply yet, so here goes my attempt:
the 'dog eat dog' part is a phrase that needs further breaking down: Subject-verb-object, and the verb 'eat' is used in the imperative form, not in the indicative form ('eats'). I would say both the indicative and the imperative forms can be used.
This phrase qualifies "world".
So, you have a sentence with a SVO: It is a ... world.
What kind of a world is it? It is a world in which dogs eat dogs. Substitute any synonymous adjective: Cruel, brutal, barbarous.
You will see that 'dog eat dog' is more expressive, a good colloquialism.
-
john martin
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 11:12 am
dogs eating dogs.
An interesting post Roger. Thanks for taking the time to reply. Your answer is similar to Larry's.
I think we are coming down to the fact that "dog eat dog" is something that may be a phrasal adjective, although I am not sure of the terminology. But I don't think it is an imperative.
For it to be an imperative I think that would lead the meaning of the sentence to be some kind of exortation, and I don't think it is that. I think it is descriptive, not prescriptive.
My main point, which I think I failed to mention in my first post, is whether this is a case of the subjunctive being used.
Thanks Roger, and all other ideas welcome.
I think we are coming down to the fact that "dog eat dog" is something that may be a phrasal adjective, although I am not sure of the terminology. But I don't think it is an imperative.
For it to be an imperative I think that would lead the meaning of the sentence to be some kind of exortation, and I don't think it is that. I think it is descriptive, not prescriptive.
My main point, which I think I failed to mention in my first post, is whether this is a case of the subjunctive being used.
Thanks Roger, and all other ideas welcome.
Hello, John!
Your point is taken - I should have thought of that myself!
My OXFORD ENGLISH GRAMMAR says:
Subjunctive:
A verbal form (or MOOD) expressing hypothesis or non-factuality. COntrasted with INDICATIVE.
In my example, "it is a 'dog eat dog' world", I would say "dog eat dog' is not hypothetical although it is not to be understood in its literal sense; rather, it is a metaphore.
In other contexts, it might be non-factual or hypothetical - we both can probably come up with examples.
Now the difference between imperative and subjunctive is difficult to measure. OXFORD mentions "God save the Queen!" To me, this sounds remarkably like an imperative, but it is listed as a subjunctive probably because it is not metaphorical, and it presupposes that we all believe in a God who saves the Queen - hence the non-factuality.
Etymologically, 'subjunctive' implies it is hooked to another sentence. It should by rights be a clause or a phrase inside a sentence, shouldn't it?
Your point is taken - I should have thought of that myself!
My OXFORD ENGLISH GRAMMAR says:
Subjunctive:
A verbal form (or MOOD) expressing hypothesis or non-factuality. COntrasted with INDICATIVE.
In my example, "it is a 'dog eat dog' world", I would say "dog eat dog' is not hypothetical although it is not to be understood in its literal sense; rather, it is a metaphore.
In other contexts, it might be non-factual or hypothetical - we both can probably come up with examples.
Now the difference between imperative and subjunctive is difficult to measure. OXFORD mentions "God save the Queen!" To me, this sounds remarkably like an imperative, but it is listed as a subjunctive probably because it is not metaphorical, and it presupposes that we all believe in a God who saves the Queen - hence the non-factuality.
Etymologically, 'subjunctive' implies it is hooked to another sentence. It should by rights be a clause or a phrase inside a sentence, shouldn't it?