reduction

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 10:25 am

Is it possible that "all of the workers" is a reduced form of "all who are of the workers"?

JuanTwoThree · Post by **JuanTwoThree** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 11:18 am

It might be but I think it goes like this:

"I met all the workers"

takes us to:

"I met them all"

though

"I met all them"

sounds like ? . Anyway the next step is:

"I met all of them"

echoing "both/neither/most etc of them" which takes us full circle to:

"I met all of the workers"

So I think it's the structure with the pronoun that brings about the "of"

Same with "I ate all the cheese=I ate it all/I ate all that?=I ate all of it=I ate all of the cheese"

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 12:29 pm

Maybe:

I met all who are of the workers. can be even more expanded to "I met all (of) the people who are of the workers".

Then, how do we know which "of" is being kept?

Jimbobob · Post by **Jimbobob** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 1:17 am

I think I'm just a tad confused by your question here, and the responses. Are you trying to say that there are empty categories in the sentences given? I guess it goes:

I (noun) met (v.trans) <noun phrase>

where "all of the workers" is the noun phrase. It itself is made up of

(noun or determiner) of (inclusion) (noun group)

It seems like this isn't a reduction to me at all. It's simply a construction. and the noun phrase

all of who are of the workers

is simply the exact same construction, just expanded

all (noun or determiner) of(inclusion) <who are of the workers>(noun group, and within the noun group again the construction)

If I've totally missed your point here or I'm making no sense I appologize.

This caught my attention and I thought it was interesting:

all of them
all them

I met all of them
I met all them

Second sounds a tad off, but I can see myself saying it sometimes.

one of them
one them

I met one of them
I met one them

Now THIS second statement I can't ever see myself saying, and sounds just completely wrong.

So it seems that when we're talking about the group as a whole, we accept simply taking that whole "all them", even though we are talking about a sample 'of' a group (the sample just happens to be the whole group). But when we are taking less than the whole, we can't drop the 'of'.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 8:58 am

<It seems like this isn't a reduction to me at all. It's simply a construction. and the noun phrase

all of who are of the workers

is simply the exact same construction, just expanded >

How can we tell that something is an expansion of something and that something is not a reduction of the larger form (i.e. of the "expanded" form)?

For example, is the latter sentence here an expansion of the first, or is it that the first is a reduction of the latter?

The man swimming in the lake is my father.
The man who is swimming in the lake is my father.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:01 am

I met all of them
I met all them

Second sounds a tad off, but I can see myself saying it sometimes

When I say or hear that, the "of" is still there, no matter how reduced.

I met all'uh them.

JuanTwoThree · Post by **JuanTwoThree** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:03 am

Second thoughts

Q: How much cake did you eat?

A: None/Some/Most/Lots/All of it/the cake.

Q: How many slices of cake did you eat?

A: None/Some/Most/Lots/ All of them/the slices.

A: All them/Them all/All the slices.

These last are different, they're not just one end of the scale that has "none of them" at the other end. They are more like boasts.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 11:03 am

The reduction only seems to work with groups, species, commitees etc, because it is mostly the pronoun "who" that is being omitted.

Those/none/some who are of the Republican Party.
*Those/none/some who are of the milk.

Jimbobob · Post by **Jimbobob** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 11:53 pm

metal56 wrote:
How can we tell that something is an expansion of something and that something is not a reduction of the larger form (i.e. of the "expanded" form)?

For example, is the latter sentence here an expansion of the first, or is it that the first is a reduction of the latter?

The man swimming in the lake is my father.
The man who is swimming in the lake is my father.

Gotcha

As far as "all of them" - yes it's constantly reduced to all'uh them, but I can also see myself just saying literally "all them" - it's not standard to be sure. Maybe because It's just so consistently reduced, simply saying "all them" has grown on me. Or maybe it's because "all these/those" is perfectly fine, and it therefore doesn't sound totally off to me.

Did you meet the new board of directors?

Yeah I met all THEM, but I didn't meet the new marketing department.

If someone said the above to you, would you really be caught up in the missing of? I don't think I'd even notice it.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:52 am

How about this, Jimbobob?

For example, is the latter sentence here an expansion of the first, or is it that the first is a reduction of the latter?

Quote:
The man swimming in the lake is my father.
The man who is swimming in the lake is my father.

JuanTwoThree · Post by **JuanTwoThree** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 8:16 am

Let's say you sit down to watch tv with 36 cans of beer. As you do.

At some point you doze off. And well you might.

When you finally wake up you say:

"Wow! I drank them all!" (36)

"Wow! I drank all of them!" (36)

"Wow! I drank all them!" (27)

Jimbobob · Post by **Jimbobob** » Sat Feb 24, 2007 6:29 am

metal56 wrote:How about this, Jimbobob?

For example, is the latter sentence here an expansion of the first, or is it that the first is a reduction of the latter?

Quote:
The man swimming in the lake is my father.
The man who is swimming in the lake is my father.

Is there a real way to determine this? In this case I would say that the first is a reduction of the later, because there is no connecting clause word "who", and this seems like a reduction, taking away the linking of the clauses "the man" and "swimming in the lake", and making it seem more implied.

I said that the first example from the opening post didn't seem like a reduction to me because nothing has actually been taken away that I can see. All the pieces are still there.

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Sat Feb 24, 2007 9:16 am

Those/none/some who are of the Republican Party.
*Those/none/some who are of the milk.

Surely the difference here is simply that the Republican Party is an organisation which you can join, and be "of the Republican Party", but unless you founded a cult of milk worshippers, you couldn't have a group of people who were "of the milk". What would *Those/none/some who are of the milk mean anyway?

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 5:38 am

lolwhites wrote:
Surely the difference here is simply that the Republican Party is an organisation which you can join, and be "of the Republican Party", but unless you founded a cult of milk worshippers, you couldn't have a group of people who were "of the milk". What would *Those/none/some who are of the milk mean anyway?

I have the same question.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 5:42 am

Jimbobob wrote:
All the pieces are still there.

How can you tell?