 |
 | 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 2009Object Prounouns
Object pronouns are: me us you him, her, it them whom Yet we've all seen examples from professional writers like the sentence I've written below where a subject pronoun "he" is used instead of an object pronoun. Is is it because the word "even" comes right after the word "stunned" the type of the pronoun required shifts? -----------------------------------> The King jumped back. The vitriol in his daughter-in-law’s voice stunned even he, a battlefield hardened King. "At least let him finish, Princess Augusta–" ------------------------------------> EG >Object pronouns are: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >EG No. It's because it's wrong! It should be "him".  SignatureIan > Object pronouns are: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > EG Perhaps on account of "stunning" being used intransitively. It does not take "he" as its direct object but instead as an adverb that describes how the vitriol in the voice of the King's daughter stunned. The objective case is therefore not called for. jhs > Object pronouns are: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > stunned even he, a battlefield hardened King. "At least let him > finish, Princess Augusta–" It is simply an error not caught by an editor. The object form is used correctly in the dialog quotation. On 09 Jan 2009, Pat Durkin wrote >> Object pronouns are: >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > It is simply an error not caught by an editor. Yup; great big "CLANG" when one reads it -- regardless of whether or not the writer is being paid for his or her efforts. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 09 Jan 2009, Pat Durkin wrote > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Yup; great big "CLANG" when one reads it -- regardless of whether > or not the writer is being paid for his or her efforts. It's another one of her straw men, isn't it? She said she wrote it herself. Of course it's wrong, for Heaven's sake! E, what on earth are you trying to achieve here? > On 09 Jan 2009, Pat Durkin wrote > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Yup; great big "CLANG" when one reads it -- regardless of whether > or not the writer is being paid for his or her efforts. It would certainly stun I to find it in edited text. SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. > . . . we've all seen examples from professional writers like the sentence > I've written below where a subject pronoun "he" is used instead of an [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > ------------------------------------> 1. The topic (Subject) name suggests you may have stepped off on the wrong foot. "Object pronouns" are not a recognized category of grammar. The category is pronouns, which are of three main varieties (nominative (subject), accusative (object), and genitive) and two numbers (singular or plural.) 2. In any sentence ". . . voice stunned even he" is an error: it breaks the rule of grammar that grammatical objects should be in the objective case (if one exists.) 3. English has no typology of errors (or any theory why some particular error occurs, the object of your question.) Use of the word "even" does not alter the rules of grammar. Our grammar can describe an error as #2 identifies an error of case. But our grammar has no opinion why some particular error is made by a particular writer or repeated by another writer. SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) >> . . . we've all seen examples from professional writers like the sentence >> I've written below where a subject pronoun "he" is used instead of an [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > of case. But our grammar has no opinion why some particular > error is made by a particular writer or repeated by another writer. I think I know what I'm getting at: the Bible. For example, if "he" was God or Jesus, would this be acceptable: "...it stunned even He" I'm thinking I picked up that phraseology from the King James Bible as a child. And by the way, was the object pronoun rule the rule in King James' day? EG >>> . . . we've all seen examples from professional writers like the >>> sentence I've written below where a subject pronoun "he" is used [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > "...it stunned even He" Oh, Lord. Are we going to have another "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" debate? Or "I am who am"? > I'm thinking I picked up that phraseology from the King James Bible > as a child. > > And by the way, was the object pronoun rule the rule in King James' > day? They don't have an Academy these days. And I doubt they had one back in the old days. I think the main rule was "usage by the respected and knowledgeable" (unless by W). > I think I know what I'm getting at: the Bible. > > For example, if "he" was God or Jesus, would this be acceptable: > > "...it stunned even He" No. (Not that I can imagine God being stunned by much.) > I'm thinking I picked up that phraseology from the King James Bible as a > child. > > And by the way, was the object pronoun rule the rule in King James' day? A really nice thing about the Internet is that anyone can search through reference books without leaving their seat. This site allows you to search many versions of the Bible: http://www.biblegateway.com/ Putting in "even him" and setting it for the King James version shows that the writers had no problem putting "him" after "even". Examples: -- and they hid him, even him and his nurse, -- even him whom he hath chosen -- nevertheless even him did outlandish women cause to sin. SignatureBest wishes -- Donna Richoux > > I think I know what I'm getting at: the Bible. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > No. (Not that I can imagine God being stunned by much.) He hasn't seen my laundry pile. (Or has He? Is He in there? If so, would He mind matching some socks?) SignatureSML >> > I think I know what I'm getting at: the Bible. >> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > He hasn't seen my laundry pile. (Or has He? Is He in there? If so, would > He mind matching some socks?) The incomparable God of Abraham and Isaac (et al) can not be matched to any socks. SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. >>>> I think I know what I'm getting at: the Bible. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > The incomparable God of Abraham and Isaac (et al) can not be matched > to any socks. OT. After the New Year thing, I emailed my sister asking her to keep an eye open for a sock I'd seemed to have left behind. She replied that she didn't hold out much hope for a lone sock in her household, as theirs typically had to go about in threes for safety. (I don't think it could be in Peter Moylan's washing machine.) SignatureMike. Mike Lyle filted: >OT. After the New Year thing, I emailed my sister asking her to keep an >eye open for a sock I'd seemed to have left behind. She replied that she >didn't hold out much hope for a lone sock in her household, as theirs >typically had to go about in threes for safety. > >(I don't think it could be in Peter Moylan's washing machine.) That socks are devoured, one by one, by washing machines or dryers, is a principle accepted by many with little or no documentation...many years ago, though, I was privileged to observe the consumption of one sock firsthand...one of the dryers at my local laundromat had an interlock malfunction, such that the drum didn't stop turning when the door was opened...now it's my usual practice to sweep the lint from the trap, located in the face of the machine just below the door, three times during the 45-minute drying cycle to ensure that the contents are able to dry thoroughly.... Since this machine kept running, I made the decision that I could pull up the trap, clean out the collected lint, replace it, and close the door before anything important would fall out of the still-turning dryer...I was especially confident of this decision given that I would be right there to stuff any errant garment back into the machine if one tumbled too far forward.... I had neglected, however, to take into account the flow of air through where the lint screen would normally be...while I was removing the blanket of lint, one light-blue argyle sock was *sucked* with great vigor into the very workings of the dryer before I could react to save it.... The attendant at the laundromat checked, but was unable to find the remains of the sock, and wherever it had ended up it didn't seem to affect the dryer's continued functioning...the mate of that sock was repurposed as a cloth for dusting furniture, and I could now say with complete conviction that dryers *have* been observed to eat socks....r Signature"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!" "You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!" > That socks are devoured, one by one, by washing machines or dryers, is a > principle accepted by many with little or no documentation...many years ago, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the door, three times during the 45-minute drying cycle to ensure that the > contents are able to dry thoroughly.... Three times per load? You are my hero. When I bought my house, the previous residents left behind the washer, dryer, refrigerator, and a bunch of prescription drugs in the medicine cabinet. All have since been discarded except for the clothes dryer which still works fine after I: * Cleaned the lint trap * Opened the back and cleaned pounds of lint off the fan blades and out of all the air ducts * Cleaned out the exhaust hose and connected it back to the machine * and, finally, vacuumed several more pounds of lint from the walls, floor, rafters, and other assorted surfaces all over the basement. Not only had they never -- not once, I'm convinced -- cleaned out the lint trap, they had run the thing for months or years with the exhaust hose flopping around on the floor. They sold the house to move to Canada. Could there be a connection??? Jim Deutch (JimboCat) -- "That's the Great Power version of the peacock's tail. A true great power doesn't need to know anything. It can just blunder around, secure in the knowledge that simple inertia will protect it from the consequences of most errors. By adopting the guise of being horribly ill-informed about the world, nations signal to each other that they are great powers." -- James Nicoll > The attendant at the laundromat checked, but was unable to find the remains of > the sock, and wherever it had ended up it didn't seem to affect the dryer's > continued functioning...the mate of that sock was repurposed as a cloth for > dusting furniture, and I could now say with complete conviction that dryers > *have* been observed to eat socks....r When I used to use laundromats -- although I called them laundrettes, I think -- anyway, the dryers used to be heated by gas. What was the sock made of? Sean Case Sean Case filted: >>The attendant at the laundromat checked, but was unable to find the remains of >> the sock, and wherever it had ended up it didn't seem to affect the dryer's [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >think -- anyway, the dryers used to be heated by gas. What was the sock >made of? Some kind of cotton-polyester blend, I imagine...it was more fuzzy-comfortable than most of my hosiery, so I'm guessing more cotton than most....r Signature"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!" "You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!" And by the way, was the object pronoun rule the rule in King James' day? > A really nice thing about the Internet is that anyone can search through > reference books without leaving their seat. This site allows you to > search many versions of the Bible: > -- nevertheless even him did outlandish women cause to sin. Him did that to perfectly innocent outlandish women? Shame on he! SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. > And by the way, was the object pronoun rule the rule in King James' day? > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Him did that to perfectly innocent outlandish women? Shame on he! That is a weird one, isn't it? The fuller context: the writer is railing against those who take wives from outside the tribe, and says: 26 Did not Solomon king of Israel sin by these things? yet among many nations was there no king like him, who was beloved of his God, and God made him king over all Israel: nevertheless even him did outlandish women cause to sin. SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux >> . . . we've all seen examples from professional writers like the >> sentence I've written below where a subject pronoun "he" is used [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > of case. But our grammar has no opinion why some particular > error is made by a particular writer or repeated by another writer. I have observed that avoidance of the objective case of pronouns is now fairly common in general usage, especially in phrases such as "for you and I". The word "me" appears to be shunned by many. Such is the way of progress ... SignatureSkitt (AmE) >>> . . . we've all seen examples from professional writers like the >>> sentence I've written below where a subject pronoun "he" is used [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >I". The word "me" appears to be shunned by many. Such is the way of >progress ... In recent years, at least one educated person has argued with me that "between you and me" is substandard. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland > In recent years, at least one educated person has argued with me that > "between you and me" is substandard. It may be a losing battle. "Between you and I" just /sounds/ terribly correct. ('Taint, of course. Correct, that is.) SignatureMaria C. >> In recent years, at least one educated person has argued with me that >> "between you and me" is substandard. > > It may be a losing battle. "Between you and I" just /sounds/ terribly > correct. Who to? > ('Taint, of course. Correct, that is.) Sing it! (You are singing to the choir, but no matter.) SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. >>> In recent years, at least one educated person has argued with me that >>> "between you and me" is substandard. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Sing it! (You are singing to the choir, but no matter.) That sounds foreign to me. I'm used to "You are preaching to the choir". SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland >> In recent years, at least one educated person has argued with me that >> "between you and me" is substandard. > >It may be a losing battle. "Between you and I" just /sounds/ terribly >correct. ('Taint, of course. Correct, that is.) Since "between" sets me for the objective case, it sounds terribly incorrect to me. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland >>> In recent years, at least one educated person has argued with me that >>> "between you and me" is substandard. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Since "between" sets me for the objective case, it sounds terribly > incorrect to me. I was able to (vaguely) understand it when it was restricted to "you and I", because that had become almost a set phrase. However, more recently I hear monstrosities like "between we and they" or "for he and the others". Perhaps this belongs in that other thread as a structure not learned by 5-year olds or even some adults. SignatureRob Bannister >>>> In recent years, at least one educated person has argued with me that >>>> "between you and me" is substandard. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >others". Perhaps this belongs in that other thread as a structure not >learned by 5-year olds or even some adults. It's the parents, all right. Kids don't learn how to speak properly, teens are running wild in the streets, adults are drugging and murdering. The root cause was encouraging women to work outside the home. Before married women did that, they tended the children. Now, no one does. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland >>>>> In recent years, at least one educated person has argued with me that >>>>> "between you and me" is substandard. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > home. Before married women did that, they tended the children. Now, no > one does. I thought, from the latest Vatican statement, it was to do with female urine contaminating the world. SignatureRob Bannister >>>>>> In recent years, at least one educated person has argued with me that >>>>>> "between you and me" is substandard. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >I thought, from the latest Vatican statement, it was to do with female >urine contaminating the world. What in my statement reminded you of the Pope, Rob? Good grief, if I ever sound as kooky as him, I'll have to change my ways, pronto. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland > What in my statement reminded you of the Pope, Rob? Good grief, if I > ever sound as kooky as him, I'll have to change my ways, pronto. My first smile of the day. SignatureRob Bannister >> It's the parents, all right. Kids don't learn how to speak properly, >> teens are running wild in the streets, adults are drugging and >> murdering. The root cause was encouraging women to work outside the >> home. Before married women did that, they tended the children. Now, no >> one does. There are many cultures in this world where married women are forced to stay home and tend the children, pretty violent places too that make the Western 'burbs look innocuous. >>> It's the parents, all right. Kids don't learn how to speak properly, >>> teens are running wild in the streets, adults are drugging and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >forced to stay home and tend the children, pretty violent places >too that make the Western 'burbs look innocuous. There are no easy answers. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland >> I have observed that avoidance of the objective case of pronouns is >> now fairly common in general usage, especially in phrases such as [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > In recent years, at least one educated person has argued with me that > "between you and me" is substandard. These days, you and I's opinion no longer matters, so there. (Yes, I've seen that form of possessive of "I".) SignatureSkitt (AmE) >>> I have observed that avoidance of the objective case of pronouns is >>> now fairly common in general usage, especially in phrases such as [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >These days, you and I's opinion no longer matters, so there. (Yes, I've >seen that form of possessive of "I".) Seen or heard? It is very unusual, I would think. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland >>>> I have observed that avoidance of the objective case of pronouns is >>>> now fairly common in general usage, especially in phrases such as [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Seen or heard? It is very unusual, I would think. Well, it wouldn't seem all that unusual to those who treat "you and I" as an uninflectable set of pronouns, but are trying to somehow show the possessive of that set. People are inventive, you know. I've heard it, and I've certainly also seen it before, but it may have been when discussing its usage. There are a few Google hits, aside from the ones that talk about a race horse and a musical group that have the name /You and I/. SignatureSkitt (AmE) |
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.