Teacher Discussion Forums

Do you see anything grammatically/semantically odd about these sentences. They were spoken/written by AmEng speakers.

-America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling.
-The United States of America will not militarize our border.
-America will not let our consumers or our economy be held hostage to run-away global oil prices.

Linguistic proof of USians extreme identification with their country and government.

They certainly look weird to this 'Murican. Shouldn't "America" be a singular "it"?

America will not impose its own style...

America will not militarize its border...

America will not let its consumers...

etc etc.

--Matt

Or maybe "her" if you're feeling poetic.

Actually, isn't "our/its border" a little strange? Last time I looked at the map there were two of them.

delridge wrote:They certainly look weird to this 'Murican. Shouldn't "America" be a singular "it"?


etc etc.

--Matt

Yes, or her.

I'm thinking it may be an ellipsis of "We in" - or just messed up grammar.

"(We in) America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling".

lolwhites wrote:Or maybe "her" if you're feeling poetic.

Actually, isn't "our/its border" a little strange? Last time I looked at the map there were two of them.

Note the "...". Continuation would probably mention which border. BTW, aren't there three borders?

Stephen Jones wrote:Linguistic proof of USians extreme identification with their country and government.

Could you elaborate?

Hey all!

I'll answer you, metal.

I think Stephen is right, Americans would consider the country "theirs" and so would say "our" in these sentences without thinking twice, though I myself would say "its" as noted by others.

We are taught that the USA is a country tailor-made by ourselves. Our government is representative and we can, if we want, have direct contact with our representatives and they usually respond, if only by form letter. Our boarders are only two, Canada and Mexico, and if we speak about boarder control, we are usually speaking about Mexico, no one (I hope) would consider building a fence to keep Canadians out....

"This land is your land, this land is my land, From California, to the...."

That's what we sing in grade school.

peace,
revel.

This is a statement that would probably be made by a candidate for President. I suppose it could be the Bush administration assuring Americans. Language is no doubt being employed to render a proposal or stance more reasonable or attractive by hinting at a supposed solidarity of Americans behind it. I see it as mere political rhetoric instead of attempts at good grammar.

Language is no doubt being employed to render a proposal or stance more reasonable or attractive by hinting at a supposed solidarity of Americans behind it.

Can't this do that just as well?

An American: "America will not impose its/her own style of government on the unwilling".

This is a statement that would probably be made by a candidate for President.

Or a president. Bush used similar just the other day.

Would anyone here say this is grammatical when spoken by David himself?

"David will not let my name be used in vain."

It seems very odd to me. The example with David doesn't work for me at all. The examples with "America" seem to be just some speechwriters attempting a linguistic trope, rather than some elaborate language shift.

Not successfully, to my mind, unless you can imagine some different intonation and even gesture that brings it off a bit better:

America (points at White House) will not impose OUR (gesture to self and crowd) OWN (points at Lincoln Memorial) style of government on the unwilling

(assuming there's a place from which you can point at both).

But generally it seems more English to be "outside" the matter. English speakers speak and write like 3rd person observers, even when talking about themselves, don't they? (Not "we")


Whereas in Spanish, when I say "The British are kind and generous" that "are" is 1st person plural:

Los británicos somos amables y generosos

but a Spanish person talking to me would say "sois" (you are) and "son" (they are) to another, non-Brit, person.

Mind you apparently Franco, when asked what had happened to some enemy or other, would always say "Oh the Nationalists shot him" as if he had't had something to do with it.

David will not let my name be used in vain.

This is wrong but if you are trying to use it as an analogy for the original sentence you are mistaken.

Stephen Jones wrote:

David will not let my name be used in vain.

This is wrong but if you are trying to use it as an analogy for the original sentence you are mistaken.

Are you on a one statement per post run at the moment, Stevie? Could you please explain your statement?

I'd have thought so.