LL-L "Grammar" 2003.03.01 (08) [E]

Sun Mar 2 02:12:10 UTC 2003

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 01.MAR.2003 (08) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 http://www.lowlands-l.net  * admin at lowlands-l.net * Encoding: Unicode UTF-8
 Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/rules.htm
 Posting Address: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org
 Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html
 Archives: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
=======================================================================
 You have received this because you have been subscribed upon request.
 To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l" as message
 text from the same account to <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or
 sign off at <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
=======================================================================
 A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian B=Brabantish D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian
 L=Limburgish LS=Lowlands Saxon (Low German) N=Northumbrian
 S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West)Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

From: Ed Alexander <edsells at cogeco.ca>
Subject:  LL-L "Grammar" 2003.03.01 (04) [E]

At 09:58 AM 03/01/03 -0800, Sandy wrote:

>Your question still isn't clear, I'm afraid - what do you
>mean by 'use "me" in the subjective'? I _always_ use 'me'
>in conjunctions but never use 'me' standing alone as the
>subject of a sentence. It's the existence of the conjuction
>that's the determinant, not whether it's in the subject of
>the sentence. Either way, nobody's ever corrected me on it,
>at least not in my adult life. If I heard one adult correcting
>another's speech, I'd just think it was impolite.

I can only assume that my question is not clear to you because in your
local situation, no one uses the "You and I" form in the subject
position.  Here in Ontario, not using this form in formal speech is
considered a sign of lack of education or upbringing.  I had supper this
evening with my wife, the teacher, and a good friend of ours whose family
is from Ulster.  Her mom and dad, who is in his 70's, speaks basic Ullans,
and most people here find it difficult to understand him, though I enjoy
talking with him and even imitating him as half my genetic roots are from
Ulster, albeit 300+ years ago.  I lured Karen and my wife into a discussion
of this matter at supper, and predictably, my wife declared that the use of
the objective pronoun as a subject was categorically "wrong" and could
hardly imagine anyone thinking otherwise.  Karen, who was basically
educated in Ontario, acknowledged this, but also affirmed that the practice
was pretty universal in the Old Country.

As far as being impolite, you'd probably best not come to Ontario, where
this sort of correction is not uncommon, nor generally resented.  I imagine
that people here have pretty much become used to it, since you could never
use the objective pronoun "incorrectly" in school without being corrected
for it.

>Of course I'm not talking about a language-learning situation
>here - if someone had actually asked me to help them with their
>English and I heard them saying "she and I", I'd explain to them
>the "her and me" was more usual and "she and I" more affected.

Are you saying that some people use it where you are?  Or some people
sometimes?  It's not considered affected here at all, though it fits better
in more "sophisticated" communication.

I've long ago overcome the idea that the objective (or reflexive, for that
matter) pronoun being used subjectively was "wrong", since it is so
"normal".  However, what would you say of the proposition that this is a
later development which has occurred only in descendants of, say, Old
Northumbrian and Old English, since it does not occur in other Germanic
languages, to my knowledge (or does it?).

>From: Roger Thijs, Euro-Support, Inc. <roger.thijs at euro-support.be>
>Subject:  LL-L "Grammar" 2003.02.28 (13) [E]
>
> > From: James Ward <jamesward at earthlink.net>
> > Subject: Grammar
> > Have any of you noticed that in some Old English texts the Latin names
>are inflected in the Latin manner when used in Old English case-specific
>constructions?  For example, if the word "amicus" were to be included as
>an indirect object in an Old English construction, it would be found as
>"amico."  Curious, eh?
> > Has anyone noticed this kind of Latin usage in the context of any other
>languages?  Well, okay, _Lowlands_ languages...   :)

Try Luther's Bible, pretty much on every page in the New Testament.  The
words "Jesus Christ" are always put into the proper corresponding Latin
form.

Ed Alexander, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

----------

From: Críostóir Ó Ciardha <paada_please at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject:  LL-L "Etymology" 2003.03.01 (05) [E]

At 08:07 AM 02/28/03 -0800, CrÃostÃ³ir wrote:

>I felt that yourself and another contributor were implying that
>constructions such as "my wife and me" were 'bad English' (which they
>clearly are not). Ed in fact went so far as to assert that if I don't say
or
>write "me went to the theatre" then I shouldn't say "my wife and me". If I
>once again got something wrapped around my neck I apologise but I don't
>believe I did, in this case.

I made no such assertion.  In fact, I quite clearly made this comment as a
suggestion to my daughter to consider, and not to anyone else on the
list.  However, is it not obvious that the two forms are inconsistent in
this usage?  Perhaps consistency is not the only standard for "correct"
speech, but for many people it is definitely an important standard.

Ed Alexander

==================================END===================================
* Please submit postings to <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>.
* Postings will be displayed unedited in digest form.
* Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
* Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are
  to be sent to <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or at
  <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
 =======================================================================