There are 13 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1.1. Re: Something for we to discuss!
From: R A Brown
1.2. Re: Something for we to discuss!
From: Leonardo Castro
1.3. Re: Something for we to discuss!
From: Roger Mills
1.4. Re: Something for we to discuss!
From: Eric Christopherson
1.5. Future subjunctive was Re: Something for we to discuss!
From: Padraic Brown
1.6. Re: Something for we to discuss!
From: C. Brickner
1.7. Re: Future subjunctive was Re: Something for we to discuss!
From: Padraic Brown
2a. Re: Spoken French Orthography (was Re: "Re: Colloquial French resour
From: Leonardo Castro
2b. Re: Spoken French Orthography (was Re: "Re: Colloquial French resour
From: R A Brown
3a. Does English actually have an infinitive? (was: Something for we to
From: R A Brown
3b. Re: Does English actually have an infinitive? (was: Something for we
From: R A Brown
3c. Re: Does English actually have an infinitive? (was: Something for we
From: MorphemeAddict
4. a Lingua Ignota lexicon glossed into English
From: Alex Fink
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1.1. Re: Something for we to discuss!
Posted by: "R A Brown" r...@carolandray.plus.com
Date: Fri Oct 4, 2013 6:49 am ((PDT))
On 04/10/2013 01:55, And Rosta wrote:
> [Replying to Eric and (mostly) Ray together:]
>
> R A Brown, On 03/10/2013 15:10:
>> On 03/10/2013 13:48, Eric Christopherson wrote:
>>> On Oct 3, 2013, at 6:48 AM, And Rosta wrote:
[snip]
>> So the traditional one of analyzing it as subjunctive
>> holds no weight?
>
> There's a prevalent attitude, which I don't mean to
> impute to you, that to name something is to analyse and
> understand it.
Is there? For me the naming is the result of analysis.
There has been a traditional analysis of English which
analyzes the forms I refer to as _subjunctive_, regarding as
relics of earlier use that have survived into the modern period.
I am fully aware that keeping traditional terms for the sake
of it is not a good idea. I do not go along with those who
once posited four noun cases for french, i.e.
Nom. le garçon
Gen. du garçon
Dat. au garçon
Acc. le garçon
That, to my mind, is nonsense, and I'm sure you will agree
on that point.
However, when there is obvious reason to use a different
terminology, i see no point in not using the traditional
one. I checked _subjunctive_ in Trask's "A Dictionary of
Grammatical Terms in Linguistics." Most of the entry, as
you would expect, concerns itself with other languages,
especially European ones. He ends his entry thus:
{quote}
English has lost the morphological subjunctive which it once
had, but the term is still sometimes applied to certain
distinct forms occurring in North American speech and in
formal varieties of British English: _if I [were} you ...; I
suggest she [do] it; I recommend this [be] done_.
{/quote}
He does not say what an alternative analysis might be. I
see these as remnants of the subjunctive.
[snip]
>>
>> All _finite_ verbs generally have a subject (there are
>> languages that have special impersonal forms for
>> finite verbs as well). It is, however, not the the
>> norm for infinitives to have subjects or, if they do,
>> the subject is often in some oblique form, e.g. Latin
>> accusative and infinitive construction.
>
> I meant: "In English, all verbs have subjects".
OK - assuming this so (and I have reservations about the
infinitive), I will allow that only _finite_ verbs have
subjects expressed with nominative of pronouns (i.e., I, he,
she, we etc).
The non-finite form ending in -ing, traditionally named
either 'participle' or 'gerund' according to function, have
their subjects expressed either by an objective form or
possessive, e.g.
me going ~ my going.
Yes, I know there is, in theory, a difference in meaning
between "He did not like me going there" and "He did not
like my going there", but in practice the two are understood
to mean the same.
(One might also question whether, in English, we should
distinguish between 'present participle' and gerund; but
that is another argument).
> I'm skeptical about our ability, given our current state
> of knowledge, to generalize intelligently across
> languages on matter to do with their actual syntactic
> mechanisms. (That is, we don't even understand the rules
> that define individual languages, so it is nonsensical to
> try to generalize across languages' defining rules. That
> doesn't preclude generalizing across language's surface
> behaviour, as linguistic typology does.)
Exactly - I do not disagree with any of that. But if you
label a form as "infinitive" in English then IMO one should
expect it exhibit roughly similar behavior to what is called
an infinitive in other languages, otherwise we end up with
confusion as, for example, the use of 'aorist' to denote
quite different things in different languages.
There may well be a case for re-analyzing the use of the
unmarked verb form in English generally. In which case
"infinitive" will probably not be the best term for this.
>>>> I suspect that this construction involves a silent
>>>> auxiliary:
>>>>
>>>> "It is necessary that [do] I be there on time"
>>>
>>> What is your reason for putting [do] before the
>>> subject -- rather than "It is necessary that I [do]
>>> be there on time"?
>
> It's not vital to the point at issue. In my view, "I do
> verb" involves raising "I" from a structure "do [I verb]"
> (where the small clause "I verb" is object of "do").
> Thus "I do verb" is more complex than "do I verb".
> Occam's razor favours the less complex analysis.
>
>> Indeed "It is necessary that do I be there on time"
>> sounds to me distinctly _ungrammatical_.
>
> That's unsurprising, since the auxiliary is not silent.
You invoked Occam's razor to support your contention that
"be" is infinitive in all circumstances. However, you now
posit the existence of a _silent_ auxiliary verb! That's
hardly applying Occam's razor.
[snip]
>>
>> I see problems in labeling it as an infinitive since,
>> among other things, whether you like it or not, the
>> past form of 'be" is "were", cf. "If it be true that
>> ....., then surely Chris would tell us."
>>
>> "If it were true that ...., then surely Chris would
>> have told us."
>>
>> If, as you argue, "If it be true .." is short for "If
>> do it be true ....", then are we to assume that 'were'
>> is a past infinitive and that "If it were true ..." is
>> short for "If did it were true ...."?
>
> Any analysis must of course state (explicitly or
> implicitly) which dialect it is an analysis of. I was
> assuming that we were discussing contemporary English and
> that "if it be true" does not occur in contemporary E;
It does. It is the form I habitually use; I know other
people who use it. OK - according to Trask our speech is
formal rather than colloquial, but it is still used in
contemporary British English. But more to the point, you
appear to be writing of the English of North America! As
Trask observed, these forms do occur in North American
(non-formal) speech.
Also, surely, "It is necessary that I be there on time" (the
sentence that began the current revival of this thread) is
only likely to be said by those who use forms such as "If it
be so, ...". Those who say "If it is so, ..." are more
likely IMO to say "It is necessary for me to be there on time."
Umm - "I" = "for me to"??? Not convinced ;)
[snip].
>
> So I'd agree that in "if it be", the only auxiliary/verb
> present is _be_. On the assumption that it is the
> presence of a syntactic element "Tense" that triggers the
>
[etc. snipped. Difficult to follow the snipped stuff. It
doesn't seem to be getting anywhere.]
[snip]
>>
>> Except, of course, that we know diachronically it was
>> evolved from earlier subjunctive forms. It is not
>> exactly uncommon for relics of earlier constructions to
>> survive in languages.
>
> As you of course know, diachronic analysis and synchronic
> analysis are both interesting and important objects of
> study, but they're completely different in their purposes
> and in their nature.
They are different, but they interact IMHO.
> I do only synchronic analysis,
Isn't that rather like analyzing the present state of say,
the Middle East, without paying any attention to its past
history?
> and I agree that for a diachronic analysis it is likely
> to be insightful to identify a subjunctive construction
> that continues into contemporary English.
Thank you.
--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Frustra fit per plura quod potest
fieri per pauciora.
[William of Ockham]
Messages in this topic (56)
________________________________________________________________________
1.2. Re: Something for we to discuss!
Posted by: "Leonardo Castro" leolucas1...@gmail.com
Date: Fri Oct 4, 2013 7:23 am ((PDT))
This choice between infinitive and subjunctive reminds that, in an
e-mail conversation, Justin B. Rye once pointed out that Portuguese
personal infinitives look like subjunctives.
I wonder why they couldn't be referred to as "infinitive
subjunctives". This would explain why people usually interchange
personal infinitives and future subjunctives in spoken Portuguese:
"As soon as I do that, you shall leave."
"Assim que eu fizer isso, você deverá sair." (future subjunctive; the
"right" form)
"Assim que eu fazer isso, você deve sair." (personal infinitive; colloquial)
For most verbs, these two forms are equal (just like in English), what
collaborates for the confusion.
Até mais!
Leonardo
2013/10/4 R A Brown <r...@carolandray.plus.com>:
> On 04/10/2013 01:55, And Rosta wrote:
>>
>> [Replying to Eric and (mostly) Ray together:]
>>
>> R A Brown, On 03/10/2013 15:10:
>>>
>>> On 03/10/2013 13:48, Eric Christopherson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 3, 2013, at 6:48 AM, And Rosta wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> So the traditional one of analyzing it as subjunctive
>>> holds no weight?
>>
>>
>> There's a prevalent attitude, which I don't mean to
>> impute to you, that to name something is to analyse and
>> understand it.
>
>
> Is there? For me the naming is the result of analysis.
> There has been a traditional analysis of English which
> analyzes the forms I refer to as _subjunctive_, regarding as
> relics of earlier use that have survived into the modern period.
>
> I am fully aware that keeping traditional terms for the sake
> of it is not a good idea. I do not go along with those who
> once posited four noun cases for french, i.e.
> Nom. le garçon
> Gen. du garçon
> Dat. au garçon
> Acc. le garçon
>
> That, to my mind, is nonsense, and I'm sure you will agree
> on that point.
>
> However, when there is obvious reason to use a different
> terminology, i see no point in not using the traditional
> one. I checked _subjunctive_ in Trask's "A Dictionary of
> Grammatical Terms in Linguistics." Most of the entry, as
> you would expect, concerns itself with other languages,
> especially European ones. He ends his entry thus:
> {quote}
> English has lost the morphological subjunctive which it once
> had, but the term is still sometimes applied to certain
> distinct forms occurring in North American speech and in
> formal varieties of British English: _if I [were} you ...; I
> suggest she [do] it; I recommend this [be] done_.
> {/quote}
>
> He does not say what an alternative analysis might be. I
> see these as remnants of the subjunctive.
>
> [snip]
>
>>>
>>> All _finite_ verbs generally have a subject (there are
>>> languages that have special impersonal forms for
>>> finite verbs as well). It is, however, not the the
>>> norm for infinitives to have subjects or, if they do,
>>> the subject is often in some oblique form, e.g. Latin
>>> accusative and infinitive construction.
>>
>>
>> I meant: "In English, all verbs have subjects".
>
>
> OK - assuming this so (and I have reservations about the
> infinitive), I will allow that only _finite_ verbs have
> subjects expressed with nominative of pronouns (i.e., I, he,
> she, we etc).
>
> The non-finite form ending in -ing, traditionally named
> either 'participle' or 'gerund' according to function, have
> their subjects expressed either by an objective form or
> possessive, e.g.
> me going ~ my going.
>
> Yes, I know there is, in theory, a difference in meaning
> between "He did not like me going there" and "He did not
> like my going there", but in practice the two are understood
> to mean the same.
>
> (One might also question whether, in English, we should
> distinguish between 'present participle' and gerund; but
> that is another argument).
>
>
>> I'm skeptical about our ability, given our current state
>> of knowledge, to generalize intelligently across
>> languages on matter to do with their actual syntactic
>> mechanisms. (That is, we don't even understand the rules
>> that define individual languages, so it is nonsensical to
>> try to generalize across languages' defining rules. That
>> doesn't preclude generalizing across language's surface
>> behaviour, as linguistic typology does.)
>
>
> Exactly - I do not disagree with any of that. But if you
> label a form as "infinitive" in English then IMO one should
> expect it exhibit roughly similar behavior to what is called
> an infinitive in other languages, otherwise we end up with
> confusion as, for example, the use of 'aorist' to denote
> quite different things in different languages.
>
> There may well be a case for re-analyzing the use of the
> unmarked verb form in English generally. In which case
> "infinitive" will probably not be the best term for this.
>
>
>>>>> I suspect that this construction involves a silent
>>>>> auxiliary:
>>>>>
>>>>> "It is necessary that [do] I be there on time"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What is your reason for putting [do] before the
>>>> subject -- rather than "It is necessary that I [do]
>>>> be there on time"?
>>
>>
>> It's not vital to the point at issue. In my view, "I do
>> verb" involves raising "I" from a structure "do [I verb]"
>> (where the small clause "I verb" is object of "do").
>> Thus "I do verb" is more complex than "do I verb".
>> Occam's razor favours the less complex analysis.
>>
>>> Indeed "It is necessary that do I be there on time"
>>> sounds to me distinctly _ungrammatical_.
>>
>>
>> That's unsurprising, since the auxiliary is not silent.
>
>
> You invoked Occam's razor to support your contention that
> "be" is infinitive in all circumstances. However, you now
> posit the existence of a _silent_ auxiliary verb! That's
> hardly applying Occam's razor.
>
> [snip]
>
>>>
>>> I see problems in labeling it as an infinitive since,
>>> among other things, whether you like it or not, the
>>> past form of 'be" is "were", cf. "If it be true that
>>> ....., then surely Chris would tell us."
>>>
>>> "If it were true that ...., then surely Chris would
>>> have told us."
>>>
>>> If, as you argue, "If it be true .." is short for "If
>>> do it be true ....", then are we to assume that 'were'
>>> is a past infinitive and that "If it were true ..." is
>>> short for "If did it were true ...."?
>>
>>
>> Any analysis must of course state (explicitly or
>> implicitly) which dialect it is an analysis of. I was
>> assuming that we were discussing contemporary English and
>> that "if it be true" does not occur in contemporary E;
>
>
> It does. It is the form I habitually use; I know other
> people who use it. OK - according to Trask our speech is
> formal rather than colloquial, but it is still used in
> contemporary British English. But more to the point, you
> appear to be writing of the English of North America! As
> Trask observed, these forms do occur in North American (non-formal) speech.
>
> Also, surely, "It is necessary that I be there on time" (the
> sentence that began the current revival of this thread) is
> only likely to be said by those who use forms such as "If it
> be so, ...". Those who say "If it is so, ..." are more
> likely IMO to say "It is necessary for me to be there on time."
>
> Umm - "I" = "for me to"??? Not convinced ;)
>
> [snip].
>
>>
>> So I'd agree that in "if it be", the only auxiliary/verb
>> present is _be_. On the assumption that it is the
>> presence of a syntactic element "Tense" that triggers the
>>
> [etc. snipped. Difficult to follow the snipped stuff. It
> doesn't seem to be getting anywhere.]
> [snip]
>
>>>
>>> Except, of course, that we know diachronically it was
>>> evolved from earlier subjunctive forms. It is not
>>> exactly uncommon for relics of earlier constructions to
>>> survive in languages.
>>
>>
>> As you of course know, diachronic analysis and synchronic
>> analysis are both interesting and important objects of
>> study, but they're completely different in their purposes
>> and in their nature.
>
>
> They are different, but they interact IMHO.
>
>
>> I do only synchronic analysis,
>
>
> Isn't that rather like analyzing the present state of say,
> the Middle East, without paying any attention to its past
> history?
>
>
>> and I agree that for a diachronic analysis it is likely
>> to be insightful to identify a subjunctive construction
>> that continues into contemporary English.
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
> --
> Ray
> ==================================
> http://www.carolandray.plus.com
> ==================================
> Frustra fit per plura quod potest
> fieri per pauciora.
> [William of Ockham]
Messages in this topic (56)
________________________________________________________________________
1.3. Re: Something for we to discuss!
Posted by: "Roger Mills" romi...@yahoo.com
Date: Fri Oct 4, 2013 8:08 am ((PDT))
I agree mostly with Ray here. My own speech is probably a little more pedantic
than most N.Americans', but I don't say "if SUBJ be..." -- I'd paraphrase it in
some way. But I would use the old pres.subj. of be etc. after verbs of
ordering, demanding, etc. And of course I use the past subj. of "be" in
contrary-to-fact statements et al......
Speaking of dead subjunctives-- official Spanish grammars cite a "future subj."
that I've never encountered in any _literary_ or even historical text, but did
encounter _once_ in a legal document that I was asked to help
translate........Can't recall the shape of the forms offhand; I'd have to dig
out my old Real Academia grammar..........It's not given in most textbooks
aimed at learners.
Uh-oh, TAEGT on the way :-(((((
________________________________
From: R A Brown <r...@carolandray.plus.com>
To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
Sent: Friday, October 4, 2013 9:49 AM
Subject: Re: Something for we to discuss!
On 04/10/2013 01:55, And Rosta wrote:
> [Replying to Eric and (mostly) Ray together:]
>
> R A Brown, On 03/10/2013 15:10:
>> On 03/10/2013 13:48, Eric Christopherson wrote:
>>> On Oct 3, 2013, at 6:48 AM, And Rosta wrote:
[snip]
>> So the traditional one of analyzing it as subjunctive
>> holds no weight?
>
> There's a prevalent attitude, which I don't mean to
> impute to you, that to name something is to analyse and
> understand it.
Is there? For me the naming is the result of analysis.
There has been a traditional analysis of English which
analyzes the forms I refer to as _subjunctive_, regarding as
relics of earlier use that have survived into the modern period.
I am fully aware that keeping traditional terms for the sake
of it is not a good idea. I do not go along with those who
once posited four noun cases for french, i.e.
Nom. le garçon
Gen. du garçon
Dat. au garçon
Acc. le garçon
That, to my mind, is nonsense, and I'm sure you will agree
on that point.
However, when there is obvious reason to use a different
terminology, i see no point in not using the traditional
one. I checked _subjunctive_ in Trask's "A Dictionary of
Grammatical Terms in Linguistics." Most of the entry, as
you would expect, concerns itself with other languages,
especially European ones. He ends his entry thus:
{quote}
English has lost the morphological subjunctive which it once
had, but the term is still sometimes applied to certain
distinct forms occurring in North American speech and in
formal varieties of British English: _if I [were} you ...; I
suggest she [do] it; I recommend this [be] done_.
{/quote}
He does not say what an alternative analysis might be. I
see these as remnants of the subjunctive.
[snip]
>>
>> All _finite_ verbs generally have a subject (there are
>> languages that have special impersonal forms for
>> finite verbs as well). It is, however, not the the
>> norm for infinitives to have subjects or, if they do,
>> the subject is often in some oblique form, e.g. Latin
>> accusative and infinitive construction.
>
> I meant: "In English, all verbs have subjects".
OK - assuming this so (and I have reservations about the
infinitive), I will allow that only _finite_ verbs have
subjects expressed with nominative of pronouns (i.e., I, he,
she, we etc).
The non-finite form ending in -ing, traditionally named
either 'participle' or 'gerund' according to function, have
their subjects expressed either by an objective form or
possessive, e.g.
me going ~ my going.
Yes, I know there is, in theory, a difference in meaning
between "He did not like me going there" and "He did not
like my going there", but in practice the two are understood
to mean the same.
(One might also question whether, in English, we should
distinguish between 'present participle' and gerund; but
that is another argument).
> I'm skeptical about our ability, given our current state
> of knowledge, to generalize intelligently across
> languages on matter to do with their actual syntactic
> mechanisms. (That is, we don't even understand the rules
> that define individual languages, so it is nonsensical to
> try to generalize across languages' defining rules. That
> doesn't preclude generalizing across language's surface
> behaviour, as linguistic typology does.)
Exactly - I do not disagree with any of that. But if you
label a form as "infinitive" in English then IMO one should
expect it exhibit roughly similar behavior to what is called
an infinitive in other languages, otherwise we end up with
confusion as, for example, the use of 'aorist' to denote
quite different things in different languages.
There may well be a case for re-analyzing the use of the
unmarked verb form in English generally. In which case
"infinitive" will probably not be the best term for this.
>>>> I suspect that this construction involves a silent
>>>> auxiliary:
>>>>
>>>> "It is necessary that [do] I be there on time"
>>>
>>> What is your reason for putting [do] before the
>>> subject -- rather than "It is necessary that I [do]
>>> be there on time"?
>
> It's not vital to the point at issue. In my view, "I do
> verb" involves raising "I" from a structure "do [I verb]"
> (where the small clause "I verb" is object of "do").
> Thus "I do verb" is more complex than "do I verb".
> Occam's razor favours the less complex analysis.
>
>> Indeed "It is necessary that do I be there on time"
>> sounds to me distinctly _ungrammatical_.
>
> That's unsurprising, since the auxiliary is not silent.
You invoked Occam's razor to support your contention that
"be" is infinitive in all circumstances. However, you now
posit the existence of a _silent_ auxiliary verb! That's
hardly applying Occam's razor.
[snip]
>>
>> I see problems in labeling it as an infinitive since,
>> among other things, whether you like it or not, the
>> past form of 'be" is "were", cf. "If it be true that
>> ....., then surely Chris would tell us."
>>
>> "If it were true that ...., then surely Chris would
>> have told us."
>>
>> If, as you argue, "If it be true .." is short for "If
>> do it be true ....", then are we to assume that 'were'
>> is a past infinitive and that "If it were true ..." is
>> short for "If did it were true ...."?
>
> Any analysis must of course state (explicitly or
> implicitly) which dialect it is an analysis of. I was
> assuming that we were discussing contemporary English and
> that "if it be true" does not occur in contemporary E;
It does. It is the form I habitually use; I know other
people who use it. OK - according to Trask our speech is
formal rather than colloquial, but it is still used in
contemporary British English. But more to the point, you
appear to be writing of the English of North America! As
Trask observed, these forms do occur in North American
(non-formal) speech.
Also, surely, "It is necessary that I be there on time" (the
sentence that began the current revival of this thread) is
only likely to be said by those who use forms such as "If it
be so, ...". Those who say "If it is so, ..." are more
likely IMO to say "It is necessary for me to be there on time."
Umm - "I" = "for me to"??? Not convinced ;)
[snip].
>
> So I'd agree that in "if it be", the only auxiliary/verb
> present is _be_. On the assumption that it is the
> presence of a syntactic element "Tense" that triggers the
>
[etc. snipped. Difficult to follow the snipped stuff. It
doesn't seem to be getting anywhere.]
[snip]
>>
>> Except, of course, that we know diachronically it was
>> evolved from earlier subjunctive forms. It is not
>> exactly uncommon for relics of earlier constructions to
>> survive in languages.
>
> As you of course know, diachronic analysis and synchronic
> analysis are both interesting and important objects of
> study, but they're completely different in their purposes
> and in their nature.
They are different, but they interact IMHO.
> I do only synchronic analysis,
Isn't that rather like analyzing the present state of say,
the Middle East, without paying any attention to its past
history?
> and I agree that for a diachronic analysis it is likely
> to be insightful to identify a subjunctive construction
> that continues into contemporary English.
Thank you.
--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Frustra fit per plura quod potest
fieri per pauciora.
[William of Ockham]
Messages in this topic (56)
________________________________________________________________________
1.4. Re: Something for we to discuss!
Posted by: "Eric Christopherson" ra...@charter.net
Date: Fri Oct 4, 2013 10:00 am ((PDT))
On Oct 4, 2013, at 8:49 AM, R A Brown <r...@carolandray.plus.com> wrote:
> On 04/10/2013 01:55, And Rosta wrote:
>> Any analysis must of course state (explicitly or
>> implicitly) which dialect it is an analysis of. I was
>> assuming that we were discussing contemporary English and
>> that "if it be true" does not occur in contemporary E;
>
> It does. It is the form I habitually use; I know other
> people who use it. OK - according to Trask our speech is
> formal rather than colloquial, but it is still used in
> contemporary British English. But more to the point, you
> appear to be writing of the English of North America! As
> Trask observed, these forms do occur in North American (non-formal) speech.
That part of the Trask quote surprised me; I fell into the trap of thinking
that more conservative and more "formal"-sounding things are more prevalent in
the UK ;)
>
> Also, surely, "It is necessary that I be there on time" (the
> sentence that began the current revival of this thread) is
> only likely to be said by those who use forms such as "If it
> be so, ...". Those who say "If it is so, ..." are more
> likely IMO to say "It is necessary for me to be there on time."
I have heard plenty of American people say "if I were" (and also many people
who say "if I was"), but I almost never hear _if_ + subject + present
subjunctive, e.g. "if it be". The exception I can think of are courtroom speak
(e.g. "if it please the court"), and I assume other species of legalese.
If we expanded the topic of discourse here to the _if_less conditional
construction with inverted verb and subject (whatever that's called), the set
phrase "be that as it may" would also qualify.
For whatever reason, "if it be so" to me seems to strongly imply that "it" *is*
or *will be* so, and the speaker's resigned to that fact.
Messages in this topic (56)
________________________________________________________________________
1.5. Future subjunctive was Re: Something for we to discuss!
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" elemti...@yahoo.com
Date: Fri Oct 4, 2013 10:28 am ((PDT))
> Speaking of dead subjunctives-- official Spanish grammars cite a "future
> subj." that I've never encountered in any _literary_ or even historical
> text, but did encounter _once_ in a legal document that I was asked to help
> translate........Can't recall the shape of the forms offhand; I'd have
> to dig out my old Real Academia grammar..........It's not given in most
> textbooks aimed at learners.
I recall learning it. The example I recall was "Si fueres a Roma, haz lo que
vieres"
As for the conjugation: fuere, fueres, fuere, fuéremos, fuereis, fueren.
Padraic
Messages in this topic (56)
________________________________________________________________________
1.6. Re: Something for we to discuss!
Posted by: "C. Brickner" tepeyach...@embarqmail.com
Date: Fri Oct 4, 2013 10:29 am ((PDT))
Just to add my own 2¢: I always talk in the formal register, unless Iâm
consciously imitating another register. No one has ever given me any grief
about it. I just find it more satisfying. And I prefer the construction
âwere I ....â to âif I were....â.
Charlie
----- Original Message -----
On Oct 4, 2013, at 8:49 AM, R A Brown <r...@carolandray.plus.com> wrote:
> On 04/10/2013 01:55, And Rosta wrote:
>> Any analysis must of course state (explicitly or
>> implicitly) which dialect it is an analysis of. I was
>> assuming that we were discussing contemporary English and
>> that "if it be true" does not occur in contemporary E;
>
> It does. It is the form I habitually use; I know other
> people who use it. OK - according to Trask our speech is
> formal rather than colloquial, but it is still used in
> contemporary British English. But more to the point, you
> appear to be writing of the English of North America! As
> Trask observed, these forms do occur in North American (non-formal) speech.
That part of the Trask quote surprised me; I fell into the trap of thinking
that more conservative and more "formal"-sounding things are more prevalent in
the UK ;)
>
> Also, surely, "It is necessary that I be there on time" (the
> sentence that began the current revival of this thread) is
> only likely to be said by those who use forms such as "If it
> be so, ...". Those who say "If it is so, ..." are more
> likely IMO to say "It is necessary for me to be there on time."
I have heard plenty of American people say "if I were" (and also many people
who say "if I was"), but I almost never hear _if_ + subject + present
subjunctive, e.g. "if it be". The exception I can think of are courtroom speak
(e.g. "if it please the court"), and I assume other species of legalese.
If we expanded the topic of discourse here to the _if_less conditional
construction with inverted verb and subject (whatever that's called), the set
phrase "be that as it may" would also qualify.
For whatever reason, "if it be so" to me seems to strongly imply that "it" *is*
or *will be* so, and the speaker's resigned to that fact.
Messages in this topic (56)
________________________________________________________________________
1.7. Re: Future subjunctive was Re: Something for we to discuss!
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" elemti...@yahoo.com
Date: Fri Oct 4, 2013 2:52 pm ((PDT))
David wrote:
> Indeed.
A Spanish guy once told me that "Spanish is very difficult for
foreigners to learn,
> because of the future subjunctive. Even I don't
know how to use it."
> The only time I ever met it, was in books by some historical romance
author, who used many
> archaisms (like putting weak personal pronouns
after the conjugated verb: "Hablole" --
> "He spoke to him" --- in normal
Spanish it would be "Le habló").
I always liked that hablole construction. I recall learning that the personal
pronouns can be
added to a gerund (hablandole) and imperative even in modern Spanish. I see it
in older Spanish,
perhaps into the 17th century, and I've read that it was not uncommon in 19th
century literature.
And then, it crops up in modern Spanish as well, if I understand right: "EL
primer sustu distemelo
al decir hace 27 años que te conocí"
(http://www.ciao.es/Mi_pareja__Opinion_568430)
And: "Vaya soso eres hijo, dijisteme Kirsten Dunst, no Kristen Stewart"
(https://twitter.com/MartaCeu/statuses/196540382216073217)
And this: "En Asturias es de uso común la colocación del complemento tras el
verbo;
lo usan a diario
y aunque suene a renacentista todos lo entendemos. En
el resto de España ese uso no es común."
Leonardo Castro <leolucas1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Still alive in Portuguese:
>
> "Se fores a Roma, faz como vires." (tu)
> "Se for a Roma, faça como vir." (você)
>
> = "Em Roma, faça como os romanos." (more common)
>
>> As for the conjugation: fuere, fueres, fuere, fuéremos, fuereis, fueren.
>
> for, fores, for, formos, fordes, forem
Neat. Does Ptg. regularly keep the dental in the 2pl (where Spanish has
lost it)?
Padraic
Messages in this topic (56)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: Spoken French Orthography (was Re: "Re: Colloquial French resour
Posted by: "Leonardo Castro" leolucas1...@gmail.com
Date: Fri Oct 4, 2013 9:50 am ((PDT))
2013/10/3 Leonardo Castro <leolucas1...@gmail.com>:
> BTW, aren't already there spontaneous orthographies for Spoken French
> in informal texts such as in web chats?
Just found:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langage_SMS
>
> Até mais!
>
> Leonardo
Messages in this topic (22)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: Spoken French Orthography (was Re: "Re: Colloquial French resour
Posted by: "R A Brown" r...@carolandray.plus.com
Date: Fri Oct 4, 2013 1:05 pm ((PDT))
On 04/10/2013 13:04, Leonardo Castro wrote:
> 2013/10/3 BPJ:
>> 2013-10-03 17:05, Leonardo Castro skrev:
>>
>>> Unless you want something completely phonemic (and
>>> then it's not a matter of creating an orthography
>>> for Spoken French but of reforming the spelling of
>>> French),
>>
>> Why? Spoken French has a phonology, surely?
>
> I was considering that y'all were taking into account
> the practical viability of the proposal, so there would
> be a different propaganda strategy adequate to each
> case.
I don't understand this reply, but I'm darn sure it does
answer BPJ's question. Spoken French (I use the term as
defined by Christophe) most surely has a phonology. So why
on earth would giving Spoken French a phonemic orthography
not be creating an orthography for Spoken French but would
amount to the reform of the spelling of [Written] French?
BPJ did not understand this, and neither do I.
I think Christophe has made it clear that he is not
referring to colloquial and formal forms of the language as
might, for example, be implied if we spoke of spoken and
written English. The difference between Spoken French and
Written French (note the capitals, as Christophe said) is
more akin to that between Classical Latin and Vulgar Latin.
Therefore:
- I can see no way that an orthography for reflecting the
phonology of Spoken French can possibly be a spelling reform
of Written French.
- I do not understand how a phonemic orthography for Spoken
French cannot be a matter of creating an orthography for
Spoken French!
> If you want to create an orthography for Spoken French
> that French people will have some familiarity with, you
> must create something similar to what already exists.
If you do that, the result will be something that looks like
"bad spelling" and that will only confirm the opinion of
those who deny that Spoken French really exists or
characterize it as "bad French."
> OTOH, if you want a phonemic script, you need first to
> convince people that it's worth changing from what they
> are used to to something that is more logical.
By people, do you mean French people? It ain't going to
happen. Anymore than people have been able to persuade
anglophones to adopt spelling reform of English - and
goodness knows, there are more than enough proposed spelling
reform around for us to choose one! Indeed. created a few
during my teens :)
Also I know from experience that French people tend to take
a very proprietorial attitude towards their language. I
recall way back in the 1960s some guy in France (I think he
was a government minister) proposed changing all those odd
plurals in -x to -s in line with all the rest - a very
sensible reform, I thought. But a French colleague went
almost berserk at the very idea. The plural -x in words
like beaux, châteaux, chevaux, cheveux etc were part of the
language! to change it would be an assault on the French
language!
Fortunately, we have a somewhat more enlightened francophone
on this list :)
So let us put aside the whole question of French spelling
reform, except as a private exercise for fun.
[snip]
>
> Nonetheless, AFAIK, one of the main reasons to do a
> spelling reforms is the acceptance that the present
> orthography no more represent the living language.
It is not, as Christophe has pointed out, just that the
standard French orthography does not represent Spoken
French; it is also that the _grammar_ of Written French does
not reflect the grammar of Spoken French.
> If people accept that the "Spoken French" is the real
> living language and that it's the variety that is worth
> studying in primary school, I see little reason for not
> to declare the "Written French" as archaic and adopt the
> Spoken French orthography as the official orthography of
> Modern French.
We may declare this. It will make not one gramme of
difference in la Francophonie.
This thread began when Christophe remarked that in the
examples he gave we were not getting the full flavor because
he was adhering more or less to traditional French
orthography. He wondered if he could use IPA (Why not, I
ask myself).
Matthew Gurevitch suggested making an orthography for
_Spoken French_.
This IMNSHO can only properly be done by those who are
familiar with Spoken French, not by the majority of us who
learnt "Text Book" French at school. The result might give
a standard we could use on Conlang. It might find a wider
acceptance.
But let us not confound the issue by thinking the French as
a whole are more susceptible to spelling reform than
anglophones are. Let's get real.
[snip]
--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Frustra fit per plura quod potest
fieri per pauciora.
[William of Ockham]
Messages in this topic (22)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Does English actually have an infinitive? (was: Something for we to
Posted by: "R A Brown" r...@carolandray.plus.com
Date: Fri Oct 4, 2013 12:17 pm ((PDT))
The "Something for we to discus!" thread was revived when
Leonardo asked about the sentence ""It is necessary that I
be there on time."
Although I disagree with And's analysis - at least, as it
stands at the moment - some interesting points have arisen
in the exchange. I refer you two the two excerpts below:
AND:
{quote}
... in the analysis of English we need the notion "a verb's
inflectional form consisting of only the bare stem", for
which we may elect to use the term 'infinitive' (in which
case, "if it be" contains an infinitive), or for which we
may elect not to use the term 'infinitive', so as not to sow
confusion by using the term in a broader way than it is
traditionally applied; but I don't think we need to label
the notion traditionally expressed by the term 'infinitive'.
{unquote}
ME:
{quote}
Exactly - I do not disagree with any of that. But if you
label a form as "infinitive" in English then IMO one should
expect it exhibit roughly similar behavior to what is called
an infinitive in other languages, otherwise we end up with
confusion as, for example, the use of 'aorist' to denote
quite different things in different languages.
There may well be a case for re-analyzing the use of the
unmarked verb form in English generally. In which case
"infinitive" will probably not be the best term for this.
{unquote}
On reflexion, there seems to be emerging some sort of
agreement here :)
I think the difficulty that And got into that necessitated
positing an unpronounced auxiliary was because he was taking
"be" as an infinitive. I, following the traditional
explanation took it as a survival of the subjunctive, and
And questioned whether this was sufficient evidence for
subjunctive in English. It was out of this that the two
quotes above arose.
Now, dear readers, you must surely notice two things from
those quotes:
1. We are both coming to agree that a better analysis for
English is to have a term for "a verb's inflectional form
consisting of only the bare stem"; I guess this is an
example of our both applying William of Ockam's razor ;)
2. And has written "for which we may elect not to use the
term 'infinitive', so as not to sow confusion by using the
term in a broader way than it is traditionally applied"; and
I wrote "In which case 'infinitive' will probably not be the
best term for this."
This has got me asking myself: Does English really have an
infinitive? Many languages, after all, do not.
It struck me as odd many, many years ago when I learnt at
school that English had a "short infinitive" (e.g. I can
_go_), and a "long infinitive" (I want _to go_).
Does the average anglophone in fact think of "go" in these
sentences as different things?
I can go with you tomorrow.
I want to go now.
I go to the gym twice a week.
I think not. What do we call "go"? The cop-out, I guess,
would be simply to use "aorist" which, as Trask has
observed, is a "conventional label used in a highly variable
manner among specialists in particular languages to denote
some particular verb form or set of verb forms."
But this IMO is not satisfactory. So what do we call it?
Of course, the verb "to be" doesn't fit so neatly. But that
is always going to be an odd ball, e.g. it is the only verb
in English that differentiates number (sort of*) in the
preterite: was ~ were.
*I say sort of, because when as a youngster I was taught
that "was" is singular and "were" is plural, I said "you
was" if talking to one person and "you were" if to more than
one - only, of course, to get corrected and told to use
"were" whether 'you' is one or many! (In the colloquial
Sussex dialect the preterite is the invariable "was").
Also, of course, it alone has a special 1st singular for
"am", etc, etc. So I think for the moment we can ignore "to
be", as that will have to be treated as a special case for
all sorts of reasons.
--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Frustra fit per plura quod potest
fieri per pauciora.
[William of Ockham]
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
3b. Re: Does English actually have an infinitive? (was: Something for we
Posted by: "R A Brown" r...@carolandray.plus.com
Date: Sat Oct 5, 2013 2:24 am ((PDT))
On 04/10/2013 20:17, R A Brown wrote:
[snip]
> Does the average anglophone in fact think of "go" in
> these sentences as different things? I can go with you
> tomorrow. I want to go now. I go to the gym twice a
> week.
>
> I think not. What do we call "go"? The cop-out, I
> guess, would be simply to use "aorist" which, as Trask
> has observed, is a "conventional label used in a highly
> variable manner among specialists in particular languages
> to denote some particular verb form or set of verb
> forms."
>
> But this IMO is not satisfactory. So what do we call
> it?
On further searching, I find that Trask refers to this as
the _base form_ (or simply _base_). This is probably as
good any name to call it. What we have is morphologically a
single base form with various grammatical uses.
> Of course, the verb "to be" doesn't fit so neatly.
[snip]
Indeed not - corresponding to the single base form of all
other verbs, "to be" has: am, are, be. When we stick -(e)s
onto the base form we get _is_! I suppose one could add
when we stick -(e)st on to the base we get _art_ ;)
But clearly the "be" variant is not necessarily an
infinitive (whose existence in English I have questioned);
it is used, e.g. with an imperative function, e.g.
Be quiet!
--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Frustra fit per plura quod potest
fieri per pauciora.
[William of Ockham]
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
3c. Re: Does English actually have an infinitive? (was: Something for we
Posted by: "MorphemeAddict" lytl...@gmail.com
Date: Sat Oct 5, 2013 3:39 am ((PDT))
In some of my transformational grammar books, "to be" is considered not to
be a verb at all, due to its unique and idiosyncratic behavior. It's just
"be".
stevo
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 3:17 PM, R A Brown <r...@carolandray.plus.com> wrote:
> The "Something for we to discus!" thread was revived when
> Leonardo asked about the sentence ""It is necessary that I
> be there on time."
>
> Although I disagree with And's analysis - at least, as it
> stands at the moment - some interesting points have arisen
> in the exchange. I refer you two the two excerpts below:
>
> AND:
> {quote}
> ... in the analysis of English we need the notion "a verb's
> inflectional form consisting of only the bare stem", for
> which we may elect to use the term 'infinitive' (in which
> case, "if it be" contains an infinitive), or for which we
> may elect not to use the term 'infinitive', so as not to sow
> confusion by using the term in a broader way than it is
> traditionally applied; but I don't think we need to label
> the notion traditionally expressed by the term 'infinitive'.
> {unquote}
>
> ME:
> {quote}
> Exactly - I do not disagree with any of that. But if you
> label a form as "infinitive" in English then IMO one should
> expect it exhibit roughly similar behavior to what is called
> an infinitive in other languages, otherwise we end up with
> confusion as, for example, the use of 'aorist' to denote
> quite different things in different languages.
>
> There may well be a case for re-analyzing the use of the
> unmarked verb form in English generally. In which case
> "infinitive" will probably not be the best term for this.
> {unquote}
>
> On reflexion, there seems to be emerging some sort of
> agreement here :)
>
> I think the difficulty that And got into that necessitated
> positing an unpronounced auxiliary was because he was taking
> "be" as an infinitive. I, following the traditional
> explanation took it as a survival of the subjunctive, and
> And questioned whether this was sufficient evidence for
> subjunctive in English. It was out of this that the two
> quotes above arose.
>
> Now, dear readers, you must surely notice two things from
> those quotes:
>
> 1. We are both coming to agree that a better analysis for
> English is to have a term for "a verb's inflectional form
> consisting of only the bare stem"; I guess this is an
> example of our both applying William of Ockam's razor ;)
>
> 2. And has written "for which we may elect not to use the
> term 'infinitive', so as not to sow confusion by using the
> term in a broader way than it is traditionally applied"; and
> I wrote "In which case 'infinitive' will probably not be the
> best term for this."
>
> This has got me asking myself: Does English really have an
> infinitive? Many languages, after all, do not.
>
> It struck me as odd many, many years ago when I learnt at
> school that English had a "short infinitive" (e.g. I can
> _go_), and a "long infinitive" (I want _to go_).
>
> Does the average anglophone in fact think of "go" in these
> sentences as different things?
> I can go with you tomorrow.
> I want to go now.
> I go to the gym twice a week.
>
> I think not. What do we call "go"? The cop-out, I guess,
> would be simply to use "aorist" which, as Trask has
> observed, is a "conventional label used in a highly variable
> manner among specialists in particular languages to denote
> some particular verb form or set of verb forms."
>
> But this IMO is not satisfactory. So what do we call it?
>
> Of course, the verb "to be" doesn't fit so neatly. But that
> is always going to be an odd ball, e.g. it is the only verb
> in English that differentiates number (sort of*) in the
> preterite: was ~ were.
>
> *I say sort of, because when as a youngster I was taught
> that "was" is singular and "were" is plural, I said "you
> was" if talking to one person and "you were" if to more than
> one - only, of course, to get corrected and told to use
> "were" whether 'you' is one or many! (In the colloquial
> Sussex dialect the preterite is the invariable "was").
>
> Also, of course, it alone has a special 1st singular for
> "am", etc, etc. So I think for the moment we can ignore "to
> be", as that will have to be treated as a special case for
> all sorts of reasons.
>
> --
> Ray
> ==============================**====
> http://www.carolandray.plus.**com <http://www.carolandray.plus.com>
> ==============================**====
> Frustra fit per plura quod potest
> fieri per pauciora.
> [William of Ockham]
>
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4. a Lingua Ignota lexicon glossed into English
Posted by: "Alex Fink" 000...@gmail.com
Date: Fri Oct 4, 2013 4:33 pm ((PDT))
can be found at http://www.unmasqued.com/eclecticify/ignota.php .
It's nothing that Sally's book doesn't contain (well, except for the
sort order), but it could be handy nonetheless. That said, the
translator in unsure of their work, and also calls it a "semi-complete
list" in the introduction, so I wonder what was omitted.
Alex
Messages in this topic (1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/
<*> Your email settings:
Digest Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
conlang-nor...@yahoogroups.com
conlang-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
conlang-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
