ran@ho95b.UUCP (RANeinast) (12/07/84)
>>Death for we who deserve it is one thing. >> -- Paul duBois >Come on, Paul. It's "us!" "Death for *us* who deserve it." > Mark Fishman I'd like to see some discussion on the grammar here. The way I understand it, both are acceptable grammar, they just mean different things (stress different aspects). Let me rewrite the sentences with what I think are illustrative phrasal groupings: "Death for (we who deserve it) is one thing." In this case, the object of the preposition is a gerund phrase (so that "we" is correct as nominative case). The object of the preposition is specifically "we who deserve it" as a group, and death is intended only for that specific group. "Death for us (who deserve it) is one thing." In this case, we have a modifying phrase (the "us" is the object of the preposition, and therefore the objective case is correct). The "who deserves it" modifies "us", and is in some sense incidental. Two similar sentences are 1) My father objects to me picking my nose, and 2) My father objects to my picking my nose. In 2), what my father objects to is the nose picking, when done by me. In 1), he objects to me (as a person) when I am in the act of picking my nose. The stress of what's important is different. Most people usually say 1) but mean 2). I notice that newspeople are particularly guilty of this transgression. Do other people out there have the same interpretations of the grammatical difference? By the way, I don't have a copy of the bible (oops, Strunk and White). I use a grammar text from back in the stone age (1940's :-)). -- ". . . and shun the frumious Bandersnatch." Robert Neinast (ihnp4!ho95b!ran) AT&T-Bell Labs
mcdonald@smu.UUCP (12/10/84)
I was taught (about 8 years ago) that the first instance in both examples
is incorrect -- that it is always (my picking) that is being referred to,
and that in a construction like (we/us who) the who takes the case required
by the subordinate clause and the we/us takes the case required by the
outer clause/phrase.
Unfortunately I don't still have the text to refer to.
McDgino@voder.UUCP (Gino Bloch) (12/12/84)
[this line stolen from Chris Torek intentionally] > I was taught (about 8 years ago) that the first instance in both examples > is incorrect -- that it is always (my picking) that is being referred to, > and that in a construction like (we/us who) the who takes the case required > by the subordinate clause and the we/us takes the case required by the > outer clause/phrase. > > Unfortunately I don't still have the text to refer to. I don't either - it was my ninth grade English class - several decades ago. You're right, the original (... for we who ...) is wrong. -- Gene E. Bloch (...!nsc!voder!gino) Try to understand.
tosca@ihnp4.UUCP (lyn cole) (12/18/84)
I had expected many people to jump on this one immediately. Since no one seems to have noticed (or cared about?) the real grammatical issue here, i'll jump in. Robert Neinast writes: >>... >>Let me rewrite the sentences with what I think are >>illustrative phrasal groupings: >> >>"Death for (we who deserve it) is one thing." >>In this case, the object of the preposition >>is a gerund phrase (so that "we" is correct as >>nominative case). The object of the preposition >>is specifically "we who deserve it" as a group, >>and death is intended only for that specific group. >> >>"Death for us (who deserve it) is one thing." >>In this case, we have a modifying phrase (the "us" >>is the object of the preposition, and therefore >>the objective case is correct). The "who deserves it" >>modifies "us", and is in some sense incidental. >> >>Two similar sentences are >>1) My father objects to me picking my nose, >>and >>2) My father objects to my picking my nose. First of all, in the original sentence quoted above, there is no gerund in sight. A gerund in English is a verb form, ending in "ing", used as a noun. There is no way to interpret the sentence such that "we" is correct; the explanation for the second form is the only correct one. The sentence can, however, mean something slightly different if it is written with commas: "Death for us, who deserve it, is one thing." In this case, we deserve it unconditionally; without the commas, death comes only to those of us who deserve it. In the two "similar sentences", besides not being similar, the first is incorrect. For that meaning, there should be a comma after "me": "My father objects to me, picking my nose." lyn cole (ihnp4!tosca) AT&T Bell Laboratories, Naperville, IL
ellis@spar.UUCP (01/03/85)
In article <692@ihnp4.UUCP> Lyn Cole appears to have added yet more confusion to Robert Neinast's initial error. Maybe I'll screw things up even more... ======================================================================== Robert's original error was here: >>... >>Let me rewrite the sentences with what I think are >>illustrative phrasal groupings: >> >>"Death for (we who deserve it) is one thing." >>In this case, the object of the preposition >>is a gerund phrase (so that "we" is correct as >>nominative case). The object of the preposition >>is specifically "we who deserve it" as a group, >>and death is intended only for that specific group. As Lyn correctly pointed out, there are no gerunds here. Sorry, Robert, your idea about "specific groups" has absolutely no bearing on the case of anything! The correct sentence is: Death for us who deserve it is one thing. In classical grammar, one would say that `us' is the object of the preposition `for', and is thus objective case; `who' is the subject of `deserve', and is thus nominative case. One would, however, select the nominative `we' in the sentence below: We, who deserve it, get death. ..since `we' is the subject of the main verb `get' in the outer (independent) clause. While we're on the subject of case, a very common error, even (especially) in highbrow prose, is confusing the case in: Death for who(m)ever deserves it is one thing. An apparent conflict occurs because the relative pronoun acts as both the object of a preposition and the subject of a subordinate clause. The relative pronoun should be in the case required by the imbedded (subordinate) clause; `whoever' is correct. Perhaps Robert's faded high school memories of this rule are the source of his error. ======================================================================== Now it's Lyn's turn {MY COMMENTS BRACKETED}: >>Two similar sentences are >>1) My father objects to me picking my nose, {NP + PARTICIPLE} >>and >>2) My father objects to my picking my nose. {POSSESSIVE + GERUND} > >In the two "similar sentences", besides not being >similar, the first is incorrect. For that meaning, >there should be a comma after "me": "My father >objects to me, picking my nose." I simply cannot accept Lyn's statement that sentence 1 is incorrect! If Lyn were correct, then statements like the below: (np + participle) A1) My father objects to children eating frogs. B1) My father objects to limburger cheese smelling up the house. ..should be reworded: (possessive + gerund) A2) My father objects to children's eating frogs. B2) My father objects to limburger cheese's smelling up the house. Which sound more natural to you? I'll take the "incorrect" ones any day. And WITHOUT commas, thank you. -michael `prepositions are things you can end sentences with' ellis
halle1@houxz.UUCP (J.HALLE) (01/04/85)
>>A1. My father objects to children eating frogs.
Well, I do too. I also object to frogs that eat adults.ran@ho95b.UUCP (RANeinast) (01/04/85)
I had a feeling this hadn't made it out (Dec 19), but
michael ellis' comments confirm it. Here goes another try.
Well, the results are in, and only one person said that
all sentences were ok. To recap, the sentences were
1a. Death for we who deserve it is one thing.
1b. Death for us who deserve it is one thing.
and the similar sentences [to lyn cole: they are similar
in that both sets address common mistakes(?) in choosing
the cases of pronouns with attached phrases]
2a. My father objects to me picking my nose.
2b. My father objects to my picking my nose.
Everyone else said that both "a" sentences were wrong.
The reason I posted this in the first place is that,
until about 3 years ago, for case "2", I thought so too.
I thought so, that is, until I looked it up (something we
on the net do all too rarely). At that time, I discovered that
"2a" is acceptable. I quote from the "Harbrace Handbook
of English," by John Hodges (1941):
"A noun or pronoun preceding the gerund is usually in the
possessive case.
RIGHT *His* coming was not expected.
RIGHT He objected to *Mary's* accepting the position.
RIGHT The *army's* camping along the river caused much anxiety.
In these sentences the verbals ending in *ing (coming, accepting)*
are used as nouns and are called *gerunds*. But the verbal
ending in *ing* is also used as an adjective, called a
*participle*. Compare the following:
RIGHT Just imagine *Mary's flying* [possessive + gerund] an airplane.
[Emphasis is on the act of flying.]
RIGHT Just imagine *Mary flying* [objective + participle] an airplane.
[Emphasis is on *Mary*.]"
"Strunk and White" agree with this:
"Gerunds usually require the possessive case.
Mother objected to our driving on the icy roads.
A present participle as a verbal, on the other hand,
takes the objective case.
They heard him singing in the shower.
The difference between a verbal participle and a gerund is not
always obvious, but note what is really said in each of the following.
Do you mind me asking a question?
Do you mind my asking a question?
In the first sentence, the queried objection is to *me*,
as opposed to the other members of the group, putting the question.
In the second example, the issue is whether a question may be
asked at all."
My original question was whether a similar distinction could be made for
the two sentences "1a" and "1b". Consider the sentence
I will talk to whoever listens.
*Whoever* is correct (nominative case) since it is the subject of *listens*.
[I realize that "1a" isn't quite parallel.]
Can the *we* in "1a" be considered correct (if that is what you really mean),
as the subject of the phrase *we who deserve it*, and then the whole
phrase is the object of the main clause? Neither of my texts explicitly
states this construction as wrong, but it still makes me uncomfortable.
*Who* is the subject of *deserve* for the adjective phrase modifying *we*;
if *who deserve it* is a phrase, can *we who deserve it* also be one?
Maybe my misunderstanding is that *we who deserve it* just can't be considered
a phrase in this fashion.
------
lyn cole says:
>I had expected many people to jump on this one
>immediately. Since no one seems to have noticed
>(or cared about?) the real grammatical issue here,
>i'll jump in.
>
>>"Death for (we who deserve it) is one thing."
>>In this case, the object of the preposition
>>is a gerund phrase (so that "we" is correct as
>>nominative case).
>
>First of all, in the original sentence quoted above,
>there is no gerund in sight. A gerund in English is
>a verb form, ending in "ing", used as a noun.
Boy, is my face red. When I read her comment, I just
sat there thinking, "I know that." I haven't the
foggiest idea of what I was thinking when I called that
a gerund. I know better. Really. (Stop chuckling!)
Oh, well. He who lives by the word, dies by the word.
--
". . . and shun the frumious Bandersnatch."
Robert Neinast (ihnp4!ho95b!ran)
AT&T-Bell Labsjhf@lanl.ARPA (01/04/85)
from michael `prepositions are things you can end sentences with' ellis: > > While we're on the subject of case, a very common error, even (especially) > in highbrow prose, is confusing the case in: > > Death for who(m)ever deserves it is one thing. > > An apparent conflict occurs because the relative pronoun acts as > both the object of a preposition and the subject of a subordinate clause. > > The relative pronoun should be in the case required by the imbedded > (subordinate) clause; `whoever' is correct. I think michael has the right answer here, but the wrong reason. The above explanation suggests that there is a case conflict that is resolved by an arbitrary rule. A better explanation is that "whoever" (or "whomever") is in fact not the object of the preposition "for". Rather, the object is the entire relative clause, "whoever deserves it". "whoever" thus has only one function, the subject of the clause, and certainly takes the nominative case. Now to the matter of gerunds: > I simply cannot accept Lyn's statement that sentence 1 is incorrect! > If Lyn were correct, then statements like the below: (np + participle) > > A1) My father objects to children eating frogs. > B1) My father objects to limburger cheese smelling up the house. > > ..should be reworded: (possessive + gerund) > > A2) My father objects to children's eating frogs. > B2) My father objects to limburger cheese's smelling up the house. > > Which sound more natural to you? I'll take the "incorrect" ones any day. I know that I was taught in school that the second pair of sentences are the correct ones. They do not sound unnatural to me, but I'll admit that may be because of a succession of severe grammarians' having beaten these rules into my head. -:) -------------------- Joe Fasel, Los Alamos National Laboratory jhf@lanl.{arpa,uucp} To assiduously avoid splitting infinitives is unnecessary.
tosca@ihnp4.UUCP (lyn cole) (01/08/85)
Okay, i will perhaps concede the comma isn't needed in the
construction: "My father objects to me[,] picking my nose,"
though that construction looks and sounds awkward to me
with or without the comma. However, my statement that sentence 1
was incorrect referred only to that comma. Michael ellis' two
counterexamples (noun + participle) sound awkward to me, also,
though i'm prepared to admit that i have always enjoyed studying
some of the fine points of grammar (though Latin and German do
overdo it a bit!).
My Strunk and White says:
"The construction [of noun or pronoun plus participle] is
occasionally found, and has its defenders. ....
Any sentence in which the use of the possessive is awkward
or impossible should of course be recast."
Joe Fasel's good explanation of the relative clause involved may
have answered Robert Neinast's latest question, but here's an
additional comment. Robert asks: "Can the *we* in "1a" be considered correct,
as the subject of the phrase *we who deserve it*, and then the whole
phrase is the object of the main clause?"
The answer is an emphatic "no". First, "who deserve it" is a clause,
not a phrase, i.e., it has a subject and predicate. This is why "who",
the subject, is in the nominative case. A phrase, e.g., a prepositional
phrase, is, "a sequence of two or more words arranged grammatically and
not having a subject and predicate, as a preposition and a noun or
pronoun, an adjective and a noun, verb and an adverb, etc." (according
to my Random House dictionary). The group "we who deserve it" is a
phrase consisting of pronoun ("we") and adjective (clause: "who deserve
it"). The pronoun must thus be in the case determined by its use
(nominative "we" as subject or predicate nominative of sentence or
clause, objective "us" for anything else).
The gist of the matter is that a clause is a tight unit in which forms
(including cases) of constituent parts are determined by their uses in
the clause, while a phrase is a looser construction of words whose forms
are determined by their uses in the enclosing clause (whew!).
from the asymp S of lyn cole (ihnp4!tosca)
tot T AT&T Bell Laboratories
ic A Naperville, IL
al B (312) 979-2729
l L
y E