Comments on: Monthly Etymology Gleanings for April 2012 http://blog.oup.com/2012/04/monthly-etymology-gleanings-for-april-2012/ Academic insights for the thinking world. Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:22:49 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: D. Fear http://blog.oup.com/2012/04/monthly-etymology-gleanings-for-april-2012/#comment-272859 D. Fear Tue, 01 May 2012 13:48:32 +0000 http://blog.oup.com/?p=23912#comment-272859 Between you and me, I is not a pronoun. Well, I maintain this, because 'I' does not really appear in sytagmatic isolation, at least not in most natural varieties of English. The pronoun status was doubtless in fluctuation for some time; now, I feel that 'I' always requires a verb. 'It is I' strikes me as stilted, to say the least. The situation has a parallel in French, where 'je' is clearly not a pronoun, but rather a part of the verb. This seems to be something of a tendency when oblique case forms of the pronoun become more general. 'All of we' is definitely not on; 'of' still requires an oblique, hence 'all of us'. This may have strengthened the tendency of the 1 sg pronoun to be used more in the oblique, too. I may add that - in my particular norm - 'it's he/she' does not sound right at all. Doubtless this varies. My prediction is that the tendency to use the oblique will continue. Between you and me, I is not a pronoun. Well, I maintain this, because ‘I’ does not really appear in sytagmatic isolation, at least not in most natural varieties of English. The pronoun status was doubtless in fluctuation for some time; now, I feel that ‘I’ always requires a verb. ‘It is I’ strikes me as stilted, to say the least. The situation has a parallel in French, where ‘je’ is clearly not a pronoun, but rather a part of the verb. This seems to be something of a tendency when oblique case forms of the pronoun become more general. ‘All of we’ is definitely not on; ‘of’ still requires an oblique, hence ‘all of us’. This may have strengthened the tendency of the 1 sg pronoun to be used more in the oblique, too. I may add that – in my particular norm – ‘it’s he/she’ does not sound right at all. Doubtless this varies. My prediction is that the tendency to use the oblique will continue.

]]> By: Dan http://blog.oup.com/2012/04/monthly-etymology-gleanings-for-april-2012/#comment-271760 Dan Thu, 26 Apr 2012 19:56:20 +0000 http://blog.oup.com/?p=23912#comment-271760 I'm glad you mentioned split pea soup. (Should "split pea" be hyphenated?) "Pea" is a barbarism, a backformation based on the mistaken idea that "pease" was "peas," a plural noun. I've seen all sorts of complaints from language mavens about acceptance of errors debasing the language--no matter how long ago the usage became mainstream-- but never a peep about "pea." I’m glad you mentioned split pea soup. (Should “split pea” be hyphenated?) “Pea” is a barbarism, a backformation based on the mistaken idea that “pease” was “peas,” a plural noun. I’ve seen all sorts of complaints from language mavens about acceptance of errors debasing the language–no matter how long ago the usage became mainstream– but never a peep about “pea.”

]]> By: John Cowan http://blog.oup.com/2012/04/monthly-etymology-gleanings-for-april-2012/#comment-271550 John Cowan Wed, 25 Apr 2012 14:43:08 +0000 http://blog.oup.com/?p=23912#comment-271550 A horror? Not at all: it is emphatic. This is one of those cases where you want to get out that desk set someone gave you once, with the gold-plated pen and pencil and the nifty little tomahawk for splitting your infinitives. <i>Five foods never to eat</i> is stilted, <i>Five foods to eat never</i>, un-English. If you want to avoid splitting, you must go to <i>Five foods never to be eaten</i>. The sequence of tenses rule is more natural than you suggest, but it runs into problems around modal verbs, because it is only in sequence-of-tense situations that <i>would</i> is the preterite of <i>will</i>: for the most part, <i>would</i> and <i>will</i> are now distinct modals with distinct meanings. However, changing <i>he says he is going</i> into the preterite still demands <i>he said he was going</i>, for <i>he said he is going</i> can refer only to the future, not the future-in-the-past. A horror? Not at all: it is emphatic. This is one of those cases where you want to get out that desk set someone gave you once, with the gold-plated pen and pencil and the nifty little tomahawk for splitting your infinitives. Five foods never to eat is stilted, Five foods to eat never, un-English. If you want to avoid splitting, you must go to Five foods never to be eaten.

The sequence of tenses rule is more natural than you suggest, but it runs into problems around modal verbs, because it is only in sequence-of-tense situations that would is the preterite of will: for the most part, would and will are now distinct modals with distinct meanings. However, changing he says he is going into the preterite still demands he said he was going, for he said he is going can refer only to the future, not the future-in-the-past.

]]>