 |
 | 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 / July 2009One of those people
"Maybe I'm one of those people who just doesn't do well in school." This I've read in a comic strip - would "who just don't" be wrong? I'd rather have used that - or am I wrong? > "Maybe I'm one of those people who just doesn't > do well in school." > > This I've read in a comic strip - would "who just don't" > be wrong? I'd rather have used that - or am I wrong? You're not wrong. "Don't" is standard in this construction, but "doesn't" is very common. The character's use of a non-standard phrase may even be a joking reference to his or her poor performance in school. I'm reminded of a former student of mine who said, without joking, "I don't need no more English." -- Jerry Friedman > > "Maybe I'm one of those people who just doesn't > > do well in school." [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > former student of mine who said, without joking, "I don't need no more > English." Telly a few months ago showed an inspiring Liverpool science teacher at work with difficult pupils. I was impressed by his achievement (and with his apparent ability to raise funds to take some of the class to China), but didn't like it much when he pointed to a noble gas on the periodic table and said "...it's over 'ere because it duzzn do nothin' ." -- Mike. >> "Maybe I'm one of those people who just doesn't >> do well in school." [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >former student of mine who said, without joking, "I don't need no more >English." If his plan was to move to the Central Siberian Plateau, perhaps he was right. Perhaps.  SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, who speaks AmE, lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > "Maybe I'm one of those people who just doesn't > do well in school." > > This I've read in a comic strip - would "who just don't" > be wrong? I'd rather have used that - or am I wrong? Consider: 1. One who does not . . . 2. One who do not . . . The rule is that subject and verb should agree in number. Case 1 obeys this rule because both subject and verb are singular in number; case 2 presents a singular pronoun and a plural verb, thus is erroneous. Because we so often say "one of those who . . . " we need to parse correctly in order to establish whether the subject of the clause is ONE (singular) or THOSE (plural.) A simple confirmatory test is to omit words in turn, thus for: . . . one of those people who just doesn't: A: . . .one who just doesn't . . . B: . . . those who just doesn't . . . which unambiguously demonstrates that the subject of this verb is ONE (singular.) So LF's spontaneous intuition is erroneous: but then none of our intuitions is so reliable as a coherent rule. SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) >> "Maybe I'm one of those people who just doesn't >> do well in school." [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > So LF's spontaneous intuition is erroneous: but then > none of our intuitions is so reliable as a coherent rule. It all depends on what deserves the emphasis -- the "one" or the "those". Different meanings, you see. Personally, I prefer to attach the "not doing well" attribute to "those", even though I might be one of them, so I'd use the plural verb. From http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/one.htm : [...] Burchfield adds, "A plural verb in the subordinate clause is recommended unless particular attention is being drawn to the uniqueness, individuality, etc., of the one in the opening clause." In an earlier note, Burchfield writes: "Exceptions [to the rule that we use the plural verb] occur when the writer or speaker presumably regards one as governing the verb in the subordinate clause," and he gives another two or three examples, including "I am one of those people who wants others to do what I think they should." SignatureSkitt (AmE) >"Maybe I'm one of those people who just doesn't >do well in school." It is correct. The subject, "who", agrees with the verb, "does". >This I've read in a comic strip - would "who just don't" >be wrong? I'd rather have used that - or am I wrong? Yes, you are wrong. "Who" does not agree with "do". SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, who speaks AmE, lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 05:38:01 -0700 (PDT), Lothar Frings > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > It is correct. The subject, "who", agrees with the verb, "does". I thought "who" was plural here because it referred to "people". Lothar Frings wrote... >> >"Maybe I'm one of those people who just doesn't >> >do well in school." >> >> It is correct. The subject, "who", agrees with the verb, "does". > > I thought "who" was plural here because it referred to "people". I agree with you. "I'm one of them." "Who are they?" "People who don't do well in school." In some other languages, the subordinate clause - here beginning with 'who' - would be preceded by a comma, which removes all doubt that 'who' is 'people' and thus plural. In English, we have to make do with proximity in the absence of any other indicator. This also ties 'who' to 'people' in your sentence. The singular verb is wrong. In BrE we'd say 'at school.' SignatureNoel > Lothar Frings wrote... > > I thought "who" was plural here because it referred to "people". > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > with 'who' - would be preceded by a comma, which removes all doubt > that 'who' is 'people' and thus plural. Right - in German, e. g., the plural would be absolutely required. BTW - here is the strip: <http://tinyurl.com/mko5zw> > > On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 05:38:01 -0700 (PDT), Lothar Frings > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I thought "who" was plural here because it referred > to "people". No it refers to 'one'. John Kane, Kingston ON Canada >>>> "Maybe I'm one of those people who just doesn't >>>> do well in school." [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > No it refers to 'one'. How do you know? Don't be so sure. It can go either way. SignatureSkitt (AmE) >>>>> "Maybe I'm one of those people who just doesn't >>>>> do well in school." [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > How do you know? Don't be so sure. It can go either way. Really? I should think that who is the subject and it is in 3.person sing. "I am one of those people who -- am = verb - I is subject - one of those people is direct object - who = subject do(esn't) = verb with a negation well in school = direct object and adverbial phrase. But I might be wrong here. > "Skitt" skrev: >>>>>> "Maybe I'm one of those people who just doesn't >>>>>> do well in school." [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > But I might be wrong here. Please read my other message in this thread -- the one where I presented Dr. Darling's quote of Burchfield. Message-ID: <h44ver$hq9$1@news.albasani.net> SignatureSkitt (AmE) >> "Skitt" skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > presented Dr. Darling's quote of Burchfield. > Message-ID: <h44ver$hq9$1@news.albasani.net> Thank you - I have read it. Your 'test' was not clear to me - why is the reference not to those? I can see that you use "doesn't" and those and doesn't don't agree -but what if you said: I am one of those people who don't... how can I tell by omitting the words that it is wrong and still must be "doesn't" - I know it is so, but I cannot figure it out from your test - could you explain it any further, please? >>> "Skitt" skrev: >>>>>>>> "Maybe I'm one of those people who just doesn't >>>>>>>> do well in school." [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > but I cannot figure it out from your test - could you explain it any > further, please? I didn't present any test. That must have been someone else. I am contending that it is the writer's choice whether the emphasis is wanted on the "one" or the "people". I think that is, more or less, what was stated at the link I gave: http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/one.htm starting at the heading One of those [plural noun] that is/are . SignatureSkitt (AmE) > >>>> "Maybe I'm one of those people who just doesn't > >>>> do well in school." [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > How do you know? Don't be so sure. It can go either way. "Maybe I'm one who just doesn't do well in school." I suppose it could go either way but not in my ideolect/ John Kane, Kingston ON Canada > >"Maybe I'm one of those people who just doesn't > >do well in school." > > It is correct. The subject, "who", agrees with the verb, "does". The subject, surely, is people, not who. > >This I've read in a comic strip - would "who just don't" > >be wrong? I'd rather have used that - or am I wrong? > > Yes, you are wrong. "Who" does not agree with "do". Who do you think agrees with you? Who doesn't? "Who" isn't, on its own, the issue. SignatureLinz Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford My accent may vary > chriggs@eircom.net says... > > >"Maybe I'm one of those people who just doesn't > > >do well in school." > > It is correct. The subject, "who", agrees with the verb, "does". > The subject, surely, is people, not who. The subject is "who." The problem is what the antecedent of "who" is: "one" or "people." The antecedent of a relative pronoun is the the noun that the relative clause modifies. Does the clause here tell us which people, or which one? "I'm one of those people." "Which one?" "Just one of them." "Which people?" "The ones who just don't do well in school." "I'm one of those people." "Which one?" "One who just doesn't do well in school." "OK, but which people?" "Uhhh . . . " The antecedent, then, is "people," so "who" is plural and "don't" is correct. ¬R > > chriggs@eircom.net says... > > > >"Maybe I'm one of those people who just doesn't [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The subject is "who." The problem is what the antecedent of "who" is: > "one" or "people." Thank you, antecedent is the word I was looking for and failed to find. SignatureLinz Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford My accent may vary >> chriggs@eircom.net says... >> > >"Maybe I'm one of those people who just doesn't [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > The antecedent, then, is "people," so "who" is plural and "don't" is > correct. That's a very good set of examples. SignatureIt is probable that television drama of high caliber and produced by first-rate artists will materially raise the level of dramatic taste of the nation. (David Sarnoff, CEO of RCA, 1939; in Stoll 1995) > That's a very good set of examples. Maybe so, but I'm really confused now. I didn't do any counting but we have all possible opinions: - "it has to be 'does'" - "it has to be 'do'" - "both are possible" [...] > Maybe so, but I'm really confused now. I didn't do any counting but we > have all possible opinions: > > - "it has to be 'does'" > - "it has to be 'do'" > - "both are possible" That is what happens when schools no longer teach basic sentence parsing. Glenn Knickerbocker and I have separately posted here parsings of this simple but remarkably obfuscated sentence. The correct form is: "Maybe I'm one of those people who just don't do well in school." SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ >> Maybe so, but I'm really confused now. I didn't do any counting but >> we have all possible opinions: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > "Maybe I'm one of those people who just don't do well in school." Agreed. SignatureSkitt (AmE) > [...] > >> Maybe so, but I'm really confused now. I didn't do any counting but we >> have all possible opinions: >> >> - "it has to be 'does'" Has somebody said that? >> - "it has to be 'do'" >> - "both are possible" > > That is what happens when schools no longer teach basic sentence > parsing. Do you really think that that applies to any of the participants in this discussion? It was certainly taught when I was in school, and we spent lots of time diagramming sentences and the like. Then I studied linguistics in college and learned why it wasn't really surprising that what was internalized after all those lessons tended not to exactly match what was taught (nor, moreover, did the speech of those teaching it or the books that taught it). The logic by which language works is very different from the way it's described in class, and the way sentences are parsed in the brain almost certainly has very little similarity with the way they're diagrammed in class. Which is the main reason that you will encounter convoluted school- grammatical sentences that can only be correctly understood if you approach them like logic puzzles and school-ungrammatical sentences that because the author, indending to write Standard English, found them perfectly normal, and it didn't register with the editor that he was supposed to consider them "wrong" and change them. > Glenn Knickerbocker and I have separately posted here parsings of > this simple but remarkably obfuscated sentence. The correct form is: > > "Maybe I'm one of those people who just don't do well in school." That's fine, too, for me. I suspect that the internal parse tree is different, probably something along the lines of [one [of [those [people [who just don't do well in school]]]]] rather than something more like [one [of [those [people]]] [who just doesn't do well in school]] SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Sometimes I think the surest sign 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |that intelligent life exists Palo Alto, CA 94304 |elsewhere in the universe is that |none of it has tried to contact us. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | Calvin (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > >> - "it has to be 'does'" > Has somebody said that? Chuck Riggs and John Kane both did. ¬R > > >> - "it has to be 'does'" > > Has somebody said that? > > Chuck Riggs and John Kane both did. Don Phillipson, too. ... > Then I studied linguistics in college and learned why it wasn't really > surprising that what was internalized after all those lessons tended [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > approach them like logic puzzles and school-ungrammatical sentences > that appear in edited text? > because the author, indending to write Standard English, found > them perfectly normal, and it didn't register with the editor that he > was supposed to consider them "wrong" and change them. ... -- Jerry Friedman > ... > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > appear in edited text? No, the problem was that I lost track of the sentence as I was reworking it and the "that" didn't get deleted. you will encounter ... school-ungrammatical sentences [*that] because the author ... found them perfectly normal ... >> because the author, indending to write Standard English, found >> them perfectly normal, and it didn't register with the editor that he >> was supposed to consider them "wrong" and change them. It is not, I will grant, the most elegant sentence I have ever written, in any case. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |He seems to be perceptive and 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |effective because he states the Palo Alto, CA 94304 |obvious to people that don't seem |to see the obvious. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | (650)857-7572 | Tony Cooper http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ [...] >> That is what happens when schools no longer teach basic sentence >> parsing. > > Do you really think that that applies to any of the participants in this > discussion? It was certainly taught when I was in school, and we spent > lots of time diagramming sentences and the like. Interesting. I'd wager I'm probably older than you, and I went to schools in New York City not disgraced by their identity, and I never heard of parsing till first-year college English. (Indeed, I scarcely heard anything of grammar, save for a sixth-grade teacher who departed from the grade norms to tell us, roughly and briefly, near the end of the term, what nouns and verbs were.) I recall little if anything of college freshman English, but I suspect that it was there and then that I came by my now-antique edition of the Harbrace College Handbok of English. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > from the grade norms to tell us, roughly and briefly, near the end of the > term, what nouns and verbs were.) I think, from his photo, that I am considerably older than Evan. I spent much of my time in Grades 7 & 8 parsing sentences. I believe we were doing simple grammatical analysis on sentences by Gr. 4 or 5. I suspect that the teacher was using this as a time filler but it was a real boon when I started taking Latin and French in highschool. I also found it handy once we persuaded our Russian prof in university to actually tell us about Russian grammar. We were using some terrible text book that seemed to work on the idea that if we repeated the words often enough we would master declensions, conjugations, and grammar in Russian. It might even have worked in a US university with their longer years and more class hours but it was not working for us. Everyone in the class was totally relieved when the prof actually showed us something about the structure of the language. I believe everyone there had, as a minimum, 4-5 years of French as a second language and 4-5 years of Latin. The prof was surprised and delighted that we actually knew what a declension was! I still remember him saying that none of his students at University of Chicago would have recognised a conjugation. John Kane, Kingston ON Canada > [...] >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > who departed from the grade norms to tell us, roughly and briefly, > near the end of the term, what nouns and verbs were.) Perhaps it's cyclical. I was in second or third grade when "Schoolhouse Rock" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schoolhouse_Rock came out, and everyone I know could sing "A noun is a person, place, or thing", "Interjections show excitement or emotion. They're generally set apart from a sentence by an exclamation point or by a comma when the feeling's not as strong", "Conjunction junction, what's your function? Hooking up words and phrases and clauses", and similar ditties for verbs, adjectives, and adverbs. (And other subjects. When we were studying the Constitution in seventh grade, I don't think there were too many kids who could read the preamble to the constitution without humming it.) In junior high and at least freshman year in high school, we used Warriner's _English Grammar and Composition_. I think my copy's at my parents' house, but from a review of the book on Amazon, The book starts out with parts of speech and diagramming sentences, continues on through style and punctuation issues, and finishes with discussions and examples of research papers, business letters, tests of english, and public speaking. That was in Deerfield, IL, starting in 1976, but I'm pretty sure that we had done simple sentence diagramming when I was in elementary school in Chicago, and I know we covered parts of speech and subjects and predicates and the like. > I recall little if anything of college freshman English, but I > suspect that it was there and then that I came by my now-antique > edition of the Harbrace College Handbok of English. I got a 4 on my AP English exam, so I didn't have to take freshman English. The only English Department classes I took were Fiction Writing, History of English, and a course on Chaucer, Shakespeare, and Milton. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |ActiveX is pretty harmless anyway. 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |It can't affect you unless you Palo Alto, CA 94304 |install Windows, and who would be |foolish enough to do that? kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | Peter Moylan (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> [...] >>> [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > Writing, History of English, and a course on Chaucer, Shakespeare, > and Milton. We did a few weeks of diagramming sentences in my seventh-grade English class. I qualified well on college entrance exams. At USC I took one class in "English": Comparative Literature. It was good for a couple of thrills: I sat next to Olympic diving medalist Paula Jean Myers; Sir Osbert Sitwell addressed the class and explained Dame Edith's unanticipated absence in a very straightforward way. "She has the dyaREEah", he said. SignatureFrank ess Frank ess wrote... > Sir Osbert Sitwell addressed the class and explained Dame Edith's > unanticipated absence in a very straightforward way. "She has the > dyaREEah", he said. That looks just like the way I pronounce 'diarrhoa'. How do you say it? SignatureNoel Ildhund wrote... > Frank ess wrote... >> Sir Osbert Sitwell addressed the class and explained Dame Edith's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > That looks just like the way I pronounce 'diarrhoa'. How do you > say it? O-oh - that 'o' in diarrhoea was supposed to be an o-e ligature. I wonder why it fell out. SignatureNoel > Ildhund wrote... >> Frank ess wrote... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > O-oh - that 'o' in diarrhoea was supposed to be an o-e ligature. I > wonder why it fell out. Perhaps it was "der Durchfall". SignatureRay UK > Frank ess wrote... >> Sir Osbert Sitwell addressed the class and explained Dame Edith's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > That looks just like the way I pronounce 'diarrhoa'. How do you say > it? Without such a dramatic, musical "EE". SignatureFrank ess Ildhund filted: >Frank ess wrote... >> Sir Osbert Sitwell addressed the class and explained Dame Edith's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >That looks just like the way I pronounce 'diarrhoa'. How do you say >it? Enough like "dire rear" that the two-word phrase redirects to "diarrhea" in several online reference works....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? R H Draney wrote... > Ildhund filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Enough like "dire rear" that the two-word phrase redirects to > "diarrhea" in several online reference works....r OED online points out - unusually - a presumably common confusion between "diarrhoetic" and "diuretic." Could be embarrassing... On a slightly different tack, are there many words other than "diarrhoeic" that include 'oei'? Steptoeisms don't count. SignatureNoel Quoth "Ildhund" <jnllb@removemsn.com>, and I quote: >R H Draney wrote... >> Ildhund filted: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >On a slightly different tack, are there many words other than >"diarrhoeic" that include 'oei'? Steptoeisms don't count. amenorrhoeic apnoeic canoeing canoeist capoeira dyspnoeic eupnoeic hoeing horseshoeing ipomoeic melopoeia mythopoeia mythopoeic oeillade onomatopoeia onomatopoeic pathopoeia pharmacopoeia prosopopoeia shoeing snowshoeing tiptoeing toeing SignatureJames James Hogg wrote... > Quoth Ildhund, and I quote: >>On a slightly different tack, are there many words other than >>"diarrhoeic" that include 'oei'? Steptoeisms don't count. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > tiptoeing > toeing Thank you. A useful crossword list, especially if augmented to include adverbs. Interesting that an American would probably only allow (a) two blatantly foreign words, (b) one less blatantly so and (c) the hoe and shoe derivatives. Would he find any word including 'oeia'? Do you have a local facilitator to find words for you? SignatureNoel Quoth "Ildhund" <jnllb@removemsn.com>, and I quote: >James Hogg wrote... >> Quoth Ildhund, and I quote: [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > >Do you have a local facilitator to find words for you? I was introduced to this useful tool by Peter Duncanson: http://www.onelook.com/ SignatureJames >Quoth "Ildhund" <jnllb@removemsn.com>, and I quote: > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > >http://www.onelook.com/ Someone else here mentioned it as a useful multi-online-free-dictionary search engine. It took me a surprisingly long time to look further down the page than the search box and to discover the examples of the wildcard facilities. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>Quoth "Ildhund" <jnllb@removemsn.com>, and I quote: >> [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] >the page than the search box and to discover the examples of the >wildcard facilities. As excellent as www.onelook.com is, I was disappointed to find that, apparently lacking a link to the Urban Dictionary, it found no definition for "whore's bath". SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, who speaks AmE, lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE Ildhund filted: >Thank you. A useful crossword list, especially if augmented to >include adverbs. Interesting that an American would probably only >allow (a) two blatantly foreign words, (b) one less blatantly so and >(c) the hoe and shoe derivatives. Would he find any word including >'oeia'? On his album "Hermit of Mink Hollow", American musician Todd Rundgren recorded a song called "Onomatopoeia", the accepted spelling in the US as well as elsewhere....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > "Maybe I'm one of those people who just doesn't > do well in school." > > This I've read in a comic strip - would "who just don't" > be wrong? I'd rather have used that - or am I wrong? In a collection of published books, the stats are as follows: 340 on "one of those people who doesn't" http://books.google.com/books?q=%22one+of+those+people+who+doesn%27t%22&btnG=Sea rch+Books 600 on "one of those people who don't" http://books.google.com/books?q=%22one+of+those+people+who+doesn%27t%22&btnG=Sea rch+Books thus both seem acceptable, with some advantage on the part of the 2nd. I'd say use the 2nd, as you first define the group, then you identify the individual as a part of it. -- Thanks. Marius Hancu > "Maybe I'm one of those people who just doesn't do well in school." > > This I've read in a comic strip - would "who just don't" be wrong? I'd > rather have used that - or am I wrong? You are correct. The subject of the second verb (after "be") is _people_: "people who just don't do well in school" is the entire construction. In effect, the statement is "There are people who just don't do well in school, and I am one of them." The sort of error here is so elementary yet common that Wilson Follett remarked of it at the entry "One of . . . " that "Eric Partridge characterizes the fault as a product of bad thinking, and that is indeed what it suggests. But it is so nearly universal that it can perpetuate itself without any thinking at all." Elsewhere, in his more general Introductory, "On the Need of Some Grammar", he tartly observes that "Mere prevalence can sanctify many sorts of error . . . but it cannot make a singular verb consort with a plural noun for the convenience of a writer who has not taken the trouble to find out what the subject is." SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ |
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.