 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2004it is/was + noun/pronoun + relative clause
while reading an essay about Tibetan Art, i happened to find this sentence, but it looks somewhat improper to me. is this okay for us to make this kind of sentence? "It is the works of art that these two princesses brought with them to Tibet that form the sacred seeds of the origins of Tibetan art." in this sentence, i wonder why and how the two relative pronouns 'that' are used. in my opinion, i think it is correct use like this: It is the works of art that these two princesses brought with them to Tibet, and which form the sacred seeds of the origins of Tibetan art. > while reading an essay about Tibetan Art, i happened to find this > sentence, but it looks somewhat improper to me. is this okay for us [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > It is the works of art that these two princesses brought with them to > Tibet, and which form the sacred seeds of the origins of Tibetan art. Yhe original version is correct. A bit awkward, but correct. The antecedent of the first relative "that" is "works of art." The antecedent of the second relative "that" is "works of art that these two princesses brought with them to Tibet." The second "that" clause modifies an earlier structure that includes the first "that" clause. "It" is an expletive -- a place-holder -- and does not have an antecedent as such. Your rewrite does not work, because it distorts the function of the two relative clauses. Both are definining (restrictive) clauses, and your rewrite converts the second to non-defining. But you cannot repair it by converting the second back to defining (and changing the relative back to "that") as long as you retain the and, because your version still would e use the second clause to modify a prior structure containing another relative clause, and when you separate the two as you have done you lose that modification of the first by the second. I hope that you understand this, or that someone can say it more clearly.  SignatureBob Lieblich Trying his best >> It is the works of art that these two princesses brought with >> them to Tibet, and which form the sacred seeds of the origins of [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > I hope that you understand this, or that someone can say it more > clearly. I'll try, at least for one section of it. Shinabro's original sentence: "It is the works of art that these two princesses brought with them to Tibet that form the sacred seeds of the origins of Tibetan art." Shinabro's rewrite: "It is the works of art that these two princesses brought with them to Tibet, and which form the sacred seeds of the origins of Tibetan art." Shinabro, the reason your rewrite doesn't work is because what forms the sacred seeds is specifically the works of art that these two princesses brought with them to Tibet. Those very specific works of art, not works of art in general but the ones the princesses shlepped all the way to Tibet, are what form the sacred seeds, etc. So in the original sentence, the first "that" clause modifies "works of art." The second "that" clause modifies "works of art that these two princesses brought with them to Tibet." SignatureDena Jo (Email: Replace TPUBGTH with denajo2) >while reading an essay about Tibetan Art, i happened to find >this sentence, but it looks somewhat improper to me. is this [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >them to Tibet that form the sacred seeds of the origins of >Tibetan art." OK? Yes. Good? No. >in this sentence, i wonder why and how the two relative >pronouns 'that' are used. The first "that" represents "the works of art"; the second represents "the works of art that these two princesses brought with them to Tibet" (or you could say they both represent "works"). Compare: The works of art that these two princesses brought with them to Tibet were seminal. It is those works that form the sacred seeds of Tibetan art. But that original, though technically correct, is not good writing: good writing would avoid the duplicated "that" by some using other casting to express the thought, and would avoid the useless repetition in "seeds of the origins"--something like: These two princesses brought with them to Tibet the works that would become the sacred seeds of Tibetan art. >in my opinion, i think it is correct use like this: >It is the works of art that these two princesses brought with >them to Tibet, and which form the sacred seeds of the origins >of Tibetan art. No. The conjunctive "and" is not conjoining independent propositions. If it (with the correspondingly needless comma) is deleted, all you have is "It is the works of art that these two princesses brought with them to Tibet which form the sacred seeds of the origins of Tibetan art", in which nothing has been accomplished save to replace the desired "that" in a restrictive relative with "which", best used to mark nonrestrictive relatives. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker My opinions on English are available at http://owlcroft.com/english/ > while reading an essay about Tibetan Art, i happened to find this > sentence, but it looks somewhat improper to me. is this okay for us [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > It is the works of art that these two princesses brought with them to > Tibet, and which form the sacred seeds of the origins of Tibetan art. Ok, since the two cheeseburger experts missed the point of your question altogether, and got it wrong, anyway, I'll have to answer it. No, the sentence is incorrect. The "it" represents "(the thing) that forms the sacred seeds ~~", so 'form' should be in third person singular: 'forms'. You can expect Abbott & Costello there to come up with all manner of silly arguments in defence of their error, but they can easily be ignored. -- Mark Wallace ----------------------------------------------------- For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit: The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site http://earth.prohosting.com/mwal/ ----------------------------------------------------- > > while reading an essay about Tibetan Art, i happened to find this > > sentence, but it looks somewhat improper to me. is this okay for us [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > The "it" represents "(the thing) that forms the sacred seeds ~~", so 'form' > should be in third person singular: 'forms'. You have a bottomless fund of error, Mark. "It" at the start of the sentence is an expletive, a mere placeholder, and it takes a singular verb, here "is", without regard to the grammar of the rest of the sentence. It doesn't "represent" anything. It isn't even a pronoun. The substantive that governs "form" is the pronoun "that," which can be either singular or plural, depending on what its antecedent is. And its antecedent here is "the works [plural] of art," so it takes a plural verb: "form." > You can expect Abbott & Costello there to come up with all manner of silly > arguments in defence of their error, but they can easily be ignored. Not easily, fella. In fact, you are just plain wrong. Don't bother to thank me. SignatureBob Lieblich Aka Abbott > > while reading an essay about Tibetan Art, i happened to find this > > sentence, but it looks somewhat improper to me. is this okay for us [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > You can expect Abbott & Costello there to come up with all manner of silly > arguments in defence of their error, but they can easily be ignored. Wow. I'm impressed. You managed not only to be wrong twice in one reply, but to be offensively rude about it. It is a marvelous thing that you can make Eric seem like a fount of knowledge and sweet reason by comparison. Richard R. Hershberger > > > while reading an essay about Tibetan Art, i happened to find this > > > sentence, but it looks somewhat improper to me. is this okay for us [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Richard R. Hershberger Do I dare ask if he's off his lithium? Joanne > > > > "It is the works of art that these two princesses brought with them to > > > > Tibet that form the sacred seeds of the origins of Tibetan art." [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > > It is the works of art that these two princesses brought with them to > > > > Tibet, and which form the sacred seeds of the origins of Tibetan art. The problem is the pronoun and the definite article being used as an anticipatory subject, subordinating the two princesses whom actually get the show going; substitute *these*, as an adjective modifier of works, and my nice rewrite makes a stronger sentence. Joanne >>>>> "It is the works of art that these two princesses brought with >>>>> them to Tibet that form the sacred seeds of the origins of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The problem is the pronoun and the definite article being used as an > anticipatory subject, Not even in your wildest dreams. An anticipatory (or dummy) subject is an entirely different thing. There is no end weight in the sentence. > subordinating the two princesses And since when could dummy subjects subordinate anything? > whom And since when was "whom" used as the relative personal pronoun for the subject of a verb? > actually > get the show going; substitute *these*, as an adjective modifier of > works, An "adjective modifier"? That would be an adverb, no? "These" is a demonstrative determiner. > and my nice rewrite makes a stronger sentence. I daren't read your "nice rewrite". I'll pop my stitches if I laugh too hard. -- Mark Wallace ----------------------------------------------------- For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit: The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site http://earth.prohosting.com/mwal/ ----------------------------------------------------- >>> while reading an essay about Tibetan Art, i happened to find this >>> sentence, but it looks somewhat improper to me. is this okay for us [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > that you can make Eric seem like a fount of knowledge and sweet reason > by comparison. Rilly? The construction "it is {nominal clause} that forms (whatever)" is correct. That construction is /always/ correct. Why Wonder Boy and Monster World have got confused over it (and why many, many people get confused over such sentences) is the: -- "it is [{nominal clause} that {plural nominal clause} brought (whatever)] that forms (whatever)" construction, because there is a plural verb nested within the nominal clause. But the "[{nominal clause} that {plural nominal clause} brought (wherever)]" in that still amounts to no more than a nominal clause that is equated to "it". Whichever way you look at it, it has a complex nominal clause that is represented by the 'it', which is the subject of the main verb "to form". I expect that kind of cock-up from WP -- because he hasn't got a clue, and believes that English grammar revolves around the errors that he himself makes in speech -- but this is the second thread in as many weeks where Robbie has got himself totally screwed up over equation. His idea that the "it is" is some kind of throwaway, simply because he can't find a verb that he wants to attach it to, is as silly an excuse as I expected, though. So who's on third? -- Mark Wallace ----------------------------------------------------- For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit: The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site http://earth.prohosting.com/mwal/ ----------------------------------------------------- > >>> while reading an essay about Tibetan Art, i happened to find this > >>> sentence, but it looks somewhat improper to me. is this okay for us [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > The construction "it is {nominal clause} that forms (whatever)" is correct. > That construction is /always/ correct. I snipped the rest because Mark is so tangled up in his own false reasoning that he's ceased making any sort of sense. The one sentence I quoted from him suffices to show that he's off on another of his made-up-grammar frolics. Here's a simplified form of the sentence under out microscope (the original is quoted in the material above): "It is these works that form the origin of Tibetan art." Everything after the first four words is an adjective clause modifying "these works." "These works" is the antecedent of the relative pronoun "that." The relative pronoun is therefore plural, and it takes a plural verb -- "form." "Works that form" is intuitively correct. "Works that forms" is not. Okay, you can create a sentence in which "works that forms" is correct, e.g., "It is his large collection of such works that forms the core of the auction." But Mark's concoction fails the ear test. Read this sentence, listening closely to it as you read it (maybe even read it aloud): "It is these works that forms the origin of Tibetan art." Mark aside, do we have any hands at all raised for the notion that this sentence sounds correct? Double talk won't work, Mark. You have failed the simplest test of all -- you've created a sentence that is totally unidiomatic. It isn't English. Feel free simply to shut up at this point -- no apology necessary. I didn't take your little idiocy personally anyway. SignatureBob Lieblich Absolutely right > Okay, you can create a sentence in which "works that forms" is > correct, e.g., "It is his large collection of such works that forms [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of Tibetan art." Mark aside, do we have any hands at all raised for > the notion that this sentence sounds correct? I know we're going to start off another debate if I head in this direction, but, "It is this works WHICH FORM the origin of Tibetan art." Doesn't fail your ear test Bob. Joanne, who knows you're a lawyer... > > Okay, you can create a sentence in which "works that forms" is > > correct, e.g., "It is his large collection of such works that forms [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Joanne, who knows you're a lawyer... [...] [...] >> > Read this sentence, listening closely to it as you read it >> > (maybe even read it aloud): "It is these works that forms >> > the origin of Tibetan art." [...] >> "It is these works WHICH FORM the origin of Tibetan art." >> >> Doesn't fail your ear test Bob. Still aside from the gravelling "which", the question remains as to what that sentence is supposed to demonstrate. It is not the sentence originally adduced. It only validates Robert's assertion that the original sentence _is_ wildly un-English. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker My opinions on English are available at http://owlcroft.com/english/ > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > My opinions on English are available at > http://owlcroft.com/english/ Without going back to the OP for the zillionth time, the essayist is dealing with a dicey assertion. Works which two princesses bring to Tibet form the origin of Tibetan art. It's an assertion poorly written, as I had previously posted in a rushed comment: *It is the works of art that...that form* Nasty use of English in an equally dubious declaration. Equivalent to stating Shakespeare started the English Renaissance. Joanne [...] >Without going back to the OP for the zillionth time, which was: It is the works of art that these two princesses brought with them to Tibet that form the sacred seeds of the origins of Tibetan art. >the essayist is dealing with a dicey assertion. That is not at issue. The inquiry was "is this okay for us to make this kind of sentence?" It had nothing to do with the factual correctness of the assertions. >Works which two princesses bring to Tibet form the origin of >Tibetan art. It's an assertion poorly written, as I had >previously posted in a rushed comment . . . . We all agree it was poorly written; we have most of us set forth ways it could better have been expressed. But it was sound enough grammatically. And that was the question. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker My opinions on English are available at http://owlcroft.com/english/ > > Okay, you can create a sentence in which "works that forms" is > > correct, e.g., "It is his large collection of such works that forms [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Doesn't fail your ear test Bob. Au contraire. You get a solid, well-earned F. Are you sure you're a native speaker of English? That's one of the requirements. How can you possibly justify "this works" in your sentence? Furthermore. "That" as defining relative is much preferred, if not mandatory, in an "It is _______ that [not which] _________." And a comma after "test" in your last little sentence is definitely mandatory. There's no debate here. You've produced an illiteracy (I hope this isn't some desperate attempt to suck up to Mark by matching *his* illiteracies). Try again. SignatureBob Lieblich Furrfu Typo, I immediately repaired in 2nd post, see brackets. I don't do F's > > > Okay, you can create a sentence in which "works that forms" is > > > correct, e.g., "It is his large collection of such works that forms [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Bob Lieblich > Furrfu [top-posted item moved to bottom] > > > > Okay, you can create a sentence in which "works that forms" is > > > > correct, e.g., "It is his large collection of such works that forms [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > isn't some desperate attempt to suck up to Mark by matching *his* > > illiteracies). Try again. > Typo, I immediately repaired in 2nd post, see brackets. I don't do F's I haven't seen the second post, but I assume you corrected it to "these works." That's fine. And now it doesn't fail my ear test, although "that" remains far preferable to "which." I don't know whether you actually intended to agree with me or just blundered into it, but my original point was that a sentence in the form of yours, or in the form of mine, which is yours with "that" in place of "which," is grammatically correct BECAUSE IT USES A PLURAL VERB -- "form" -- in the dependent clause. You did what I said to do, so of course you pass the test. The actual illiteracy is "which forms." Try it. That's what Mark is insisting is the only correct answer. Thank you for rallying to my side, Joanne, wittingly or not. I repent of most of my prior nasties. SignatureBob Lieblich Grateful for the help >> Okay, you can create a sentence in which "works that forms" >> is correct, e.g., "It is his large collection of such works >> that forms the core of the auction." But there, "works" is no longer the subject: collection is, so "works that forms" is irrelevant to the issue. You were perfectly right to begin with: no need to second-guess. >But Mark's concoction fails the ear test. Equally to the point, it fails the elementary grammar test. Whyever in the world do you people still read his posts? >> Read this sentence, listening closely to it as you read it >> (maybe even read it aloud): "It is these works that forms >> the origin of Tibetan art." Mark aside, do we have any >> hands at all raised for the notion that this sentence sounds >> correct? Of course not. It is incorrect, and it sounds incorrect-- wildly so in both cases. >I know we're going to start off another debate if I head in >this direction, but, > >"It is this works WHICH FORM the origin of Tibetan art." > >Doesn't fail your ear test Bob. It shriekingly fails any ear test--even quite aside from the fingernail-on-blackboard use of "which" for "that"--as it does any grammar test. "This works"?!? Egad! SignatureCordially, Eric Walker My opinions on English are available at http://owlcroft.com/english/ >>>>> while reading an essay about Tibetan Art, i happened to find this >>>>> sentence, but it looks somewhat improper to me. is this okay for [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > I snipped the rest Talk about predictable. Robbie runs away from the discussion, firing a parting shot, and WP haughtily says nothing (because he doesn't know how to answer) but "I don't know why people don't bother reading him". You pair are too easy. Try "Because he knows what he's talking about," WP, or "because he knows how to provoke a discussion where people might learn some of the awkward stuff about English." If that's the best you can do, then I'll return the favour and snip the rest of your hysterical rant, and wait for you to post a reasonable, intelligent discussion about what, *precisely*, you /think/ is wrong with the statement: -- The construction "it is {nominal clause} that forms (whatever)" is correct. That construction is /always/ correct. But please, no more talk of throwaway words, adjectives, or ear tests. I like a good laugh, but there are limits. And bear in mind that you're not talking to a CK, J for Jackass, or dwudjo, here. What I say in such discussions might not always be easy to grasp (read: might not be easy to resolve with people's habits in speech), but what I say is *never* wrong. -- Mark Wallace ----------------------------------------------------- For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit: The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site http://earth.prohosting.com/mwal/ ----------------------------------------------------- [ ... [ > -- The construction "it is {nominal clause} that forms (whatever)" is > correct. That construction is /always/ correct. I have no idea what you mean by "nominal clause" given that the original sentence was "It is these works of art ... that form." I think what we're talking about is what comes between "It is" and "that form," whatever name you give it. That construction is *always* correct, you say. Okay, here's an exact parallel: A knock is heard at the door. You open it and see your wife's parents standing there. She call from another room: "Who's there?" You answer "It is your parents that is here." If that's English, I speak Farsi. SignatureBob Lieblich And I don't speak Farsi > [ ... [ > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > If that's English, I speak Farsi. I hate to tell you this, but that /is/ correct. Your job, Robbie, should you decide to accept it, is to show why it is not the preferred construction in many cases (but by no means all -- and the OP's sentence lends itself better to that construction, IMO). You committed yourself to a single route; now ride it out As always, should you or any of your team be caught or captured, the rest of the group will pretend it has/they have never heard of you. Your CDRom drive will self-destruct in five seconds. Four. Three. /Do/ something, for Christ's sake! -- Mark Wallace ----------------------------------------------------- For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit: The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site http://earth.prohosting.com/mwal/ ----------------------------------------------------- > > [ ... ] > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > I hate to tell you this, but that /is/ correct. Well, I guess there's always the risk, when you conduct a reductio ad absurdum, that someone's going to vote for the absurdity. > Your job, Robbie, should you decide to accept it, is to show why it is not > the preferred construction in many cases (but by no means all -- and the > OP's sentence lends itself better to that construction, IMO). You committed > yourself to a single route; now ride it out Here's where we are: You insist that only a singular verb is appropriate in sentences like my example or the one the OP asked about. In so doing, you set forth a "rule" that yields a singular verb by definition. I come up with what I think is a great counter-example, which sounds ridiculous (at least to me) when it has a singular verb. You reiterate your "rule," so I come up win an even *more* ludicrous example. You say that that one sounds fine as well. If were were judging the Miss America contest, and I voted for some gorgeous twenty-something and you voted for Margaret Thatcher, I wouldn't know what to say beyond "but that's ridiculous." Same here. I am not only incredulous but speechless. [ ... ] SignatureBob Lieblich But not type-less >>> [ ... ] >>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > about. In so doing, you set forth a "rule" that yields a singular > verb by definition. That's where you're going wrong. I am not "setting forth" anything. That /is/ the rule. You seem to be saying that it does not apply at all, in any case; where the truth of it is that another construction is preferred in /some/ cases (which is a pretty good description for just about every rule of English), and you seem unwilling to say why you think that it is not preferred in your example sentences, and to be unaware of why it is /not/ preferred in the OP's senten ce. I'm telling you, you and equative verbs have got some serious negotiating to do. -- Mark Wallace ----------------------------------------------------- For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit: The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site http://earth.prohosting.com/mwal/ ----------------------------------------------------- [ ... ] > You seem to be saying that it does not apply at all, in any case; where the > truth of it is that another construction is preferred in /some/ cases (which > is a pretty good description for just about every rule of English), and you > seem unwilling to say why you think that it is not preferred in your example > sentences, and to be unaware of why it is /not/ preferred in the OP's sentence. I don't see why I should have to repeat myself, but since you are, as usual, ignoring what has actually occurred, here, from an earlier posting on this thread, is my analysis: <quote> "It" at the start of the sentence is an expletive, a mere placeholder, and it takes a singular verb, here "is", without regard to the grammar of the rest of the sentence. It doesn't "represent" anything. It isn't even a pronoun. The substantive that governs "form" is the pronoun "that," which can be either singular or plural, depending on what its antecedent is. And its antecedent here is "the works [plural] of art," so it takes a plural verb: "form." </quote> You obviously disagree with me, but to say that I haven't stated my position is simply false. I hope you won't force me to post it a third time. It appears that, as usual, we've driven just about everyone else away, so the only person I can be sure agrees with me is Eric Walker. You have, as far as I can tell, no adherents at all. If you would rather persist in error than write idiomatic English, there's nothing I can say or do to stop you. SignatureBob Lieblich I don't know how to make it clearer than that [Of Mark..] >It appears that, as usual, we've driven just about everyone else >away, so the only person I can be sure agrees with me is Eric >Walker. You have, as far as I can tell, no adherents at all. I'm hedging my bets and agreeing with both you and Mark. Who needs enemies? Signaturewrmst rgrds Robin Bignall Quiet part of Hertfordshire England http://homepage.ntlworld.com/docrobin/homepage.htm > [Of Mark..] > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> > I'm hedging my bets and agreeing with both you and Mark. Atcherly, that's the smartest move. I'm trying to get Robbie to explain why, because he's got more free time than me (especially when his freedom has been taken from him for contempt of court). The OP's sentence, though, fits the template that I set out, rather than the one that Robbie has glued himself to. -- Mark Wallace ----------------------------------------------------- For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit: The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site http://earth.prohosting.com/mwal/ ----------------------------------------------------- > Who needs enemies? > I'm hedging my bets and agreeing with both you and Mark. > Who needs enemies? I agree with Bobert as far as the ultimate result is concerned, but I can't follow either one's explanation. SignatureDena Jo Still in the audience (Email: Replace TPUBGTH with denajo2) > > I'm hedging my bets and agreeing with both you and Mark. > > Who needs enemies? > > I agree with Bobert as far as the ultimate result is concerned, There's hope for you yet, DJ. > but I can't follow either one's explanation. Short version -- Mine sounds right. His don't. SignatureBobert >>> I'm hedging my bets and agreeing with both you and Mark. >>> Who needs enemies? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Short version -- Mine sounds right. His don't. Well, with the OP's sentence, I think the singular verb is preferred; but the thing is that you /still/ haven't come up with any sound reason for the other way being preferred in other sentences (and you haven't properly shown how it can be grammatically correct, either, whereas "it"+{singular verb} is /still/ always correct). C'mon! You can do better than that! Of course, all such problems would disappear like morning mist, if everyone followed my sage advice and got rid of plural nouns. -- Mark Wallace ----------------------------------------------------- For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit: The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site http://earth.prohosting.com/mwal/ ----------------------------------------------------- >> I'm hedging my bets and agreeing with both you and Mark. >> Who needs enemies? > >I agree with Bobert as far as the ultimate result is concerned, but I >can't follow either one's explanation. (Shhh, neither could I, Deej, but don't let them know. It'd spoil the thread.) Signaturewrmst rgrds Robin Bignall Quiet part of Hertfordshire England http://homepage.ntlworld.com/docrobin/homepage.htm >> I'm hedging my bets and agreeing with both you and Mark. >> Who needs enemies? > >I agree with Bobert as far as the ultimate result is >concerned, but I can't follow either one's explanation. Assuming (there has been much thread drift) that the question is the use of "it" as nominal subject of a sentence. The matter is really quite simple: The verb is always singular which follows situation _it_ or an anticipatory _it_ which points to a following clause, even though the reference is to more than one: "Where does all that noise come from?" -- "It's the children playing upstairs." "It was my two brothers who were hurt." Situation "it": points to something definite that is more or less clearly defined by the situation ("It is John" said on hearing approaching footsteps; "It is ten miles to the nearest town"). Anticipatory "it": used as the nominal subject to allow the true subject to be pushed back in the sentence for purposes of emphasis ("It is of no use speaking to him about the matter"), or to allow, under certain conditions, a predicate noun, pronoun, adjective, or adverb to be moved forward in the sentence ("It is hard work keeping the grass green this time of the year"). Short form: "it" as a placeholder subject always takes a verb in the singular. The end. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker My opinions on English are available at http://owlcroft.com/english/ [ ... ] > Short form: "it" as a placeholder subject always takes a verb > in the singular. The end. Here's some prior dialogue: Lieblich: > > Okay, here's an exact parallel: A knock is heard at the door. You > > open it and see your wife's parents standing there. She call from > > another room: "Who's there?" You answer "It is your parents that is > > here." > > > > If that's English, I speak Farsi. Wallace: > I hate to tell you this, but that /is/ correct. Mark takes the position that in these structures -- "It is" followed by noun followed by relative clause -- "it" governs not only the verb that immediately follows it but also the verb of the relative clause, as if the relative pronoun had "it" as its antecedent. (That's not verbatim, but I believe it's a fair paraphrase). The result, obviously, looks and sounds terrible, but he defends it. No one else does, of course. But enough. SignatureBob Lieblich If not too much >> > Okay, here's an exact parallel: A knock is heard at the door. >> > You open it and see your wife's parents standing there. She >> > call from another room: "Who's there?" You answer "It is your >> > parents that is here." What's that noise? It's the dogs who is barking. What's that noise? It's the dogs that is barking. Sure seems to be wrong, but whether or not it actually is wrong is beyond my level of expertise. SignatureDena Jo Sure hope it's wrong (Email: Replace TPUBGTH with denajo2) > >> > Okay, here's an exact parallel: A knock is heard at the door. > >> > You open it and see your wife's parents standing there. She > >> > call from another room: "Who's there?" You answer "It is your > >> > parents that is here." [And then I said "If that's English, I speak Farsi."] > What's that noise? It's the dogs who is barking. > What's that noise? It's the dogs that is barking. > > Sure seems to be wrong, but whether or not it actually is wrong is > beyond my level of expertise. Duke Ellington (as quoted by Peter Schickele at the end of each episode of *Schickele Mix*): "If it sounds good, it is good." If it sounds wrong, it is wrong. Don't forget that I was parodying Mark's purported usage (I am still incredulous at the thought that he was serious), not defending it. SignatureBobert, Esquire > Don't forget that I was parodying Mark's purported usage I never forget anything. SignatureDena Jo Be afraid. Be very afraid. (Email: Replace TPUBGTH with denajo2) >>> > Okay, here's an exact parallel: A knock is heard at the door. >>> > You open it and see your wife's parents standing there. She [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Sure seems to be wrong, but whether or not it actually is wrong is >beyond my level of expertise. Neither passes my "Does it sound right" test, Deej. Of course, locally, it would be "It's the dogs what is barking, innit." You have to be here to appreciate it. Signaturewrmst rgrds Robin Bignall Quiet part of Hertfordshire England http://homepage.ntlworld.com/docrobin/homepage.htm > Of course, locally, it would be "It's the dogs what is barking, > innit." You have to be here to appreciate it. Hehehe. No, you don't. SignatureDena Jo (Email: Replace TPUBGTH with denajo2) >> Of course, locally, it would be "It's the dogs what is barking, >> innit." You have to be here to appreciate it. > >Hehehe. > >No, you don't. If you were here you'd appreciate it more. You have to hear the broad Essex accent (not BBC imitations) to believe it. Signaturewrmst rgrds Robin Bignall Quiet part of Hertfordshire England http://homepage.ntlworld.com/docrobin/homepage.htm [...] >What's that noise? It's the dogs who is barking. >What's that noise? It's the dogs that is barking. > >Sure seems to be wrong, but whether or not it actually is >wrong is beyond my level of expertise. On the unlikely assumption that you really are unsure (I reckon you know the mother tongue well): The "it" determines the singular "is" that is compressed into the "It's" in both examples; the number of the true subject-- here, "the dogs"--determines the proper number of the verb in the relative clause ("are barking"). The choice between "who" and "that" is interesting. "That" can be used in all instances, but many modern writers feel more comfortable using "who" when referring to persons; whether dogs "rate" the same usage treatment as humans is, I reckon, a highly personal decision. (Mind, the use of "that" for persons has an honorable pedigree reaching from at least the King James Bible to today's better newspapers.) SignatureCordially, Eric Walker My opinions on English are available at http://owlcroft.com/english/ > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > here, "the dogs"--determines the proper number of the verb in > the relative clause ("are barking"). Getting closer. But why is it that "the dogs" is the "true subject"? Answer that, and you're near to a grammatical explanation. -- Mark Wallace ----------------------------------------------------- For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit: The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site http://earth.prohosting.com/mwal/ ----------------------------------------------------- [...] >Here's some prior dialogue: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> > >> > If that's English, I speak Farsi. Just so. The remarks I made about a "placeholder" _it_ determine the first verb use: "it is". >Wallace: > >> I hate to tell you this, = Falsehood #1 >>but that /is/ correct. = Falsehood #2 >Mark takes the position that in these structures -- "It is" >followed by noun followed by relative clause -- "it" governs >not only the verb that immediately follows it but also the >verb of the relative clause, as if the relative pronoun had >"it" as its antecedent. From any other source that would be astonishing. Here, it is not. >But enough. Again, just so. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker My opinions on English are available at http://owlcroft.com/english/ > [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > The result, obviously, looks and sounds terrible, but he defends > it. No one else does, of course. I'm not "defending" anything. I do wish you would read what I write, rather than listen to those pixies. Does: "I hate to tell you this, but that /is/ correct." look like a defence of anything, to you? Sure don't. It's a simple statement of fact. -- "It is your parents that is here." *Is Grammatically Correct* Like it or lump it. Now, until you explain why: -- "It is your parents that are here." is far more likely to be used, the only /grammatically/ /correct/ option we have is the one with the singular verb. -- Mark Wallace ----------------------------------------------------- For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit: The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site http://earth.prohosting.com/mwal/ ----------------------------------------------------- [ ... ] > Does: "I hate to tell you this, but that /is/ correct." look like a defence > of anything, to you? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > is far more likely to be used, the only /grammatically/ /correct/ option we > have is the one with the singular verb. Once more, as succinctly as I can: "It", in sentences of the variety under discussion, is a dummy subject, necessitated by the absence from English of certain particular constructions or a preference for a particular use, e.g., for emphasis. You can't say "Raining is," so you have to say "It is raining." "It" the dummy subject takes "is" regardless of what follows: "It was his children that drove him crazy." The dummy subject and its verb (i.e., "It is") can be followed by a substantive that in turn is followed by a relative clause. The true subject is the substantive that follows "it is," and that true subject is the antecedent of the relative pronoun. In "It is your parents who are here," the antecedent of "who" is "parents," hence a plural verb. A singular verb in the relative clause when the preceding substantive is plural is an error. It is not correct. You say it is. You are wrong. Anyone with an ear for English knows damned well that "It is your parents who is here" is a simple blunder.[1] That's about as simple as I can make it. I've posted to this effect three times if you include one prior posting repeating yet another one. Eric has posted the same thing, in his words, at least once. Have you decided to imitate dwudjo now that he's gone? [1] You get the same hideous result using a singular present tense verb in my example newly invented for this posting: "It is his children that drives him crazy." That is not English. SignatureBob Lieblich Getting fatigued > [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > "It", in sentences of the variety under discussion, is a dummy > subject, *BONG*! Sorry, but it's not. It is different things in different sentences. Jeeze, if I give you any more than that, I might as well take on 'stool' duties. -- Mark Wallace ----------------------------------------------------- For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit: The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site http://earth.prohosting.com/mwal/ ----------------------------------------------------- > [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > clause, as if the relative pronoun had "it" as its antecedent. > (That's not verbatim, but I believe it's a fair paraphrase). If I reply to that, I'll give the game away; and it's you who made certain statements, so it's you who has to give sound grammatical explanations to back them up. > The result, obviously, looks and sounds terrible, but he defends > it. No one else does, of course. I'm not defending anything. I made a simple, and *very* correct statement: -- "The construction "it is {nominal clause} that forms (whatever)" is correct. That construction is /always/ correct." I note that you have not tried to dispute that. Very wise. You have said nothing that shows your 'ear-wise' construction to be grammatically correct, so your comments thus far are no more than Ericisms: "I do it that way, so it's *RIGHT*". That doesn't wash. You have to give the grammatical reasons which allow your preference. Shouting "I'm right, you're wrong!" is what I'd expect from dwudjo or CK, not from you. The only solid grammatical statement we've had on the subject so far is mine, above. You can't reply to that with "I don't like it". You have to give the grammar which backs up your preference. (Statements about expletives, adjectives, and ears need not apply). -- Mark Wallace ----------------------------------------------------- For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit: The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site http://earth.prohosting.com/mwal/ ----------------------------------------------------- Whoops! I didn't realise that I'd already replied to that one. It had stayed highlighted as unread. -- Mark Wallace ----------------------------------------------------- For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit: The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site http://earth.prohosting.com/mwal/ ----------------------------------------------------- > Whoops! > I didn't realise that I'd already replied to that one. It had stayed > highlighted as unread. 'Sokay, Mark, it gave you the chance to be utterly wrong twice. SignatureRobbie [ ... ] > You have said nothing that shows your 'ear-wise' construction to be > grammatically correct, so your comments thus far are no more than Ericisms: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > mine, above. You can't reply to that with "I don't like it". You have to > give the grammar which backs up your preference. I have done so. Are you so senile that you've forgotten or so willful that you'd rather ignore the truth? I'd done it twice as of yesterday. I just went through it a third time in another posting. > (Statements about expletives, adjectives, and ears need not apply). Thet's a bit like telling someone to discuss soccer without mentioning feet, ball, or goal. But, as it happens, my recently posted reply to you uses neither of the first two words. And it remains relevant that what you call "correct" (but without defending it, a most interesting metaphysical construct) sounds terrible. And you call me a dwudjo! SignatureRobbie > [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I have done so. No, you haven't. You've come up with all manner of nonsense that does not answer the question. When you finally figure out the right answer, you will realise this. -- Mark Wallace ----------------------------------------------------- For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit: The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site http://earth.prohosting.com/mwal/ ----------------------------------------------------- Um... WP, you appear to have changed sides, without even realising it. So we've now been treated not only to a lordly treatise from you on how one way is the *only* correct way, but also to one on how the directly opposing view is the *only* correct way. And, by the way, you were wrong both times. Nothing new there, eh? -- Mark Wallace ----------------------------------------------------- For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit: The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site http://earth.prohosting.com/mwal/ ----------------------------------------------------- [...] >It appears that, as usual, we've driven just about everyone >else away, so the only person I can be sure agrees with me is >Eric Walker. You have, as far as I can tell, no adherents at >all. Save that I disagree with your policy of reading his posts, and all the more so responding to them. Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit. --Proverbs, ch. 26, v. 4 I go by the first rule; you, I guess, the second; but what hath it availed thee? SignatureCordially, Eric Walker My opinions on English are available at http://owlcroft.com/english/ > [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I don't see why I should have to repeat myself, Nor do I, since nothing you've said so far even comes close to addressing the grammatical/semantic issues involved. > but since you are, > as usual, ignoring what has actually occurred, here, from an earlier [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > You obviously disagree with me, Disagree with the above? That "expletive" nonsense isn't to be disagreed with, it's to be either derided or ignored. > but to say that I haven't stated my > position is simply false. I hope you won't force me to post it a > third time. I have told you: -- The construction "it is {nominal clause} that forms (whatever)" is correct. That construction is always correct. You have offered absolutely nothing whatsoever that could possibly be construed as a reasonable response to that. It is *fact*. "It is {nominal clause} that {third person singular verb}(whatever)" is *always* true. Ridiculously stating that that "it is" is an expletive answers nothing, especially my specific question about why a different construction is /preferred/ (meaning that the above is still /correct/, but not used) in some cases. If you don't know why, just say so, and I'll provide a full explanation (next time I've got a couple of hours to spare); but it's obviously something that's out of your range of knowledge, and you'll do better by figuring it out for yourself. > It appears that, as usual, we've driven just about everyone else > away, so the only person I can be sure agrees with me is Eric > Walker. And what does that tell you? > You have, as far as I can tell, no adherents at all. This is a two-man discussion. We're the entertainment, here. People don't get up and jump on stage when the show's running. And I do at least /try/ to say things in such a way that it makes people think for themselves about the finer points of "the English condition" (even if it means they end up disagreeing with one of my 'pets'). Try to do the same. > If you would rather persist in error than write idiomatic English, > there's nothing I can say or do to stop you. Define "idiomatic", for Christ's sake! This recent penchant in these groups (and *only* in these groups, outside of contexts that make its meaning obvious) for using "idiomatic" to mean "part of the idiom" is a pain in the arse. If you mean "part of the idiom", then /say/ "part of the idiom". Otherwise, I'll just assume that you mean "of a unique semantic nature and possibly ungrammatical", and you'll make even less sense than usual. -- Mark Wallace ----------------------------------------------------- For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit: The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site http://earth.prohosting.com/mwal/ ----------------------------------------------------- [... ] <resisting the temptation to go around the barn yet again> > Define "idiomatic", for Christ's sake! From Merriam-Webster: Idiomatic: "Of, relating to, or conforming to idiom." Idiom: "The syntactical, grammatical, or structural form peculiar to a language." > This recent penchant in these groups (and *only* in these groups, outside of > contexts that make its meaning obvious) for using "idiomatic" to mean "part > of the idiom" is a pain in the arse. Strange. No one told me Merriam-Webster had joined this group. Nor has anyone said that of American Heritage, which includes this definition of "idiom": "The specific grammatical, syntactic, and structural character of a given language." > If you mean "part of the idiom", then /say/ "part of the idiom". Why should I stop using a perfectly good word in a standard way just because you get cranky. > Otherwise, > I'll just assume that you mean "of a unique semantic nature and possibly > ungrammatical", and you'll make even less sense than usual. You are free to assume whatever you want. I'll just go on writing Standard English. If you think "It is your parents who is here" is good English, I don't see what good this discussion is doing even us. SignatureBob Lieblich > [... ] > <resisting the temptation to go around the barn yet again> > > Define "idiomatic", for Christ's sake! > From Merriam-Webster: > Idiomatic: "Of, relating to, or conforming to idiom." > Idiom: "The syntactical, grammatical, or structural form > peculiar to a language." That definition doesn't properly cover one meaning with which "idiom" is commonly used. That meaning, from the _New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary_, is: 3 A form of expression, grammatical construction, phrase, etc., peculiar to a person or language; a phrase etc. which is understood by speakers of a particular language despite its meaning's not being predictable from that of the separate words. E17. Another shade of meaning has to do with utterances that make one suspect that the speaker isn't a native speaker of the language. They may be grammatically correct, but they are not idiomatic; that is, they don't represent the way native speakers say things. > > This recent penchant in these groups (and *only* in > > these groups, outside of contexts that make its meaning > > obvious) for using "idiomatic" to mean "part of the > > idiom" is a pain in the arse. I agree it's a pain in the a.s. Is anyone *really* using it in that strange way? "Part of the idiom" strikes me as unidiomatic. > Strange. No one told me Merriam-Webster had joined this > group. Nor has anyone said that of American Heritage, > which includes this definition of "idiom": "The specific > grammatical, syntactic, and structural character of a > given language." > > If you mean "part of the idiom", then /say/ "part of the > > idiom". > Why should I stop using a perfectly good word in a > standard way just because you get cranky. It's fun to make Mark Wallace cranky. > > Otherwise, I'll just assume that you mean "of a unique > > semantic nature and possibly ungrammatical", and you'll > > make even less sense than usual. That's a mediocre definition. "Of a unique semantic nature" is fairly good, but anything we say, whether it's idiomatic or not, is possibly ungrammatical. > You are free to assume whatever you want. I'll just go on > writing Standard English. > If you think "It is your parents who is here" is good > English, That's unidiomatic, ungrammatical, and repulsive. > I don't see what good this discussion is doing even us. >> [... ] > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > particular language despite its meaning's not being > predictable from that of the separate words. E17. Yup. That's the meaning that most people apply to it. > Another shade of meaning has to do with utterances that make > one suspect that the speaker isn't a native speaker of the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I agree it's a pain in the a.s. Is anyone *really* using it > in that strange way? One or two people in this group. The problem is that it makes it possible to read everything they say in more than one way, often very confusingly. Do I agree or disagree when someone says that "I like bananas" is idiomatic, for example? If they mean it's part of the idiom, I'll agree. If they mean it's an idiom, I'll have a good chuckle. > "Part of the idiom" strikes me as unidiomatic. It's used commonly enough by people who use the word 'idiom' to mean "the normal language". "Idiomatic" isn't, except in very specifically defining contexts, where the usage is clear. This newsgroup isn't one of those contexts. >> Strange. No one told me Merriam-Webster had joined this >> group. Nor has anyone said that of American Heritage, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > It's fun to make Mark Wallace cranky. I was going to say that that seems like a perfectly valid reason, but it works against my argument, so I won't. >>> Otherwise, I'll just assume that you mean "of a unique >>> semantic nature and possibly ungrammatical", and you'll [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > is fairly good, but anything we say, whether it's idiomatic > or not, is possibly ungrammatical. True, but most commonly-used unique but ungrammatical (or non-semantic) constructs are called "idioms". >> You are free to assume whatever you want. I'll just go on >> writing Standard English. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > That's unidiomatic, ungrammatical, and repulsive. It's grammatical enough (although the relative pronoun 'that' would put icing on the cake), but certainly repulsive. I'm still waiting for Robbie to explain /why/ it's not the preferred construct. He's too busy trying to say that what sounds best to his ear is perfect grammar, and misusing "idiomatic", to actually talk about grammar. -- Mark Wallace ----------------------------------------------------- For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit: The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site http://earth.prohosting.com/mwal/ ----------------------------------------------------- [ . . . ] > >> If you think "It is your parents who is here" is good > >> English, > > That's unidiomatic, ungrammatical, and repulsive. > It's grammatical enough (although the relative pronoun 'that' would put > icing on the cake), but certainly repulsive. > I'm still waiting for Robbie to explain /why/ it's not the preferred > construct. He's too busy trying to say that what sounds best to his ear is > perfect grammar, and misusing "idiomatic", to actually talk about grammar. I missed the first part of this discussion, but the way to say it is "It is your parents who are here". Is it the verb after "who" that is causing this difference of opinion? Is it, in general, verbs after anticipatory "it" that are being discussed, or is it a particular verb that is being discussed? Is it verbs and their number that are the problem? > [ . . . ] > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Is it verbs and their number that are the problem? What is under discussion is specifically the verb that follows a relative pronoun that follows a plural substantive that follows an opening "It is." In "It is your parents who is/are here," the issue is the number of the verb following "who." Mark insists that the "correct" answer, no matter how ugly the result, is a singular verb, because (as best I can make out) "It" is singular and nothing that follows is a reason to change the number of the verb that follows the relative pronoun. I've staked out my contrary position in several postings (and for my pains am repeatedly told by Mark that he's still waiting for me to justify my position). Here is Mark's sole statement of his position (drawing upon an earlier sentence of the same general form in the posting that started this thread: "The construction 'it is {nominal clause} that forms (whatever)' is correct. That construction is /always/ correct." Having posted this, which is not reasoning but an ipse dixit, he's taken the position that I have the job of proving him wrong. When I do prove him wrong, he denies it and demands again that I prove him wrong. I believe that this is a fair summary of what has happened so far. If Mark isn't trolling, you can't tell from the result. SignatureBob Lieblich Over to you > If Mark isn't trolling, you can't tell from the result. Mark *isn't* trolling. He's defending to death his position, which we all do, AND I finally grasped what his position in. I don't know if he's right or wrong because, one, this is an extremely technical issue; two, now that I understand what he's saying, I think a case can be made for either position; and three, I have neither the knowledge base nor the appropriate grammar textbooks to consult to come up with the definitive answer. For me, the bottom line is it doesn't matter because I'm not going to say "It is your parents who is here," just like many people (not I) won't say "Neither one of them is correct" or "It is I." Certainly the ear test is not definitive. SignatureDena Jo (Email: Replace TPUBGTH with denajo2) > > If Mark isn't trolling, you can't tell from the result. > > Mark *isn't* trolling. You can't tell from the result. > He's defending to death his position, Au contraire, DJ, he's said repeatedly that it isn't *his* job to defend anything. I am the defendant, along with all the suckers who agree with me. Presumed guilty until found innocent. > which we > all do, AND I finally grasped what his position in. I don't know if > he's right or wrong because, one, this is an extremely technical issue; Not really. > two, now that I understand what he's saying, But, Deej -- and I'm not kidding here -- he isn't saying *anything*. His entire position is "Use a singular verb because the sentence begins with 'it'." And, if anything, I'm being charitable there. Most of the time his position is "Prove me wrong, Lieblich," as if I haven't already made myself clear. > I think a case can be made for either position; Okay, you make the case for Mark's. He hasn't. > and three, I have neither the knowledge base nor > the appropriate grammar textbooks to consult to come up with the > definitive answer. But you know how the language works. You've said so: > For me, the bottom line is it doesn't matter because I'm not going to > say "It is your parents who is here," And isn't that definitive? > just > like many people (not I) won't say "Neither one of them is correct" or > "It is I." But you can find *some* justification beyond not sounding completely wrong for "Neither are correct" and "It's me." I've written justifications of both at one time or another -- justifications that go beyond the simple fact of common usage to the underlying grammatical sense of the language. No rule of either usage (no one uses what Mark is arguing for) or grammar (grammar is clearly to the contrary) justifies "It is the children who is driving me crazy." Think it through again, DJ. Mark is selling snake oil. You can like him and enjoy his postings without indulging his every grammatical fantasy. As long as he's trolling us, learn something from the experience. SignatureBobert > His entire position is "Use a singular verb because the > sentence begins with 'it'." I have said nothing of the kind. Keep your slimy-lawyer tricks to yourself. I get enough of that kind of sh.t from dwudjo -- and you get enough of it from your personal 'dwudjo', CK, to know that it's dirty and unwelcome play. What I have said is that "it" + {singular verb} is /always/ correct, even when the sentence contains equation. I have also said that, IMO, tho OP's sentence requires a singular verb. If you understood the rules properly, you would agree with me about the OP's sentence. You have said nothing sensible in reply. The rules that allow plural verbs in such sentences exist, but you don't seem to know what they are, and have spouted all manner of nonsense and insults in an attempt to *win the discussion* without talking any sense. If that ain't trolling, I don't know what is. -- Mark Wallace ----------------------------------------------------- For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit: The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site http://earth.prohosting.com/mwal/ ----------------------------------------------------- > > His entire position is "Use a singular verb because the > > sentence begins with 'it'." [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > sh.t from dwudjo -- and you get enough of it from your personal 'dwudjo', > CK, to know that it's dirty and unwelcome play. I consider it an accurate statement of your position. I consider the following sentence, which appears in the posting to which I am now replying, confirmation of my position: > What I have said is that "it" + {singular verb} is /always/ correct, even > when the sentence contains equation. I.e., "Use a singular verb when the sentence begins with 'it'." > I have also said that, IMO, tho OP's sentence requires a singular verb. And I have said, repeatedly, that you are wrong. > If you understood the rules properly, you would agree with me about the OP's > sentence. I do, and I don't. > You have said nothing sensible in reply. Really, Mark, one who didn't know you would begin to think you were actually getting angry. > The rules that allow plural verbs in such sentences exist, but you don't > seem to know what they are, and have spouted all manner of nonsense and > insults in an attempt to *win the discussion* without talking any sense. Okay, I'll quote you George Curme, whose approach differs somewhat from mine even if the basic idea and the conclusion are both the same: "Anticipatory 'it' is also used when it is desired to emphasize a predicate adjective or noun, provided, however, that the logical subject is a singular noun denoting a lifeless thing or is a clause." Curme apparently regards the relative clause in a sentence like "It is the children who are driving me crazy" as the logical subject, i.e., the logical subject begins with "who" and ends with "crazy." His deinversion of the sentence is therefore "Who are driving me crazy are the children." Note that both halves of the "equation" (as you call it) are plural. And the "anticipatory 'it'" is indeed a grammatical placeholder or dummy subject. Curme offers this example, from *Mrs. Warren's Daughter* by Sir Harry Johnston: "It was my two brothers who did it." (Deinverted: My two brothers are who did it.} Okay, it's in the past tense and therefore doesn't indicate the number of the verb in the clause. But it confirms that Curme is talking about what you and I have been talking about. You'll find the whole thing on page 11 of Volume II, Section 4 II C. Don't like Curme, eh? Okay, try this: <quote> There are a small number of cases in which it is OK to use a pronoun with no antecedent. Words called expletives serve as dummy subjects (or, eferent-less pronouns). Standard English has two expletives: it and there. There are two kinds of dummy it: impersonal it and anticipatory it. Impersonal it is the it that you find in weather phrases and such places. You can't figure out what it means, and yet there is no other grammatical way to say the sentence. With anticipatory it, there is usually a clause that could serve as the subject of the sentence if the sentence were rewritten without it. [More on this strategy in the pragmatics lecture.] There was a dog running across the street. impersonal: It is raining. anticipatory It is clear that Al's beard is a mistake. (That Al's beard is a mistake is clear.) </quote>. Source: <Www.ling.upenn.edu/~tsanchez/Ling10PronounsChanges.htm> Note the description of "anticipatory it" as one kind of dummy subject or expletive. And here's something from John Lawler's Website: <http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue/extrapos.html>. Read him carefully, Mark, or you may think at one point that he's supporting your position, when in fact what he says is that "dummy it" (his term) allows you to get to the verb *of the sentence* right away (and the verb of the sentence, which follows "It", is indisputably "is") while postponing the clause that is the notional subject. It tells you nothing about the verb of the clause, because that verb is determined by the number of the relative pronoun (usually "that", sometimes "who", and conceivably restrictive "which" among those who use it) and the number of the relative pronoun is determined by the predicative nominative, which follows "It is." Convert "The children are driving me crazy" to "Who are driving me crazy are the children" and then invert it; you get "It is" as dummy subject, "the children" as predicate nominative, and "who are driving me crazy" as notional subject with "the children" as antecedent. Voila! It is the children who are driving me crazy. Here's Lawler, from near the beginning of the same document, quoting someone else (probably an AUE poster) and then responding: <quote> >>: Anticipatory "it" can also be a subject: >>: It seems to me that your question is an interesting one. ^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Note that, if it means anything in this sentence, it means exactly the same thing as the that-clause at the end. </quote> Different people use different terminology and different methods of analysis to approach this problem. But they all agree, one way or another, as to sentences of the form we are discussing, that "it" is neither the subject of the verb in the relative clause nor the antecedent of the relative pronoun. The number of the relative pronoun comes from elsewhere. Okay, tell me why Curme and Lawler are both wrong -- or, alternatively, why what they say is irrelevant. And don't start playing games with variant -- or, as you will no doubt call it, inconsistent -- terminology. It's clear that they both see this as I do. > If that ain't trolling, I don't know what is. What could be more fun than being called a troll by a troll? SignatureBob Lieblich Perhaps we both are >>> His entire position is "Use a singular verb because the >>> sentence begins with 'it'." [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > I.e., "Use a singular verb when the sentence begins with 'it'." That is an intentional misrepresentation of what I said. All the words are above, and anyone can see that the statement of yours has a completely different meaning to that of mine. Are you sure you want to play the troll with me? You're very brave. >> I have also said that, IMO, tho OP's sentence requires a singular >> verb. > > And I have said, repeatedly, that you are wrong. You have said so, repeatedly, wrongly, as I am sure you will eventually realise (although the matter would be debatable, with someone who knew what he's talking about). >> If you understood the rules properly, you would agree with me about >> the OP's sentence. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > "equation" (as you call it) are plural. And the "anticipatory 'it'" > is indeed a grammatical placeholder or dummy subject. Wrong. Only one half of the equation is plural; the other is "it", which, last time I checked, was singular. It is this kind of incredibly silly misinterpretation of what is said on the subject that is clouding your vision. And it still does not explain *why* the plural verb is used, rather than the singular, which is what this is all about. > Don't like Curme, eh? Okay, try this: > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > description of "anticipatory it" as one kind of dummy subject or > expletive. Talking of anticipatory pronouns takes you a step closer than talking of "expletives", but you've still got a way to go -- most of the above quote is totally irrelevant to the case in hand. > And here's something from John Lawler's Website: > <http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue/extrapos.html>. Read [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > </quote> I can't make head nor tail of what's quoted and what you've added, so the above is worthless. > Different people use different terminology and different methods of > analysis to approach this problem. But they all agree, one way or > another, as to sentences of the form we are discussing, that "it" is > neither the subject of the verb in the relative clause nor the > antecedent of the relative pronoun. The number of the relative > pronoun comes from elsewhere. Oh my God! Now you're adding metaphysics! > Okay, tell me why Curme and Lawler are both wrong -- or, > alternatively, why what they say is irrelevant. And don't start > playing games with variant -- or, as you will no doubt call it, > inconsistent -- terminology. It's clear that they both see this as > I do. I'm afraid they don't. Do you see any mention of 'expletives', 'adjectives', or 'ears', which have been your arguments, so far? Go with the 'anticipatory it' idea, and look *very* carefully at 'equation'. I'm sure the light will dawn on you eventually. -- Mark Wallace ----------------------------------------------------- For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit: The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site http://earth.prohosting.com/mwal/ ----------------------------------------------------- [ ... > > Okay, tell me why Curme and Lawler are both wrong -- or, > > alternatively, why what they say is irrelevant. And don't start [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I'm afraid they don't. Do you see any mention of 'expletives', > 'adjectives', or 'ears', which have been your arguments, so far? At least one of the sources I quoted in my prior posting uses "expletive" as I do. Whether something sounds good is a relevant issue in discussions of grammar. As for "adjective," I stand by my view of things, but the views of the people I have cited, though based on a different analysis (which I am happy to adopt, abandoning "adjective" in the process, if that will make you happy) all lead to the conclusion that in the construction under examination the verb of the clause is plural when the relative pronoun has a plural antecedent -- and anticipatory "it" is never that antecedent. > Go with the 'anticipatory it' idea, and look *very* carefully at 'equation'. > I'm sure the light will dawn on you eventually. "Equation" is not a term in standard English grammar. I don't know what you mean by it. I don't know if *you* know what you mean by it. Here are some very easy questions for *you* to answer: (1) In the sentence "It is the children who is/are driving me crazy," to what, if anything, do you equate "It"? (2) In that same sentence, is the pronoun "who" singular or plural? (3) In that same sentence, what is the antecedent of "who"? If you answer these, I may continue playing. Otherwise, I have nothing more to say, except to correct your continuing misunderstandings and misrepresentations of what I am saying. You are free to mock me; how can I stop you? To date, with the exception of poor self-befuddled Dena Jo, no one has given your position the slightest credence, and she'd see things clearly if she would but pay attention to her ear. You may enjoy playing Horatius at the bridge, but in this case there's no bridge. SignatureBob Lieblich Ta > are free to mock me; how can I stop you? To date, with the > exception of poor self-befuddled Dena Jo, no one has given your > position the slightest credence, and she'd see things clearly if she > would but pay attention to her ear. I'm leaving it to someone else to make the decision. SignatureDena Jo 11 on the self-befuddlement scale (Email: Replace TPUBGTH with denajo2) > [ ... > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > sentence "It is the children who is/are driving me crazy," to what, > if anything, do you equate "It"? Which is precisely the question you should have been asking yourself all along. a) "It is the children who are driving me crazy," b) "It is the silly, thoughtless comments of people who don't understand what they are talking about that makes such discussions so daft" Why are both a and b correct, even according to your 'ear test'? The only singular noun/pronoun in b is 'it'. Your wonderful and loudly-shouted theories do not allow for that. And let's try a third: -- "It's the children that's driving me crazy". There's nothing wrong with that, either, even according to your famous 'ear test'. This isn't rocket surgery; either you just don't want to accept what's right in front of your nose, or you really don't understand what you're talking about. Either way, you should not shout so loudly or insultingly that your half-arsed ideas are the only correct words spoken on the subject. With the OP's original sentence: "It is the works of art that these two princesses brought with them to Tibet that {verb}the sacred seeds of the origins of Tibetan art.", I'd say that a singular verb is preferred; but you can't even discuss that, because your blindness (either mule-headed or under-educated) won't allow you to. > (2) In that same sentence, is > the pronoun "who" singular or plural? (3) In that same sentence, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > nothing more to say, except to correct your continuing > misunderstandings and misrepresentations of what I am saying. You're not getting away with that. I have not misrepresented a single word you've said, but you have misquoted and intentionally misinterpreted what I have said in almost every posting you've made to the thread. -- Mark Wallace ----------------------------------------------------- For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit: The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site http://earth.prohosting.com/mwal/ ----------------------------------------------------- "Mark Wallace" <mwallace@dse.nl> wrote... > [...] > With the OP's original sentence: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that, because your blindness (either mule-headed or under-educated) > won't allow you to. I'm coming into this spat without having read closely all the foregoing, but perhaps someone may wish for the opinion of yet another ear on the above. I'd say that the {verb} in that sentence accords with {the works of art}, and MUST therefore be plural. The "It" is merely an expletive in this case. Matti [ ... ] > > Here are some very easy questions for *you* to answer: (1) In the > > sentence "It is the children who is/are driving me crazy," to what, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Why are both a and b correct, even according to your 'ear test'? Sentence b is not correct according to my "ear test." The relative pronoun is "that," its antecedent is "comments," and it requires a plural verb. > The only singular noun/pronoun in b is 'it'. Your wonderful and > loudly-shouted theories do not allow for that. Yes, "it" is the only singular noun or pronoun. And it takes "is" without regard to the grammar of the rest of the sentence. (More on this below.) But it isn't the antecedent of "that." There's a plural noun in the sentence, and that plural noun is the antecedent of "that," so "that" is plural. I don't know how to make this any plainer. <sarcasm> So you see, Mark, I'm so unutterably stupid that I still don't know what you equate "it" to. Please stop giving me examples to solve and tell me the solution. Thank you so much </sarcasm>. Sarcasm aside, you didn't answer my question You're the one who keeps saying "equation, equationm equation." What to you equate "it" to? BTW, it is indeed ignificant that expletive/dummy-subject/anticipatory "it" always takes "is" without regard to the number of anything else in the sentence. I pointed out this grammatical datum in my very first posting on this thread. If you're unable to grasp its significance, even after all this, just ask. > And let's try a third: > -- "It's the children that's driving me crazy". > There's nothing wrong with that, either, even according to your famous 'ear > test'. This is informal usage of the "There's three cars in my garage" type. It violates formal grammar but is allowed as idiomatic. I thought you were the one insisting that we apply formal grammar, even if the result proved ugly. My point is that formal grammar does not allow the singular in the dependent clauses in such sentences. (I insist on the "is" after "it," but "it" is the main verb.) Casual speech is a different subject entirely. > This isn't rocket surgery; either you just don't want to accept what's right > in front of your nose, or you really don't understand what you're talking > about. > Either way, you should not shout so loudly or insultingly that your > half-arsed ideas are the only correct words spoken on the subject. You have yet to set forth even a semblance of a coherent explanation of your reasoning. Until I see something that at least vaguely resembles such an explanation, I have to assume you don't have one. I have responded with specifics and in detail. Anyone who's been reading this thread is acquainted with what I have to say. The same cannot be said for you. > With the OP's original sentence: > "It is the works of art that these two princesses brought with them to > Tibet that {verb}the sacred seeds of the origins of Tibetan art.", > I'd say that a singular verb is preferred; but you can't even discuss that, > because your blindness (either mule-headed or under-educated) won't allow > you to. I know a singular verb in the "(verb)" position in that sentence to be an egregious error. Tell me why it isn't. Not *that* it isn't. *Why* it isn't. > > (2) In that same sentence, is > > the pronoun "who" singular or plural? (3) In that same sentence, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > you've said, but you have misquoted and intentionally misinterpreted what I > have said in almost every posting you've made to the thread. This is such unutterable bullshit I have to assume it's an outright lie. The first time you said I hadn't explained myself, I quoted verbatim a paragraph of grammatical reasoning from my first or second posting on this thread (I don't remember which, and it's not worth checking.) Later I posted quotations from three different authorities with comment, and links to two of them. You blew them off as too difficult to read, as if the nub of this issue doesn't concern you if it requires a bit of reading and thinking. Meanwhile, you put all kinds of emphasis on "equation," but I challenge you to quote a single statement from any of your prior postings in which you state what equals what. If you don't even know whether the relative plural that governs the disputed verb is singular or plural, and if you cannot identify its antecedent, say so. Otherwise, stop the bullshit and answer the question. If you don't, my next response will be to declare you a confirmed bullshitter and to drop this argument where it belongs -- in the toilet. I hasten to add that this is pure Usenet anger. I'd never allow someone to get as far in real life as you have done on this thread -- I don't have the stamina, if nothing else. I'd have walked out a lot sooner. But it's kind of fun trying to pin down someone who is either unable or constitutionally unwilling to state his position in clear terms. I think in in this case the word is "unable." Don't insult me in response -- prove me wrong. Explain yourself. I don't think you can. [ . . . ] > You have yet to set forth even a semblance of a coherent > explanation of your reasoning. Until I see something that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > thread is acquainted with what I have to say. The same > cannot be said for you. I find it strange that you bother to keep explaining it when it should be obvious by now that his skull is impervious to lucid explication. > [ . . . ] > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > it should be obvious by now that his skull is impervious to > lucid explication. Oh, no, Mark knows exactly what he's doing. That's why I keep calling him on it. Ask him how he deals with dwudjo. He's also sneaky. He finally posted something in response to Peter Beattie that actually sets out what looks like a theory. That was the first and (to date) only statement of his position. He wouldn't give me the satisfaction, so he offered it to Peter instead. Of course, this explanation that he finally deigned to post makes no sense whatever to me, so I cross-posted it to AUE, asking John Lawler, or anyone else capable of doing so, to critique it. I hope someone will take it seriously, even if only to demolish it. And if someone who knows which end is up decides that Mark was right all along, I'll have learned something. I can live with that, even if it means conceding he was right all along. I do find that prospect unlikely, and even being right wouldn't excuse his behavior. Well, we shall see ... [...] >Well, we shall see ... What's to see? Fowler (the _real_ Fowler) remarks: [B]ut idiom has decided that in the _it . . . that_ construction, when _that_ is the relative, it takes its number not from its actual antecedent _it_, but from the word represented by it." Or we can go all the way back to the classic old _Harbrace College Manual_, which (at 6a, in the edition I have) says: The expletive _it_ is always followed by a singular verb: "It _is_ the _woman_ who suffers." "It _is_ the _women_ who suffer." Verbatim. But I reckon idiot boy will find some excuse to dismiss those too. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker My opinions on English are available at http://owlcroft.com/english/ >> [ . . . ] >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Oh, no, Mark knows exactly what he's doing. That's why I keep > calling him on it. Ask him how he deals with dwudjo. Don't even go there, Bub. If you don't -- and it appears you don't -- know the first thing about equatives, I suggest you go and read up on them. Don't try to play the wise man, when you're sitting on a mountain of abject stupidity. -- Mark Wallace ----------------------------------------------------- For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit: The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site http://earth.prohosting.com/mwal/ ----------------------------------------------------- > [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Sentence b is not correct according to my "ear test." The relative > pronoun is "that," its antecedent is "comments," The Hell you say. > and it requires a > plural verb. "It make such discussions so daft." Right on. >> The only singular noun/pronoun in b is 'it'. Your wonderful and >> loudly-shouted theories do not allow for that. > > Yes, "it" is the only singular noun or pronoun. And it takes "is" > without regard to the grammar of the rest of the sentence. (More on > this below.) No, there isn't. <snip> -- Mark Wallace ----------------------------------------------------- For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit: The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site http://earth.prohosting.com/mwal/ ----------------------------------------------------- <snipped, doesn't matter> Mark is back! Hmm... What a coincidence. (Robin told you I've been pining, didn't he?!) SignatureDena Jo Delete "delete.this.for.email" for email. ><snipped, doesn't matter> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >(Robin told you I've been pining, didn't he?!) Robin didn't do nuthin' of the sort, cos he's been sulking until this morning. When I saw that Wallace siggy, I thought it must be one them there cloning spammers, and checked "all fields" just to see. Welcome back, Woll, and happy new everythings. Signaturewrmst rgrds Robin Bignall Quiet part of Hertfordshire England >> <snipped, doesn't matter> >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Welcome back, Woll, and happy new everythings. Don't put out too much bunting, chaps; my NG time is limited to about thirty seconds every three months. I'm having to work 'on location', and I'm not willing to do any public posting from the site until I've checked out their security and privacy measures to the max. And I come home every night to a stack of work that's just getting bigger and bigger. Phoey. I shoulda' bin a plumber. Merry Urrioops, regardless. (Non-standard greeting courtesy of the Dick van Dyke show, from more years ago than I'd like to confess to) -- Mark Wallace ----------------------------------------------------- For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit: The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site http://earth.prohosting.com/mwal/ ----------------------------------------------------- >> I think a case can be made for either position; > > Okay, you make the case for Mark's. He hasn't. I can't. I don't have the tools anymore. Twelve years ago, the last time I studied grammar, I could have zeroed in on what the correct answer was and why, but I can't do that anymore, and my materials from that grammar class are packed away. But just out of curiosity, I'm going to email the problem to my grammar teacher to see what she says. I'll report back. SignatureDena Jo (Email: Replace TPUBGTH with denajo2) >>> I think a case can be made for either position; >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I'll report back. Don't you dare! Robbie has to answer this one. -- Mark Wallace ----------------------------------------------------- For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit: The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site http://earth.prohosting.com/mwal/ ----------------------------------------------------- >> Okay, you make the case for Mark's. He hasn't. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I'll report back. Dena Jo, reporting in: GRAMMAR TEACHER: It is "It is your parents that are here." "That" does not have number of its own. Its antecedent is "parents." Therefore, it is "parents are = that are." Hope this helps. DENA JO: Almost done. And the "it is" makes no difference; right? GRAMMAR TEACHER: Right. ********************************** Mark seema to be taking it on the lam. SignatureDena Jo Plummeting to 2 on the self-befuddlement scale (Email: Replace TPUBGTH with denajo2) [ ... ] > Dena Jo, reporting in: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > GRAMMAR TEACHER: Right. > ********************************** There are at least three ways of getting to the right answer: 1. Only the plural sounds right. 2. The way your teacher did. 3. John Lawler's -- more sophisticated but with the same results. What Mark posted in response to Peter Beattie has these characteristics: 1. It allows (or requires) the speaker or writer to say or write something ugly. (Mark admitted as much.) 2. It draws distinctions where there are none to be drawn. 3. I am unaware of anything published anywhere that supports it. 4. Everything I have heard and read on the subject indicates that Mark is wrong. I think that's where we are right now. > Mark seema to be taking it on the lam. I doubt that. I'll bet he has some other reason for not posting here and it's coincidental that he bailed out just as John Lawler administered the coup de grace. I'm sure he'll be back. Perhaps he'll shut up about this and we can go on to other, less absurd things. SignatureBob Lieblich Welcome aboard, Deej [...] >Certainly the ear test is not definitive. Certainly it isn't--but equally certainly, for any tolerably well-read person (which I reckon assuredly includes you), it is a strong indicator, one we can say is right till proven wrong. When the construction is so common and simple-- It is his parents that are at the door" versus It is his parents that is at the door" --one can scarcely go wrong by ear. As to grammar manuals, you really ought to pick up a copy of Curme (_English Grammar_): in used paperback, it is so cheap that the postage and handling, even with Media Mail, will probably exceed the book's cost. (Curme discusses all this at 55.A, "Agreement between Subject and Predicate; Number".) SignatureCordially, Eric Walker My opinions on English are available at http://owlcroft.com/english/ > As to grammar manuals, you really ought to pick up a copy of > Curme (_English Grammar_): in used paperback, it is so cheap > that the postage and handling, even with Media Mail, will > probably exceed the book's cost. (Curme discusses all this at > 55.A, "Agreement between Subject and Predicate; Number".) Which, of course, is the Wrong Page. -- Mark Wallace ----------------------------------------------------- For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit: The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site http://earth.prohosting.com/mwal/ ----------------------------------------------------- > > As to grammar manuals, you really ought to pick up a copy of > > Curme (_English Grammar_): in used paperback, it is so cheap [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Which, of course, is the Wrong Page. How about the one I cited in an earlier posting: Vol II, page 11, paragraph beginning "anticipatory it"? You don't even have the book, do you? SignatureRobbie Oy! >>> As to grammar manuals, you really ought to pick up a copy of >>> Curme (_English Grammar_): in used paperback, it is so cheap [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > How about the one I cited in an earlier posting: Vol II, page 11, > paragraph beginning "anticipatory it"? That still didn't answer the question. > You don't even have the book, do you? Can anyone give me a good reason for owning a 70 year old book written by a German? Yes, I do have a copy; but it's back in England. Non-essential. -- Mark Wallace ----------------------------------------------------- For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit: The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site http://earth.prohosting.com/mwal/ ----------------------------------------------------- >> [ . . . ] >> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > that I prove him wrong. I believe that this is a fair summary of > what has happened so far. The problem with trying to prove that statement wrong is that you /cannot/ prove it wrong, because it isn't. It is /always/ grammatically correct, even in cases where it sounds awful and no-one would use it. What I have asked you to do is not prove that what I said is wrong, which would be impossible, but to give the grammar behind another construction that is often preferred in such cases (the 'parents' one, for one), and which you have loudly espoused as being the *only* correct construct without giving a jot of sensible grammatical regulation to back it up. It is your continued attempts at evasion, by name-calling and being insulting, that can be classed as trolling. Nothing I have done or said can. -- Mark Wallace ----------------------------------------------------- For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit: The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site http://earth.prohosting.com/mwal/ ----------------------------------------------------- > [ . . . ] > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > being discussed, or is it a particular verb that is being > discussed? Not exactly. It's in very large terms about whether or not certain constructs are correct. > Is it verbs and their number that are the problem? Yes, it are[1]. Robbie seems to have some very weird ideas, and I'm trying to make him look it up so that he'll see how the various constructs /really/ work, rather than make up silly rants about expletives, adjectives, and ears. [1] *BIG* clue there, Robbie. -- Mark Wallace ----------------------------------------------------- For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit: The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site http://earth.prohosting.com/mwal/ ----------------------------------------------------- Bottom line: Unexceptionable: It is they who are. Ludicrously incorrect: *It is they who is. Exercises for the student: Try to find an English-usage guide that says "It is they who is" is grammatically correct. State in thirty-one words or less why there's a huge difference between saying *"Yes, it are" and "Yes, it is they who are". (I started to say "twenty-five words or less", but I tried it and it took me thirty-one words.) > Bottom line: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > (I started to say "twenty-five words or less", but I tried > it and it took me thirty-one words.) When the subject of the subordinate clause is human, it's far more common that that subject takes priority over the 'it', and that the equation is suppressed; so most such sentences that have personal relative pronouns will keep the verb as part of the subordinate clause, following the number of the subject of the subordinate clause. But either way, 'is' is the main verb of the sentence, and 'it is' is the main clause, so calling them 'expletives' is a pretty dumb thing to do. No-one has yet addressed this relationship between main and subordinate clauses within such sentences -- which is why no-one has yet given a solution to the problem, and which is why people are stuck on giving examples where "ear tests" are the only analysis option, and why a lot of wood is being seen, but precious few trees. And I'm not explaining any further, because that has become Robbie's duty/punishment. -- Mark Wallace ----------------------------------------------------- For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit: The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site http://earth.prohosting.com/mwal/ ----------------------------------------------------- [ . . . ] > But either way, 'is' is the main verb of the sentence, > and 'it is' is the main clause, so calling them >'expletives' is a pretty dumb thing to do. Not so. It's a pretty proper thing to do. From _Random House Webster's Unabridged Electronic Dictionary_: ex·ple·tive [...] n. [...] 3. Gram. a word considered as regularly filling the syntactic position of another, as _it_ in _It is his duty to go_, or _there_ in _There is nothing here_. You can find essentially the same definition in other dictionaries, and you might like some of them better, but they all come to the same thing. Look at "It is his duty to go" as equivalent to "His duty is to go", so the subject of "is" in both cases is effectively "duty". The word "it". as in "It is those books that are best", the word "it" is called "anticipatory it". It is also called an expletive. In "It terrifies me to see snakes", the phrase "to see snakes" is effectively acting as a subject whose verb is "terrifies". The expletive, anticipatory "it", is only a device to allow the verb to come first, presumably for different emphasis than with the equivalent statement "To see snakes terrifies me". Grammatically unexceptionable: "It is his duties that are most important to him." Grossly ungrammatical: *"It is his duties that is most important to him." Egregiously ungrammatical: *"It are his duties that are most important to him." Grammar has lots of rules, including rules for the proper treatment of the expletive anticipatory "it". > [ . . . ] > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > _It is his duty to go_, or _there_ in _There is > nothing here_. 1: That reads as a definition of 'pronoun' ('he' fills the syntactic position of 'Fred' in "he eats bananas"), so the definition is seriously flawed. 2: It does not address what I said, which is about calling the /main verb/ and the /main clause/ of a sentence expletives. -- Mark Wallace ----------------------------------------------------- For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit: The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site http://earth.prohosting.com/mwal/ ----------------------------------------------------- > > [ . . . ] > >> But either way, 'is' is the main verb of the sentence, > >> and 'it is' is the main clause, so calling them > >> 'expletives' is a pretty dumb thing to do. > > Not so. It's a pretty proper thing to do. > > From _Random House Webster's Unabridged Electronic > > Dictionary_: > > ex·ple·tive [...] n. > > [...] > > 3. Gram. a word considered as regularly filling > > the syntactic position of another, as _it_ in > > _It is his duty to go_, or _there_ in _There is > > nothing here_. > 1: That reads as a definition of 'pronoun' ('he' fills the syntactic > position of 'Fred' in "he eats bananas"), so the definition is seriously > flawed. > 2: It does not address what I said, which is about calling the > /main verb/ and the /main clause/ of a sentence expletives. Sigh. >>> [ . . . ] > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Sigh. If you disagree, say /why/. Otherwise, you are simply following Robbie and WP in saying "I don't know what I'm talking about, but I'm *RIGHT*!" The definition you posted gave /specific/ examples of where the pronoun (and /only/ the pronoun) could be described as 'dummy', 'anticipatory', or even 'expletive'. It does not address the whole issue that we are discussing, so expecting it to have all the answers to: 'What are the differences in construction between "it's the kids that are driving me crazy" and "it's the kids that's driving me crazy"?' is expecting far too much of it. It does not even fully address one side of the discussion. i.e. if the subject of a verb is 'expletive', then what is the function of the verb itself? How should it be parsed? As it is the main verb of the sentence, it cannot be dropped willy-nilly, or called 'expletive', so what *does* it do? What should it be parsed as? Answering that will go some way toward answering the other questions, above. Refusing to answer it, as Robbie and WP choose to do, is to deny a chunk of grammar simply because of mule-headed, blinkered adherence to previous incomplete statements. -- Mark Wallace ----------------------------------------------------- For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit: The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site http://earth.prohosting.com/mwal/ ----------------------------------------------------- [again addressing "Woody Wordpecker"] > If you disagree, say /why/. > Otherwise, you are simply following Robbie and WP in saying "I don't know > what I'm talking about, but I'm *RIGHT*!" Read this posting: <tinyurl.com/slxd> and tell me I haven't set forth detailed reasoning. You just can't be bothered reading it. > The definition you posted gave /specific/ examples of where the pronoun (and > /only/ the pronoun) could be described as 'dummy', 'anticipatory', or even > 'expletive'. There are two expletives in general use: "there" and "it." The second is a pronoun in ordinary use, but as an expletive "it" serves as a dummy subject without regard to its word class. I haven't heard anyone say that the "is" that follows anticipatory/expletive "it" is part of the expletive. It's just the verb that follows. > It does not address the whole issue that we are discussing, so expecting it > to have all the answers to: 'What are the differences in construction > between "it's the kids that are driving me crazy" and "it's the kids that's > driving me crazy"?' is expecting far too much of it. This is a red herring. You've dragged a grammatically erroneous usage that is accepted in casual speech into a discussion of what is or is not strictly grammatical. The only possible defense for your position is that you're defending the strictly grammatical even when, as you yourself concede, the result is ugly. > It does not even fully address one side of the discussion. i.e. if the > subject of a verb is 'expletive', then what is the function of the verb > itself? How should it be parsed? It is the verb of the main sentence, and it links "it" to the rest of the sentence. That's all it does. It's a plain old copulative. > As it is the main verb of the sentence, it cannot be dropped willy-nilly, or > called 'expletive', so what *does* it do? What should it be parsed as? I just told you. > Answering that will go some way toward answering the other questions, above. No, it doesn't help a bit, because it does not govern what follows. > Refusing to answer it, as Robbie and WP choose to do, I don't refuse to answer it. I never saw you ask it before. First time I saw it I answered it. If this is what you've been hinting at with your invocations of "equation" and the like, you have reached a grand anticlimax. The presence of "is" is easily explained and doesn't change a thing. In addition to which, my answer to your inquiry about "is" is consistent with my prior postings. If I'm wrong, tell me how. Explain. > is to deny a chunk of > grammar simply because of mule-headed, blinkered adherence to previous > incomplete statements. Not at all. I know exactly what "is" does. It links the expletive (dummy subject/anticipatory) "it" to the rest of the sentence. But it does not *govern the grammar* of the rest of the sentence. I don't know how to make this any clearer. I'm not going to sign these anymore. [...] >I don't know how to make this any clearer. You _were_ warned. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker My opinions on English are available at http://owlcroft.com/english/ [responding to Woody Wordpecker, who we know is really someone else] > No-one has yet addressed this relationship between main and subordinate > clauses within such sentences -- which is why no-one has yet given a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > And I'm not explaining any further, because that has become Robbie's > duty/punishment. The main clause is "It is," where "It" is a dummy subject. It takes a singular verb because "it" as a dummy subject (expletive/anticipatory) always takes "is" without regard to the remaining grammar of the sentence. (I think this makes four times I've posted this.) But the dependent clause has its own verb, which takes its number from the relative pronoun that is the subject of the dependent clause. The "it" is stand-in for the relative clause as subject, according to the three authorities I quoted in my most detailed attempt to explain this, which Mark blew off. I can't explain why the relationship between the main clause and the dependent clause requires a plural verb in the dependent clause. That's because there is no relationship between them that affects the number of the verb in the dependent clause. It is the antecedent of the relative pronoun that gives its number to the relative pronoun, which gives its number to the verb. Ergo: It is the objects of art that *are* the origin It is one object of art that *is* the origin Both sentences begin with "It is." But the antecedent of "that" is either "objects" or "object." The number of the antecedent controls the number of "that" and the number of the verb in the dependent clause of which "that" is the subject. Now, Mark, tell me what "relationship" between "it" and anything in either sentence allows anything in the dependent clause of my two examples other than the plural in the first and the singular in the second. SignatureR. <the same one-track rotgut> You're getting very close to earning a 'WP' nickname all of your own. I've already posted the answer to the actual question, somewhere else, so you can stop posting the same old irrelevant snippets. -- Mark Wallace ----------------------------------------------------- For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit: The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site http://earth.prohosting.com/mwal/ ----------------------------------------------------- > <the same one-track rotgut> > > You're getting very close to earning a 'WP' nickname all of your own. > > I've already posted the answer to the actual question, somewhere else, No you haven't. When you accuse me of ignoring a point I either answer it, quote a prior posting, or post a URL. I have a consistent, coherent grammatical explanation of why you are wrong. You have bupkis. > so you can stop posting the same old irrelevant snippets. All I'm doing is explaining in detail why you're wrong. If you have no answer, say so. If you do have an answer and have already posted it, post a quotation or a URL. Otherwise this thread is dead, and you killed it. Eric did warn me. [...] >Is it verbs and their number that are the problem? No, sir, it is the village idiot that is the problem. Why the villagers insist on treating decorously with him, instead of riding him out on a rail in tar and feathers, continues to remain beyond my grasp, but it certainly makes for numerous long, silly, and largely wasteful threads. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker My opinions on English are available at http://owlcroft.com/english/ >[...] > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >remain beyond my grasp, but it certainly makes for numerous >long, silly, and largely wasteful threads. Eric, don't be a wet blanket. I are enjoying this hugely. Oh, and we Brits don't ride people out of town on a rail in tar and feathers. We take them outside and shoot them. Signaturewrmst rgrds Robin Bignall Quiet part of Hertfordshire England http://homepage.ntlworld.com/docrobin/homepage.htm > >[...] > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Eric, don't be a wet blanket. I are enjoying this hugely. Oh, you is, is you? > Oh, and we Brits don't ride people out of town on a rail in tar and > feathers. We take them outside and shoot them. I've noticed that Mark is free with his recommendations of such treatment but never volunteers. SignatureBob Lieblich DJ was a cookie peddler > Bob Lieblich > DJ was a cookie peddler Chocolate mint and Savannahs... Mmmmmmmmmmmm. SignatureDena Jo (Email: Replace TPUBGTH with denajo2) > >[...] > >>Is it verbs and their number that are the problem? > >No, sir, it is the village idiot that is the problem. Why the > >villagers insist on treating decorously with him, instead of > >riding him out on a rail in tar and feathers, continues to > >remain beyond my grasp, but it certainly makes for numerous > >long, silly, and largely wasteful threads. > Eric, don't be a wet blanket. I are enjoying this hugely. > Oh, and we Brits don't ride people out of town on a rail in tar and > feathers. We take them outside and shoot them. Whatever. [...] >Oh, and we Brits don't ride people out of town on a rail in >tar and feathers. We take them outside and shoot them. Giving new meaning to the remark "Shooting's too good for 'em." Too quick and painless . . . . SignatureCordially, Eric Walker My opinions on English are available at http://owlcroft.com/english/ > [...] > >> Is it verbs and their number that are the problem? > > No, sir, it is the village idiot that is the problem. Yes, you are indeed a large part of it. > Why the > villagers insist on treating decorously with him, instead of > riding him out on a rail in tar and feathers, continues to > remain beyond my grasp, but it certainly makes for numerous > long, silly, and largely wasteful threads. Like your other long, silly, and largely wasteful thread on "no-one"; your long, silly, and largely wasteful thread on 'succumb'; and your quarterly long, silly, and largely wasteful threads on noun case, you mean? I cannot but agree. -- Mark Wallace ----------------------------------------------------- For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit: The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site http://earth.prohosting.com/mwal/ ----------------------------------------------------- > -- The construction "it is {nominal clause} that forms (whatever)" is > correct. That construction is /always/ correct. Lest I get you wrong, you are saying that a sentence like It is the writings of Shakespeare that is most popular with A-level English students. is gramatically correct and idiomatic English, aren't you? SignaturePeter >> -- The construction "it is {nominal clause} that forms (whatever)" is >> correct. That construction is /always/ correct. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > is gramatically correct and idiomatic English, aren't you? I'm not even going to comment on "idiomatic" until we've decided how the word is to be used in the group, but the sentence is indeed perfectly grammatical. Since no-one seems willing or able to explain the grammar behind "It is the writings of Shakespeare that /are/ most popular with A-level English students.", it would appear that we're stuck with the uglier alternative, and all have to cease and desist forthwith from using plural verbs in such situations. -- Mark Wallace ----------------------------------------------------- For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit: The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site http://earth.prohosting.com/mwal/ ----------------------------------------------------- > >> -- The construction "it is {nominal clause} that forms (whatever)" is > >> correct. That construction is /always/ correct. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I'm not even going to comment on "idiomatic" until we've decided how the > word is to be used in the group, How about the way it's used in dictionaries? > but the sentence is indeed perfectly grammatical. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and all have to cease and desist forthwith from using plural verbs in such > situations. For anyone who hasn't yet dozed off, both Eric Walker and I have "explain[ed] the grammar behind" the use of the plural verb with a relative pronoun that has a plural antecedent. Mark would rather insist that this isn't an explanation than admit that one has been posted several times already. This strikes me as dwudjoism at its finest. And I, like Mark trying to stanch the earlier invasion of the actual dwudjo, am trying to keep the record clear. I have repeatedly explained why the form Mark says is correct is wrong. His "rule" is not a rule anyway -- just an ipse dixit. He admits that the result of his rule is "the uglier alternative" but apparently lacks enough native grammatical wit to figure out why, even when I tell him in the plainest English I can muster. Or maybe he's come down with terminal trollism. I don't think I've ever called Mark a troll before, but his behavior on this thread is hard to explain any other way. SignatureBob Lieblich If I wanted a dwudjo, I'd get the original >>>> -- The construction "it is {nominal clause} that forms (whatever)" >>>> is correct. That construction is /always/ correct. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > "explain[ed] the grammar behind" the use of the plural verb with a > relative pronoun that has a plural antecedent. ... Which was all very helpful, but, as one might expect from the far-famed Eric "Wrong Page" Walker, has precious little to do with it. Try reading a different page of the grammar book -- i.e. the right one. Your 'explanation' requires "it is" to be discarded as 'an expletive' because it "doesn't sound right to your ear", which, whilst it's not the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard, it comes close. I keep giving you the key terms, but you keep not noticing them. <insults snipped> -- Mark Wallace ----------------------------------------------------- For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit: The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site http://earth.prohosting.com/mwal/ ----------------------------------------------------- > Since no-one seems willing or able to explain the grammar behind "It is the > writings of Shakespeare that /are/ most popular with A-level English > students.", It seems to me that the "that" introduces a defining relative clause. The object it refers back to seems to be "writings", not "it". And I for one should want the relative clause verb to agree in number with its object. Same story in "It is the parents who make the decisions". > it would appear that we're stuck with the uglier alternative, > and all have to cease and desist forthwith from using plural verbs in such > situations. Would you actually *use* a sentence like "It is the parents who makes the decisions"? SignaturePeter >> Since no-one seems willing or able to explain the grammar behind "It >> is the writings of Shakespeare that /are/ most popular with A-level [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > one should want the relative clause verb to agree in number with its > object. Same story in "It is the parents who make the decisions". Yes, but *why* does 'parents' become the subject of 'to make', rather than 'it'? What is the mechanism that moves the focus? That's what this is about; and in the OP's original sentence, that 'why' doesn't apply so readily. >> it would appear that we're stuck with the uglier alternative, >> and all have to cease and desist forthwith from using plural verbs >> in such situations. > > Would you actually *use* a sentence like "It is the parents who makes > the decisions"? Not in a million years, but that doesn't make it grammatically incorrect -- and, like I say, if we wish to pride ourselves in being grammatical, then we have to follow what we know to be correct; so until /someone/ (not you -- Robbie) provides a solid, grammatical reason for making the verb take on the number of a different substantive, we are stuck with the singular verb to go with "it", and must use only singular verbs in such sentences. -- Mark Wallace ----------------------------------------------------- For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit: The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site http://earth.prohosting.com/mwal/ ----------------------------------------------------- >>Would you actually *use* a sentence like "It is the parents who makes >>the decisions"? > > Not in a million years, but that doesn't make it grammatically incorrect Your not using it in a million years doesn't make it grammatically incorrect, that much is true. So, what you're saying is that although no native speaker might ever use a particular sentence, that is no reason to call it ungrammatical? What, then, is grammar? SignaturePeter >>> Would you actually *use* a sentence like "It is the parents who >>> makes the decisions"? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > reason > to call it ungrammatical? What, then, is grammar? That's the point. Grammar is the rules by which people use the language, and with some "it" sentences (for want of a better name for them that doesn't give the game away to Robbie), the above rule applies, but with others, a different /set of/ rules is followed. However, the simple rule "It" + {singular verb} is /never/ incorrect grammar, even in the cases where people follow those different rules. -- Mark Wallace ----------------------------------------------------- For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit: The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site http://earth.prohosting.com/mwal/ ----------------------------------------------------- > That's the point. Grammar is the rules by which people use the language, > and with some "it" sentences (for want of a better name for them that > doesn't give the game away to Robbie), the above rule applies, but with > others, a different /set of/ rules is followed. I can't say I didn't try (in fact I tried for the last hour), but I don't have the slightest idea what you're getting at. This may be hopelessly naive, but it seems to me that the same rule is used, only the object is different. In one case it's a noun, in the other case it's the whole statement the verb refers to. In the sentence "It is the parents who make the decisions", clearly "parents" is the head of the sentence. In your example "Is it verbs and their number that are the problem?" "Yes, it are." the "is" in "Yes, it is" refers not to "verbs and their number", as "are" does, but to the statement as a whole, namely that it is verbs and their number that are the problem. > However, the simple rule "It" + {singular verb} is /never/ incorrect > grammar, even in the cases where people follow those different rules. If grammar is the rules by which people use the language, how can something be grammatical if the supposed rule behind it isn't followed? SignaturePeter >> That's the point. Grammar is the rules by which people use the >> language, and with some "it" sentences (for want of a better name [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > "are" does, but to the statement as a whole, namely that it is verbs > and their number that are the problem. That deserves a "Bingo!" >> However, the simple rule "It" + {singular verb} is /never/ incorrect >> grammar, even in the cases where people follow those different rules. > > If grammar is the rules by which people use the language, how can > something be grammatical if the supposed rule behind it isn't > followed? Because there are different rules which allow for different constructions. Here's a sentence of Robbie's, from earlier: -- "It's the children that are driving me crazy" and here's an equally grammatical sentence, which follows different rules: -- "It's the children that's driving me crazy" Neither of those looks wrong, sounds wrong, or is wrong; but certain people are trying to exclude the second sentence altogether from the English language, simply because they do not understand the grammar behind the two constructions. Just watch: They'll try to blame ellipsis, next. -- Mark Wallace ----------------------------------------------------- For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit: The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site http://earth.prohosting.com/mwal/ ----------------------------------------------------- > Because there are different rules which allow for different constructions. > Here's a sentence of Robbie's, from earlier: > -- "It's the children that are driving me crazy" [1] > and here's an equally grammatical sentence, which follows different rules: > -- "It's the children that's driving me crazy" [2] I don't know, Mark. To me, it's the same rule that relative clause verbs must agree with what they refer to. In [1], that's "children". In [2], I would argue, it's possibly the children's doing or not doing something or their just being there. SignaturePeter >> Because there are different rules which allow for different >> constructions. Here's a sentence of Robbie's, from earlier: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > doing something > or their just being there. Nah, it's a contrast. If the sentence is intended to show a direct, overt contrast, then the 'it' takes precedence. -- "It's Bill and Ben that's at the door(, not your parents)". -- "It's the children that's driving me crazy(, not the dog)". So long as there's a strong "as opposed to ~~" or "rather than ~~" meaning intended, then the verb follows the number of whatever it is that precedes the equative 'is'. Of course, it can be argued that no construction of that type is ever used unless it's to make such a contrast (which is why "it is" + {whatever} + {singular verb} is /always/ correct), but it is very clear that if there is any intended contrast in "It's your parents who are at the door", is an extremely minor element. The sentence is intended to state a simple fact, without contrasting anything to anything. With the OP's sentence, I can't see any good reason for writing it in the way it was written unless the intention /was/ to show a contrast: -- "It is the {whatever it was} that forms the seed of {whatever it is} -- rather than any existing condition/religious art/whatever." If the contrast wasn't strongly intended, then the sentence should have started from the 'the', and dropped a layer of subordination: -- "The {whatever it was} form the seed of {whatever}". But, of course, that is debatable. I suppose I should mention, at this point, that the verb should have been 'formed', rather than either 'form' or 'forms'; but I had to respond to Robbie & WP's silly statements by showing the other side of the coin. That they had obviously never before turned the coin (or perhaps the page, in WP's case) over, and had therefore never before seen what was on the other side of it, didn't help the discussion one little bit. -- Mark Wallace ----------------------------------------------------- For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit: The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site http://earth.prohosting.com/mwal/ ----------------------------------------------------- [AUE added in the hope that Prof. Lawler, and perhaps others in the know, will respond to the theory set forth below by Mark Wallace] A bit of introduction: At the start of this long and convoluted AEU thread, the original poster asked a question about the following sentence: "It is the works of art that these two princesses brought with them to Tibet that form the sacred seeds of the origins of Tibetan art." Although the original query did not concern the number of the verb "form[s]" that rapidly became a bone of contention. Mark Wallace insisted it should be singular. Most of the few other participants said it should be plural. The supporters of the plural said that the verb took its number from "that," which had the plural antecedent "works of art." It took a while (IMO, at any rate; Mark says differently) to extract a full statement of Mark's position, but eventually it was forthcoming. Here it is (many postings after the original), with some introductory material: > >> Because there are different rules which allow for different > >> constructions. Here's a sentence of Robbie's, from earlier: [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > -- "The {whatever it was} form the seed of {whatever}". > But, of course, that is debatable. I strongly disagree with Mark but have no idea where to look for something that would contradict him.[1] I spent a bit of time on the Web looking for something to confirm his position, but nothing turned up. I think he made it up out of whole cloth, but I don't want to get into a pissing contest about that. I am not looking for another detailed explanation of the grammar of sentences that begin with the expletive "it." That's been beaten to death on AEU. But I do ask for critiques of Mark's specific reasoning for using a singular verb in some sentences of that form even when the relative plural and its antecedent are plural. It looks to me like pure nonsense, but I'm not qualified to defend that judgment. And if he's right and I'm wrong, I'd like to know that; I will have learned something. I want very much not to reopen the full AEU dialogue. If you do respond, please try to stick close to Mark's explanation as quoted above. Citations to authority, particularly on the Web, would also be useful. Thank you. [1] I think a case can be made for "that's" even when "that" has a plural antecedent, by analogy to sentences of the form "There's three cars in the garage." But I don't think formal grammar allows "that is" where Mark wrote "that's" any more than it allows "There is three cars in the garage." The AEU discussion was supposed to be only about formal grammar, so let's ignore contractions. They aren't essential to Mark's argument anyway. SignatureBob Lieblich Inquiring mind [big snip of context -- see previous post] Re: It is the works of art that these two princesses brought with them to Tibet / that form the sacred seeds of the origins of Tibetan art. vs \ that forms the sacred seeds of the origins of Tibetan art. ^ This is a "Cleft" sentence. It is formed by extracting the topic of the sentence, which may be any noun phrase, and putting it into the frame "It is/was ______________ ", then following that by a relative clause made up of the sentence without the extracted topic. Exx: It was Bill who/that put the vodka in the punch. It was vodka that Bill put in the punch. It was the punch that Bill put the vodka in. It is these works of art that we are here to see. It is these works of art that are on display. *It is these works of art that is on display. The original sentence has a plural subject and therefore a plural verb. These works of art are/*is on display. The second part of a Cleft is simply a relative clause made from that sentence, and in a relative clause the verb doesn't change, even if the subject is extracted: The works of art that are/*is on display are from Tibet. This particular example of a Cleft has a stacked relative clause: that these two princesses brought with them to Tibet which complicates it a bit, but it doesn't change anything basic. So you're right, Robert, that it should be It is the works of art that these two princesses brought with them to Tibet that form the sacred seeds of the origins of Tibetan art. and not *It is the works of art that these two princesses brought with them to Tibet that forms the sacred seeds of the origins of Tibetan art. For more on cleavage, pseudo-cleavage, and stackedness, see http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler/fillmore.html -John Lawler http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler U Michigan Linguistics Dept ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "You can only find truth with logic if you have already found truth without it." -- G.K. Chesterton > [big snip of context -- see previous post] [further snip by me] > So you're right, Robert, that it should be > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler/fillmore.html Thank you, Prof. Lawler. I had cited that document to my interlocutor in an earlier stage of the proceedings. I inferred from his reply that he never read it. At the risk of putting words into your mouth (and without asking for further reply), it appears safe to say that you found nothing in the analysis you snipped to alter your views. SignatureBob Lieblich Who can but acquiesce >> [big snip of context -- see previous post] > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > further reply), it appears safe to say that you found nothing in the > analysis you snipped to alter your views. After serious study of the URL, I feel impelled to comment. Although I certainly can't argue with the esteemed Lieblich and Lawler on any theoretical grounds, I believe I would make the same mistake Mr. Wallace made, and I don't think I would be alone in this. In parsing the sentence "It is the works of art that these two princesses brought with them to Tibet that form the sacred seeds of the origins of Tibetan art." I would think of this "it is x that y" construction as, in this case, "It [is the works of art that these two princesses brought with them to Tibet that] form the sacred seeds of the origins of Tibetan art" with the "is" and "that" functioning as parenthesizing tokens. The substance of what lies between them is represented in the recast sentence that follows by "It": "It form[s] the sacred seed[s] of the origins of Tibetan art." In that parsing, "forms" would be what I would use. Also "seed," since "it" is singular -- and I notice that Mr. Wallace made that same substitution in his analysis, which suggests to me that he is parsing the sentence the same way. -- rzed >>> So you're right, Robert, that it should be >>> It is the works of art >>> that these two princesses brought with them to Tibet >>> that form the sacred seeds of the origins of >>> Tibetan art. >>> and not >>> *It is the works of art >>> that these two princesses brought with them to Tibet >>> that forms the sacred seeds of the origins of >>> Tibetan art. >>> For more on cleavage, pseudo-cleavage, and stackedness, see >>> http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler/fillmore.html >> Thank you, Prof. Lawler. I had cited that document to my >> interlocutor in an earlier stage of the proceedings. I inferred >> from his reply that he never read it. >> At the risk of putting words into your mouth (and without asking for >> further reply), it appears safe to say that you found nothing in the >> analysis you snipped to alter your views. >After serious study of the URL, I feel impelled to comment. Although I >certainly can't argue with the esteemed Lieblich and Lawler on any >theoretical grounds, I believe I would make the same mistake Mr. >Wallace made, and I don't think I would be alone in this. >In parsing the sentence "It is the works of art that these two >princesses brought with them to Tibet that form the sacred seeds of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >the origins of Tibetan art" with the "is" and "that" functioning as >parenthesizing tokens. And here we have the nubbin of the disagreement. To indent as parenthesized: It [ is the works of art that these two princesses brought with them to Tibet that ] form the sacred seeds of the origins of Tibetan art. The problem with this parenthesizing is that it brackets a non-constituent (the stuff between the brackets). "Is the works of art... that" can't be a constituent. There is a verb phrase constituent that begins with "is", but it extends all the way to the end of the sentence. The "that" is part of the following relative clause. And it contains a noun phrase, correctly bracketed below, which is plural, and which is the subject of the relative clause, and which therefore governs plural agreement with the verb of the relative clause. [S It [VP is [NP the works of art [S _that_ these two princesses brought __ with them to Tibet ] ] [S _that_ _form the sacred seeds of the origins of Tibetan art. ] ] ] The anticipatory "it" of the cleft is a dummy introduced by rule, has no reference (except for the plural noun phrase -- and why isn't it ungrammatical, by the way, for one to say "it[sg] is[sg] the works[pl]"?), and does not govern agreement in a relative clause. If this were possible, then a similar dummy "there" of existential sentences should certainly govern agreement as well, though it famously does not. >The substance of what lies between them is represented in the recast >sentence that follows by "It": "It form[s] the sacred seed[s] of the >origins of Tibetan art." In that parsing, "forms" would be what I >would use. Also "seed," since "it" is singular -- and I notice that >Mr. Wallace made that same substitution in his analysis, which >suggests to me that he is parsing the sentence the same way. Nice try, but while one can dream up rationalizations galore for English usages, it's the facts of the usage itself and its agreement with the actual discovered rules of English that should govern discussion. Of course, if it sounds better to you, by all means say it that way. You could posit a special Cleft rule governing agreement in your idiolect. Just don't expect anybody else to feel the same way about it, or to be convinced by appeals to 'logic'. -John Lawler www.umich.edu/~jlawler Univ of Michigan Linguistics Dept ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "I conceive that words are like money, not the worse for being common, but that it is the stamp of custom alone that gives them circulation or value." -- William Hazlitt 'On Familiar Style' (1821) >After serious study of the URL, I feel impelled to comment. Although I >certainly can't argue with the esteemed Lieblich and Lawler on any >theoretical grounds, I believe I would make the same mistake Mr. >Wallace made, and I don't think I would be alone in this. Are there more than one Lieblich and Lawler that post here? The esteemed ones, and the less esteemed ones? >> After serious study of the URL, I feel impelled to comment. >> Although I certainly can't argue with the esteemed Lieblich and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Are there more than one Lieblich and Lawler that post here? The > esteemed ones, and the less esteemed ones? You tell me, Tony. I hold both John Lawler and Robert Lieblich in the highest esteem, and they are the only ones of those names that I know of who post here. -- rzed >>> After serious study of the URL, I feel impelled to comment. >>> Although I certainly can't argue with the esteemed Lieblich and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >highest esteem, and they are the only ones of those names that I know >of who post here. You didn't hear a buzzing sound over your head as you posted this, did you? > >>> After serious study of the URL, I feel impelled to comment. > >>> Although I certainly can't argue with the esteemed Lieblich and [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > You didn't hear a buzzing sound over your head as you posted this, did > you? Gnaturally I heard a buzzing sound, but then I often do when I read your posts. -- rzed > >After serious study of the URL, I feel impelled to comment. Although I > >certainly can't argue with the esteemed Lieblich and Lawler on any [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Are there more than one Lieblich and Lawler that post here? The > esteemed ones, and the less esteemed ones? My brother Bill participated in AUE for several months a few years back. He must have been the esteemed one, because D. Hencer Spines called him Lieblich I and me Lieblich II, even though I am both order and larger than my brother and began posting here well before he did. Why Dick Zantow would know and invoke this I cannot imagine, nor can I account for his doing the same for the Lawlers (of whom I know only John). SignatureBob Lieblich Hardly the one and only {snipped} >My brother Bill participated in AUE for several months a few years >back. He must have been the esteemed one, because D. Hencer Spines >called him Lieblich I and me Lieblich II, even though I am both >order and larger than my brother and began posting here well before >he did. It's easy to be first when your bigger. -- john >{snipped} > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >It's easy to be first when your bigger. When your bigger what does what? (Is this an Oy! moment? The rules are not yet that clear.) -- wrmst rgrds Robin Bignall Quiet part of Hertfordshire England > >{snipped} > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > When your bigger what does what? > (Is this an Oy! moment? The rules are not yet that clear.) I think we need to put them in older. SignatureJerry Friedman >> >{snipped} >> > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >I think we need to put them in older. That's pretty clear. I'm older than I was this morning. -- wrmst rgrds Robin Bignall Quiet part of Hertfordshire England >>After serious study of the URL, I feel impelled to comment. Although I >>certainly can't argue with the esteemed Lieblich and Lawler on any [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Are there more than one Lieblich and Lawler that post here? The >esteemed ones, and the less esteemed ones? Yes, there are, but the less-esteemed ones have so little significance their posts don't even show up on most people's newsreader screens. SignatureCharles Riggs > [big snip of context -- see previous post] > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > The original sentence has a plural subject and therefore a plural > verb. Wrong. As wrong as wrong can be. I'd stake my doctorate against yours on this, any day of the week. What is wrong with the sentence -- which anyone who has made a serious study of the language should know -- is the common recent usage of a singular pronoun. It's not that long ago, form my point of view, that the use of 'it' in the sentence would have been sneered at by the self-professed literati of the day, because of the equation between a singular pronoun and a plural noun. That is, it should really read: -- "They are these works of art that are on display". Just like "they are your parents who are at the door", etc. However, the use of plural pronouns in such sentences has gone the way of many things -- under. It is now habitual in all dialects of English to use only singular pronouns. That does not, however change the function of the equative. The nouns/pronouns/whatever that are either side of the equative 'be' are absolutely equivalent, and carry precisely the same weight. If one is singular and the other is plural, then the verb in any subsequent subordinate clause can be either singular or plural, depending on the focus that the speaker/writer wishes to enforce. When the point of the sentence is to make a direct contrast, it is more common for the verb to follow the singular pronoun. Think restrictive and non-restrictive. > These works of art are/*is on display. > > The second part of a Cleft is simply a relative clause made from that > sentence, and in a relative clause the verb doesn't change, even if > the subject is extracted: And that's where your argument falls apart. You seem to be insisting that the subject is the particular word that you want it to be. That ain't the way it works. The subject of the relative clause in "It is these works of art that we are here to see" is obvious, because it's present; but the subject of the *subordinate* clause (not relative clause -- that's where Robbie keeps falling down; he lives by the school that talks only of relative clauses, and keeps looking for adjectives) in "It is these works of art that are on display" is not so obvious. -- "This is on display" is every bit as correct as: -- "The works of art are on display", and both can be extracted, quite correctly, from the sentence in exactly the same way as you say only one correct sentence can be extracted, but the former would be more used when highlighting a contrast: -- "This is on display, not this" (holding up two brochures). -- "The works of art are on display" (no contrast offered). Bored with it. Don't look for rules that explain your perceived theories; just look for rules. And don't teach people crap like that. Show them how the language works, not how you want it to work. <snip> -- Mark Wallace ----------------------------------------------------- For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit: The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site http://earth.prohosting.com/mwal/ ----------------------------------------------------- > Wrong. As wrong as wrong can be. There are many varieties of English, each as wrong as any other. > I'd stake my doctorate against yours on > this, any day of the week. Except there is no evidence anywhere of your having one. SignatureSimon R. Hughes > > Wrong. As wrong as wrong can be. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Except there is no evidence anywhere of your having one. Is that going to be the answer to any claim about correctness or not that is made round here? Signature"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata." +-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous" "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote on 27 Dec 2003: >> > Wrong. As wrong as wrong can be. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Is that going to be the answer to any claim about correctness or not > that is made round here? That's a good start, it seems to me. Read Mark's response again. Does it read like the response of a man with a PhD in a relevant subject (viz. linguistics)? And what are we to make of a man who can say "What I say in such discussions might not always be easy to grasp (read: might not be easy to resolve with people's habits in speech), but what I say is *never* wrong" [From: Mark Wallace (mwallace@dse.nl); Subject: Re: it is/was + noun/pronoun + relative clause; Newsgroups: alt.english.usage; Date: 2003-10-22 23:20:18 PST; Message 23 in thread]? And what shall we do with a man who can claim that "'It is your parents that is here.' *Is Grammatically Correct* Like it or lump it" [Message 45 in thread]? If these are any indications that Mr Wallace has a doctorate, they are certainly proof that his doctorate is in DUH (Decidedly Unintentional Humour). Only the sentences quoted by Simon make any sense to me. His remarks are a jumble of accusations of incompetence and complaints about language change. For example, he makes this interestingly obtuse claim: [quote] It's not that long ago, form my point of view, that the use of 'it' in the sentence would have been sneered at by the self-professed literati of the day, because of the equation between a singular pronoun and a plural noun. "That is, it should really read: -- "They are these works of art that are on display". Just like "they are your parents who are at the door", etc. [/quote] How old is this man? And what world is he discussing? I've never in my 60 years heard a cleft sentence begin with "they" except in response to a question of the type: "And just who/what are 'they'?" A : Who is vandalizing all the cars in the neighborhood? B°: Not me. *It is the boys next door that is vandalizing all the cars in the neighborhood. B¹: Not me. It is the boys next door who are vandalizing all the cars in the neighborhood. B²: Not me. *They are the boys next door that are vandalizing all the cars in the neighborhood. B³: Not me. *They are the boys next door who are vandalizing all the cars in the neighborhood. C : What is it that forms the sacred seeds of the origins of Tibetan art? D°: It is the works of art [1] [that these two princesses brought with them to Tibet] that form the sacred seeds of the origins of Tibetan art. D¹: *It is the works of art [that these two princesses brought with them to Tibet] that forms the sacred seeds of the origins of Tibetan art. E : What is it that form the sacred seeds of the origins of Tibetan art? F°: It is the works of art that these two princesses brought with them to Tibet that form the sacred seeds of the origins of Tibetan art. F¹: *They are the works of art that these two princesses brought with them to Tibet that form the sacred seeds of the origins of Tibetan art. G : What are they? H°: *It is the works of art that these two princesses brought with them to Tibet that form the sacred seeds of the origins of Tibetan art. H²: ?They are the works of art that these two princesses brought with them to Tibet that form the sacred seeds of the origins of Tibetan art. [1] Secondary relative clause not a factor is determining the proper number of the verb, so disregarded, as indicated by square brackets. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. >"Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )" ><stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote on 27 Dec 2003: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >it read like the response of a man with a PhD in a relevant subject >(viz. linguistics)? It's not a start at all, but a typical Hughes snide comment. The idea that one has to have a doctorate in something before one is qualified to write about it is ludicrous. You implied the same idea in your rant with Coop about "Death of a Salesman", about who is 'qualified' and who is not, to make literary criticism. One of the leading and most erudite players in both of these newsgroups does not have a university degree, he mentioned a month or two back. The thought that one can or should not comment on anything unless one has the right string of letters after his name is poppycock. This is not a peer-to-peer group discussing research papers. Wallace does have a doctorate, in a scientific subject I think, but what subject it's in is immaterial. This "I'll stake my doctorate..." remark is just a figure of speech. Signaturewrmst rgrds Robin Bignall Quiet part of Hertfordshire England >>"Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )" >><stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote on 27 Dec 2003: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> > It's not a start at all, but a typical Hughes snide comment. Call it snide, if you will; I'm here waiting for Wallace and you, not sniping from behind a killfile. > The idea that > one has to have a doctorate in something before one is qualified to write [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > One of the leading and most erudite players in both of these newsgroups > does not have a university degree, he mentioned a month or two back. Syntax error. > The > thought that one can or should not comment on anything unless one has the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > subject it's in is immaterial. This "I'll stake my doctorate..." remark is > just a figure of speech. It is a claim to authority: "I have a doctor's degree, therefore I am worth listening to". It resembles your "Dr Robin Bignall" moniker. Who knows if Wallace has a doctor's degree? And even if he has, it doesn't appear to have improved his ability to argue a case. He was stupid to bring it up. SignatureSimon R. Hughes >>> "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )" >>> <stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote on 27 Dec 2003: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Call it snide, if you will; I'm here waiting for Wallace and you, Hold your breath. -- Mark Wallace ----------------------------------------------------- For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit: The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site http://earth.prohosting.com/mwal/ ----------------------------------------------------- >>>> "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )" >>>> <stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote on 27 Dec 2003: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >Hold your breath. Preferably forever. I don't have the slightest temptation to drag him out of the killfile to see what he said he's gonna do to us. Signaturewrmst rgrds Robin Bignall Quiet part of Hertfordshire England > >>>> "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )" > >>>> <stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote on 27 Dec 2003: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >>>>>>> I'd stake my doctorate against yours on > >>>>>>> this, any day of the week. Doctorate? Sorry, but as Mortimer Adler said, "A Ph.D. is a medieval degree that proves you can conduct research in a narrow field." > >>>>>> Except there is no evidence anywhere of your having one. > >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Quiet part of Hertfordshire > England Dr Robin Bignall <docrobin@ntlworld.com> wrote on 27 Dec 2003: >>"Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack >>)" <stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote on 27 Dec 2003: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > idea that one has to have a doctorate in something before one is > qualified to write about it is ludicrous. Excuse me, DocRobin, but it was Mark who brought up the doctorate, not I. My point was only that he obviously is not qualified to make any assertions about anything that has to do with linguistics. He doesn't know what he is talking about; he claims infallibility; his writing is clearly murky. > You implied the same idea in your rant with Coop about "Death > of a Salesman", about who is 'qualified' and who is not, > to make literary criticism. We obviously have differing opinions about what "literary criticism" means. I see serious litcrit as a professional activity engaged in by people who know the history of the literature they write about. Literary criticism is not the mere statement of what just anyone on the street has to say about a work of literature. That is called personal opinion and personal interpretation. And anyway, someone with Pooper's literary credentials (christ, he doesn't even know what Miller means by "the common man" in the title of his essay "Tragedy and the Common Man") cannot write literary criticism as I defined it both here and in my "rant" (f.ck you too, DocRobin). It is not my problem that Pooper cannot read or understand simple English. It is not my problem that you and Pooper both failed to notice the stipulation I provided for the term "literary criticism". Under that stipulation, neither one of us is qualified to write litcrit. I think that put us both on the same level, or didn't you understand that either? > One of the leading and most erudite players in both of these > newsgroups does not have a university degree, he mentioned a month > or two back. And who might that be, YJ? > The thought that one can or should not comment on > anything unless one has the right string of letters after his name > is poppycock. I didn't say that one cannot or should not comment on anything without a credential. I just suggested that no one without the proper credential should attempt to glorify uninformed personal opinion by giving it a moniker it does not deserve. Just as good grammar doesn't guarantee good English, a PhD doesn't guarantee superior knowledge or understanding. You have a PhD, don't you? You ought to know better than the rest of us that if your doctoral degree means anything, it means that you understand how little you really know, unlike your adoring friend the AUE dung beetle, who thinks he knows everything. > This is not a peer-to-peer group discussing research > papers. When did you make that discovery? Pooper and I are not peers, and you, sir, are peerless. > Wallace does have a doctorate, in a scientific subject I think, > but what subject it's in is immaterial. This "I'll stake my > doctorate..." remark is just a figure of speech. It may very well have been a figure of speech, but it certainly isn't one that any sensible person would use when challenging someone with a PhD in a highly technical and specialized field like linguistics, unless, of course, he, too, had a PhD in linguistics. I have only an MA in theoretical linguistics (I've mentioned that before in this forum). I worked as a teaching assistant to a brilliant linguist, a specialist in syntax. Not only did I have to sit through all the lectures for the class I assisted him in, I was a student in his syntax class. I think I can judge when someone knows his linguistics. There are a few people who post here who really do know their linguistics, but all Mark Wallace thinks he knows is Curme's grammar book, and Bob Lieblich demonstrated quite clearly in that thread that Mark didn't even know what his grammar god had to say about the topic. I read a great deal of that thread, and it is quite clear that Eric Walker and Robert Lieblich both made sense in every one of their posts. It is equally clear that Mark Wallace had only one thing to say: "I am never wrong". Not a one of his posts made sense. You, sir, are simply venting your spleen because you don't like what I say to your adoring protégé YJ. Or maybe you just have to fart but can't. If you have anything of substance to add to the discussion, I will be pleased to see it, but if you merely want to vent more spleen, then I ask you as politely as I can to shut the f.ck up and mind your own petty business. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. > And anyway, someone >with Pooper's literary credentials (christ, he doesn't even know what >Miller means by "the common man" in the title of his essay "Tragedy >and the Common Man") Very....ummm....perceptive of you since I didn't discuss Miller's essay at all. > cannot write literary criticism as I defined it >both here and in my "rant" (f.ck you too, DocRobin). It is not my [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >that put us both on the same level, or didn't you understand that >either? I do see your worry. This idea of ordinary people forming and expressing opinions about Great Works would be disturbing to you. They should understand that experts exist to do the thinking for ordinary people, and just accept it. The thing that I don't understand, though, is how you are qualified to decide if you and I are qualified to read, interpret, and express. Surely, we need an expert in deciding qualifications to rule on this. >I didn't say that one cannot or should not comment on anything >without a credential. I just suggested that no one without the proper >credential should attempt to glorify uninformed personal opinion by >giving it a moniker it does not deserve. Is there supposed to be some meaning to this splatter of words? How is an opinion "glorified"? Do you have to set it to music or something? If someone has read the book or seen the play, how is that person "uninformed'? What is the "moniker" for an observation or opinion? Are not all opinions personal? Even the public opinion is the sum of the personal opinions. And, most importantly, what is the credential that is necessary to have and express opinion? >When did you make that discovery? Pooper and I are not peers, and >you, sir, are peerless. Really? Which of us is special? >You, sir, are simply venting your spleen because you don't like what >I say to your adoring protégé YJ. Or maybe you just have to fart but [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >ask you as politely as I can to shut the f.ck up and mind your own >petty business. I think that we need someone with the proper credentials to determine if Robin's post was spleen venting or mild expression of opinion. But, I allow you your opinion on this. I see that you have expressed it in your usual rational and measured manner. I know that you won't read the original of this since you - as Simon puts it - snipe from a killfile. Perhaps, though, when Bob chides you for misspelling my name he'll quote it. <snip discussion of academic qualifications> > The thing that I don't understand, though, is how you are > qualified to decide if you and I are qualified to read, interpret, > and express. Surely, we need an expert in deciding qualifications > to rule on this. Let's form a committee. > I think that we need someone with the proper credentials to > determine if Robin's post was spleen venting or mild expression of > opinion. See above. -- Mike Nitabach > <snip discussion of academic qualifications> > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > See above. Do committee members get a free lunch? -- Mark Wallace ----------------------------------------------------- For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit: The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site http://earth.prohosting.com/mwal/ ----------------------------------------------------- >> <snip discussion of academic qualifications> >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Do committee members get a free lunch? If you're going to discuss a post of mine then its author should get a free lunch, too. I prefer sweetbreads to spleen though. Signaturewrmst rgrds Robin Bignall Quiet part of Hertfordshire England Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@mungedyahoo.com> wrote on 28 Dec 2003: >> And anyway, someone >>with Pooper's literary credentials (christ, he doesn't even know [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Very....ummm....perceptive of you since I didn't discuss Miller's > essay at all. Yes, I know. You would rather shoot off your mouth about the play than bother to read what the author thought he was doing when he wrote it. [...] > I do see your worry. This idea of ordinary people forming and > expressing opinions about Great Works would be disturbing to you. > They should understand that experts exist to do the thinking for > ordinary people, and just accept it. Another misrepresentation. You are not interested in what others with a greater knowledge of literatue have to say about the play; therefore, your opinions about the play are strictly personal and uninformed by anything but your own limited excuse for an intellect. Based on your absolutely ludicrous misunderstanding and objections to the idea of "the common man", and the rest of your discussion of the play, my judgment is that your opinions have nothing of interest or value to offer. I can find any number of people who are capable of providing superficial interpretations of the play. > The thing that I don't understand, though, is how you are > qualified to decide if you and I are qualified to read, interpret, > and express. Another misrepresentation. You are an idiot, signifying nothing. But you are entitled to your opinions, interpretations, and expressions thereof. That doesn't mean that what you have to say constitutes "literary criticism", especially when I stipulated that litcrit was something one needed what neither of us has: a solid understanding of all the literature in English from the beginning until the present. > Surely, we need an expert in deciding qualifications > to rule on this. You go find one, then. I am expert enough to decide that your opinions, interpretations, and expressions about literature are of no interest or value to me, except, as I said before, in defining your ability to understand what you read and your sense of values. >>I didn't say that one cannot or should not comment on anything >>without a credential. I just suggested that no one without the >>proper credential should attempt to glorify uninformed personal >>opinion by giving it a moniker it does not deserve. > > Is there supposed to be some meaning to this splatter of words? Only for those who can read and understand English well enough. Not for you. > How is an opinion "glorified"? Do you have to set it to music or > something? If someone has read the book or seen the play, how is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > importantly, what is the credential that is necessary to have and > express opinion? More attempts at kleverness. Don't you ever tired of making the same jokes over and over? >>When did you make that discovery? Pooper and I are not peers, and >>you, sir, are peerless. > > Really? Which of us is special? Well, Pooper, obviously, you are. There is no thread called "CyberCypher's influence on AUE". >>You, sir, are simply venting your spleen because you don't like >>what I say to your adoring protégé YJ. Or maybe you just have to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > opinion. But, I allow you your opinion on this. I see that you > have expressed it in your usual rational and measured manner. Yes, I did my best to be rational and measured. Those words I used ("shut the f.ck up") were taken straight from DocRobin's own post. I thought that was a nice touch; and your ignorance of the source proves that DocRobin deserves the criticism that you have leveled at me but would not have made to DocRobin himself. What a phony you are. > I know that you won't read the original of this since you - as > Simon puts it - snipe from a killfile. Well, I've read the original, so what you claim to know has been proved false once again. > Perhaps, though, when Bob > chides you for misspelling my name he'll quote it. No one will chide me for misspelling your name, Pooper. It's a descriptor, just as your misspelling of my name is. You are full of sh.t and I am frank; I think that's accurate, but I imagine that you didn't see that when you decided to "dis" me by calling me "Frank". SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. >Dr Robin Bignall <docrobin@ntlworld.com> wrote on 27 Dec 2003: > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >Excuse me, DocRobin, but it was Mark who brought up the doctorate, >not I. I don't see anywhere that I said it was you, Franke. >My point was only that he obviously is not qualified to make >any assertions about anything that has to do with linguistics. Is anyone in this newsgroup, save John Lawler and maybe a couple of handfuls of others? It would be interesting to know just how many people's careers are in that and surrounding disciplines, compared with people who just use English to communicate. And I wonder how many published and successful authors and critics have got qualifications in linguistics, or even English, beyond high school. >He >doesn't know what he is talking about; he claims infallibility; his [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >that put us both on the same level, or didn't you understand that >either? Oh, I understood everything, Franke, but particularly that you have to stoop to personal insults within a few lines of text. If you think that you were not ranting in your exchange with Coop, you don't know the meaning of the word. I suggest that you start a litcrit newsgroup, and the rest of us common, ignorant people can ignore it, and you. >> One of the leading and most erudite players in both of these >> newsgroups does not have a university degree, he mentioned a month >> or two back. > >And who might that be, YJ? If you don't know who it is, for he is one of the very best of us, then you don't take much notice of what others write. >> The thought that one can or should not comment on >> anything unless one has the right string of letters after his name [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >than the rest of us that if your doctoral degree means anything, it >means that you understand how little you really know, That is the first thing you've said that I totally agree with. I learned, many decades ago, that the more I learned the less I knew. That was the result of meeting people who were absolutely the best at their professions and trades, and being very modest about it. >unlike your >adoring friend the AUE dung beetle, who thinks he knows everything. Franke, you should be old enough to know better than to indulge yourself in such name-calling... >> This is not a peer-to-peer group discussing research >> papers. > >When did you make that discovery? Pooper and I are not peers, and >you, sir, are peerless. ... but apparently you are not. >> Wallace does have a doctorate, in a scientific subject I think, >> but what subject it's in is immaterial. This "I'll stake my [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >a PhD in a highly technical and specialized field like linguistics, >unless, of course, he, too, had a PhD in linguistics. There you go again. Only people with professorships in linguistics can be allowed to challenge John. I happen to think a great deal of John Lawler, because he is just about the only person (Lieblich comes close) who makes the internals of English (and many other languages) look easy to people like me who simply use it to communicate with. And he has a delightful sense of humour, which is more than I can say for you. >I have only an >MA in theoretical linguistics (I've mentioned that before in this [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Mark didn't even know what his grammar god had to say about the >topic. I think you're getting Mark mixed up with Eric Walker in the matter of Curme, but not to worry. >I read a great deal of that thread, and it is quite clear that Eric >Walker and Robert Lieblich both made sense in every one of their [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >I say to your adoring protégé YJ. Or maybe you just have to fart but >can't. And again. How soon it is that you have to revert to vilification. You'll never be as good at it as Rey, even if he gives you personal lessons. >If you have anything of substance to add to the discussion, I will be >pleased to see it, but if you merely want to vent more spleen, then I >ask you as politely as I can to shut the f.ck up and mind your own >petty business. It's a pity, Franke, for you sometimes have something useful to say, but goodbye. I don't have the time or the inclination to pay any regard to any more. Signaturewrmst rgrds Robin Bignall Quiet part of Hertfordshire England > all Mark Wallace thinks he knows is Curme's grammar book Take this man out and shoot him. The name's Wallace, not Walker. Take a browse through the archive to see how I think of that particular linguistic maggot. I'll ignore the rest of your rant, because it's pretty obvious that you're confusing me with someone else, but FYI, my doctorate is Eng.Lang; and Prof L's assertion that <paraphrase> the verb in the subordinate clause must agree in number with the equivalenced noun/pronoun that I want it to </paraphrase> carries a damned sight less weight than my statements on the subject. Would you say: "My parents are it that is/are at the door"? Of course you wouldn't, and nor would anyone else. Using 'it' as the sole primary half of an equative phrase is an error that crept into English long before either of us were born (a hundred years from now, the sole interrogative tag will possibly be "innit", for the same reasons). Trying to excuse that error by saying that it is 'throwaway', or whatever it was that Robbie described it as, is ridiculous. It is an error, but it's a construct that it used by every single native English speaker, so it's good English. As I say, the acceptance of the error in the equative clause allows for the verb to be attached to either 'noun', and if you look critically through several zillion lines of historical documents (as I do regularly) than you will find that everything I have said about the use of the constructs is absolutely correct -- and that error-acceptance has given room for more flexibility (as is usually the case, which is why the language is so rich), with the "it + singular" ending up being used to emphasise contrast, and the "(noun) + plural" being used more directly. ADDENDUM I've always considered you as being a sensible and well-educated chap, so I'm willing to pass this off as a case of mistaken identity, but if you confuse me with 'WP' Walker again, I'll be likely to take offence. Very likely. -- Mark Wallace ----------------------------------------------------- For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit: The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site http://earth.prohosting.com/mwal/ ----------------------------------------------------- > my doctorate is Eng.Lang Anyone having read your initial contribution to that thread is going to have trouble believing you on that. What's your real name, where did you take your doctorate, when, and in what field? Answers to those questions, which can be verified by Google (I'm having trouble with the .nl sites, although I almost understand written Dutch), and a short email exchange between the two of us through your verifiable academic/ place-of-employment email address will get me eating humble pie. In any case, your tone towards John Lawler was not -- how shall I phrase it? -- very professional, was it? SignatureSimon R. Hughes "Mark Wallace" <mwallace@dse.nl> wrote on 01 Jan 2004: >> all Mark Wallace thinks he knows is Curme's grammar book > > Take this man out and shoot him. > > The name's Wallace, not Walker. Take a browse through the archive > to see how I think of that particular linguistic maggot. I'm sorry, Mark. I believe that the first time I encountered the two of you here, I thought you were identical twins. I have since learned, however, that this is not true. I have done my best to make this reply serious and not at all argumentative, insulting, or otherwise derisive. If I have failed, please let me know where. I may have missed what you think is the point of the discussion, so please don't be too impatient if I have. I'm willing to have my focus redirected. > I'll ignore the rest of your rant, because it's pretty obvious > that you're confusing me with someone else, but FYI, my doctorate > is Eng.Lang; I've been out of the American academic scene for 20 years, and I don't really know what a doctorate in "Eng. Lang." means. Can you be more precise? I am interested because I see that a number of American and British universities offer English Language and Literature PhDs, but I don't know if that is what you are referring to and, if it is, whether that means one must study old English, middle English, or contemporary English (grammar?) in addition to the appropriate literature of the period. > and Prof L's assertion that <paraphrase> the verb in > the subordinate clause must agree in number with the equivalenced > noun/pronoun that I want it to </paraphrase> carries a damned > sight less weight than my statements on the subject. I have read most of Prof Lawler's posts to AUE for the past few years, and I am fully convinced that he knows what he is talking about when he comments on English grammar. He defines a cleft sentence exactly as do all the authorities I've ever read on the subject. I can find no examples of cleft sentences that begin with "They" --- and the I offered in one of my previous posts in this thread, "?They are the works of art that these two princesses brought with them to Tibet that form the sacred seeds of the origins of Tibetan art" isn't even a cleft sentence according to Jespersen and every other authority on the English language I've looked at. To be a cleft sentence, it would have to start with "It {is/was}". And would never write or say *"It is my parents who is at the door". > Would you say: "My parents are it that is/are at the door"? Of course I wouldn't. Why would I want to turn an already altered sentence structure into a different altered structure based on the cleft sentence rather than the normal SVC "My parents are at the door" that is the simple statement of the cleft? That seems nonsensical. But I would also not say ?"My parents are they who are at the door". I might say "My parents are at the door; that's who". The normal question would probably be "Who's at the door?" regardless of whether the speaker knew that more than one person was at the door; ?"Who are at the door?" just doesn't make it, I think, but I'm willing to discuss it. > Of course you wouldn't, and nor would anyone else. Using 'it' as > the sole primary half of an equative phrase is an error that crept > into English long before either of us were born (a hundred years > from now, the sole interrogative tag will possibly be "innit", for > the same reasons). So you are saying that the cleft sentence is an error? And that Jesperen's analyses of the cleft sentence (1927, 1936, 1949) were also all wrong? > Trying to excuse that error by saying that it is 'throwaway', > or whatever it was that Robbie described it as, is Bob properly described the "It" as "prop-'it'", a semantically empty subject pronoun that occupies the Subject position in the first clause of the cleft sentence. > ridiculous. It is an error, but it's a construct that it used > by every single native English speaker, so it's good English. It is also used in many other languages throughout the world: [quote] On the basis of these properties Jespersen concludes that the relative clause of a cleft sentence is not to be termed 'restrictive' with regard to English "it", French "ce", or Danish "det". He leaves open the question of whether the relative clause has a restrictive function with respect to some other element in the sentence. To replace the transposition analysis, Jespersen then makes the following interesting syntactic proposal. He takes the sequence "it is", together with the 'connective word' (the relative pronoun or marker), when there is one, as a kind of "extraposition", symbolized by [•], and he treats the rest of the sentence as if the extraposed words were not present. Thus in the sentence "It is the wife that (or who) decides", "wife" is not a P (predicative) but an S (subject), and the words "it" and "is" are what he calls the "lesser subject and verb", symbolized by lower-case s and v. Thus: (1) a. It is the wife that decides: [sv] S [3c] V b. It is the wife who decides: [sv] S [sc] V where [3c] and [sc] stand for the connectives that and who, respectively. A cleft sentence without a connective word such as "It was John we saw" is represented as follows: (2) It was John we saw: [sv] O S V With this representation, Jespersen aptly captures our semantic intuition that the sentences in (1) and (2) are semantically equivalent to the canonical non-copular sentences "The wife decides" and "We saw John". He also (unwittingly) captures our pragmatic intuition that (1) is related to the subject-accented "The WIFE decides", while (2) is related to the object-accented 'focus- movement' structure "JOHN we saw". [/quote] www.tc.umn.edu/~ling/Papers/2001_Lambrecht_paper.doc > As I say, the acceptance of the error in the equative clause > allows for the verb to be attached to either 'noun', and if you [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the "it + singular" ending up being used to emphasise contrast, > and the "(noun) + plural" being used more directly. This is the part that bothers me, Mark. You ask me to take your word for it. You say things like "I'm never wrong". Those are hard things for me to do just because I am generally sensible and well-educated enough to know better than to take the word of people with credentials when they cannot demonstrate the truth or even the strong probability of what they claim. John Lawler always produces concrete examples and often provides citations from others who are recognized experts in the field, which is excellent rhetorical strategy and generally persuasive. He doesn't make claims based solely on his academic credentials as a linguist, ie a PhD in Linguistics, but on his ability to demonstrate quite convincingly that he knows what he's talking about. Not everyone agrees with him on every point, but that is to be expected; no one is perfectly right or persuasive all of the time, and he doesn't claim to be. But you do. You see where that makes it more difficult to take your word at face value, I hope. > ADDENDUM > > I've always considered you as being a sensible and well-educated > chap, so I'm willing to pass this off as a case of mistaken > identity, but if you confuse me with 'WP' Walker again, I'll be > likely to take offence. No, I know very well who Eric Walker is. I merely misremembered that you, too, used to quote Curme. You never did quote Curme, right? SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. Thus spake Bill Bonde: >>> Wrong. As wrong as wrong can be. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Is that going to be the answer to any claim about correctness or not > that is made round here? When someone brings up their academic qualifications in order to slience opposition, instead of arguing a case coherently and convincingly, that person deserves ridicule. SignatureSimon R. Hughes > > Because there are different rules which allow for different constructions. > > Here's a sentence of Robbie's, from earlier: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I don't know, Mark. To me, it's the same rule that relative clause verbs > must agree with what they refer to. Same here. I keep saying it. Mark keeps ignoring it. He has yet to explain why the verb that follows the relative can be singular even when the antecedent is plural. > In [1], that's "children". In [2], I > would argue, it's possibly the children's doing or not doing something > or their just being there. For Peter's benefit, on the assumption that he's too smart to read this entire thread -- "That's" is correct in casual spoken English, just as is "There's three cars in the garage." In formal grammar you couldn't use a contraction, and you'd wind up with "It is the children that is driving me crazy," which is not in accord with formal grammar. Mark keeps insisting that the singular is "correct" even if ugly, because formal grammar allows it (he has on occasion gone further and said "requires," but we'll let that slide). If "It is the children that is driving me crazy" is good English, I speak Farsi. (This is not the first time I have posted that comment.) SignatureBob Lieblich Glad to help >For Peter's benefit, on the assumption that he's too smart to read >this entire thread -- "That's" is correct in casual spoken English, >just as is "There's three cars in the garage." In formal grammar >you couldn't use a contraction, and you'd wind up with "It is the >children that is driving me crazy," which is not in accord with >formal grammar. I started disliking the sound of "There's three cars in the garage" and similar sentences a long time ago, even though it's very common informal usage here, and probably in every English-speaking country. When I remember and can think quickly enough, I much prefer to say and write "There're three cars in the garage" etc. but note that my spell checker takes great exception to it. -- wrmst rgrds Robin Bignall Quiet part of Hertfordshire England > "It is the works of art that these two princesses brought with them to > Tibet that form the sacred seeds of the origins of Tibetan art." Two useful editorial guidelines: 1. When in doubt, cut it out. 2. Beware existential statements (it was X that, despite the fact that, and the like.) Thus: "The works of art that these two princesses brought became the seeds of Tibetan art." ("Seeds of the origins" is redundant; sacred is doubtful because the art is what is sacred, not necessarily its seeds.) -- Don Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) > while reading an essay about Tibetan Art, i happened to find this > sentence, but it looks somewhat improper to me. is this okay for us > to make this kind of sentence? > > "It is the works of art that these two princesses brought with them to > Tibet that form the sacred seeds of the origins of Tibetan art." I am just going to rewrite it and then discuss placement later: *It is these works of art which the two princesses brought with them to Tibet which form a point of origin, the sacred seeds from which Tibetan aesthetic traditions spring forth.* There we go. Joanne |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.