11.1662, Disc: Queen's English/American English

[The LINGUIST Network]

LINGUIST List:  Vol-11-1662. Mon Jul 31 2000. ISSN: 1068-4875.

Subject: 11.1662, Disc: Queen's English/American English

Moderators: Anthony Rodrigues Aristar, Wayne State U.<aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Dry, Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at linguistlist.org>
            Andrew Carnie, U. of Arizona <carnie at linguistlist.org>

Reviews: Andrew Carnie: U. of Arizona <carnie at linguistlist.org>

Associate Editors:  Ljuba Veselinova, Stockholm U. <ljuba at linguistlist.org>
		    Scott Fults, E. Michigan U. <scott at linguistlist.org>
		    Jody Huellmantel, Wayne State U. <jody at linguistlist.org>
		    Karen Milligan, Wayne State U. <karen at linguistlist.org>

Assistant Editors:  Lydia Grebenyova, E. Michigan U. <lydia at linguistlist.org>
		    Naomi Ogasawara, E. Michigan U. <naomi at linguistlist.org>
		    James Yuells, Wayne State U. <james at linguistlist.org>

Software development: John Remmers, E. Michigan U. <remmers at emunix.emich.edu>
                      Sudheendra Adiga, Wayne State U. <sudhi at linguistlist.org>
                      Qian Liao, E. Michigan U. <qian at linguistlist.org>

Home Page:  http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded jointly by Eastern Michigan University,
Wayne State University, and donations from subscribers and publishers.


Editor for this issue: Scott Fults <scott at linguistlist.org>

=================================Directory=================================

1)
Date:  Fri, 28 Jul 2000 03:13:39 -0400
From:  "Douglas G. Wilson" <douglas at nb.net>
Subject:  Re: 11.1644, Queen's English/American English

-------------------------------- Message 1 -------------------------------

Date:  Fri, 28 Jul 2000 03:13:39 -0400
From:  "Douglas G. Wilson" <douglas at nb.net>
Subject:  Re: 11.1644, Queen's English/American English

> Date:  Thu, 27 Jul 2000 10:01:29 +0100
> From:  Michael Swan <MichaelSwan at grammar2.demon.co.uk>
> Subject:  Discussion: Queen's English / American English (gone)

> ... Some of these can be used as prenominal adjectives:  'a retired colonel', 'an
> advanced student', 'faded glory', 'swollen ankles'.  And there are others ... used
> adjectivally before nouns but maybe not (at least in my dialect) after a copula:
> 'fallen leaves', 'developed countries', 'an escaped prisoner', 'vanished
> civilisations', 'a collapsed lung'. And there are others that can be used
> prenominally, but only when ... modified: 'a well-read person' (but not *'a read
> person'), 'a much-travelled man', 'recently-arrived immigrants'.

Thanks to Michael Swan for the interesting examples. Clearly he's
given some previous thought to the subject!

The adjective (or quasi-adjective) 'gone' can (barely) be used
prenominally in its unmodified form. Examples:

He had a gone expression on his face. ["Obsolete" ("beatnik") slang]

He's a gone goose. [= "He's a dead duck." Apparently over 170 years old!]

[Compare the recent "It's a done deal"!]

But "gone" really likes to have a modifier when prenominal (like some
of the examples given above by M. Swan). Even in 'beatnik' slang, it
is usually modified by 'real': "some real gone jazz", "a real gone
chick". More currently, a quick Web search turns up numerous instances
of 'long gone' used prenominally, for example:

"This is not true of very many of the long-gone contributors to the
Official Records."
[from a history discussion]

"Long-Gone Lizards Still Stir Our Imagination" [header about dinosaurs]

"I'm A Long Gone Daddy" [song lyrics]

Also:

"We see that Harry's a far-gone drunk ..." [discussion of fictional character]

I don't find these problematic.

I agree with Michael Maxwell that "He is gone to the store" is at
least very odd (although perhaps marginally acceptable). "He is gone
to Glory" seems less odd to me, perhaps because the religious
connotation favors the 'archaic' usage (cf. "He is risen"), or perhaps
because it's more clearly adjectival (= "He is dead").

A doubtless superfluous remark: "to be gone" is not strictly
synonymous with "to have gone" in conventional usage. After the party,
the guests are gone and the food is gone; the guests have gone, but
one wouldn't say that the food has gone (unless the guests were quite
brusque).

-  Doug Wilson

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-11-1662