Cato's Grammar Grumble

[Ken B]

On the plus side, snyprrr has found his long lost brother.

[Karl Henning]

Oh, gracious.  What if . . . ?

[Sean]

Florestan, good morning.

Structures are subject to a higher judgement principle: coherence

In recent years I've moved away from the colon and such formations as this. They're like an excessive use of italics or cute point making and there are always better ways of stating things more straightforwardly. I reserve colons for introducing major sections of information, otherwise I it's the dash and semicolon.

...thoughts are so sophisticated that English grammar and its rules can´t cope with them

Well language certainly shapes thought, and its worth trying to go beyond that sometimes.

Yes I object to incorrect English, but as I've tried to say, that does not mean following rules. Good English is based on judgement of words and syntax and even if all possible rules could be written down they wouldn't displace this criterioin.

I also walk the streets further from the port road, being likewise pleasant, sleepy and safe.

Again you're taking that out of context, and if a sentence's meaning is immediately clear then you don't need further linguistic dogmatism.

[Florestan]

Florestan, good morning.

´Morning to you.

Yes I object to incorrect English, but as I've tried to say, that does not mean following rules.

Me am sorry, but this is nonsensic. Incorrectical English is thus with a reason, being exackly that had been broken the rules.

Does the above phrase make any sense to you? Of course not, because I broke about as many rules as I could, starting off with the one you broke yourself claiming that it was actually right to do so. Let´s restate it correctly (ie, following the rules).

I am sorry, but this is nonsense. Incorrect English is incorrect for a reason, namely it breaks the rules.

Good English is based on judgement of words and syntax and even if all possible rules could be written down they wouldn't displace this criterioin.

Good English, just like good Romanian or good Quechua or good whatnot, is based on three things: vocabulary, grammar and syntax. Whether you like it or not, whether it suits you or not, all three have rules. Breaking them wil result in bad English. "Them know" is just as bad English as "strickly".

[Jo498]

I'd say it's worse. Grammatical errors are more serious than spelling mistakes, IMO. And putting the subject of a sentence in the accusative case is among the most fundamental grammatical errors one can commit...

[Sean]

You two, I didn't say them know.

It might have followed from the sentence but I didn't say it. They and them had their functions in the sentence and are both fine.

I don't think you're going to see this so I'll agree to disagree. Another topic perhaps.

[Florestan]

You two, I didn't say them know.

It might have followed from the sentence but I didn't say it. They and them had their functions in the sentence and are both fine.

You´re right, you didn´t say it. You wrote it.

I know a few French phrases and them a few English.

[Ken B]

I'd say it's worse. Grammatical errors are more serious than spelling mistakes, IMO. And putting the subject of a sentence in the accusative case is among the most fundamental grammatical errors one can commit...

What was that famous headline? J'accusative?

[Ken B]

I know a few French phrases and them a few English.

I can make this work! With a little punctuation.

Cato asked me if I knew some phrases in German. And I said to Cato, "Those prases?  I know them.  I also know phrases in French, and just a few in English. I know a few french phrases, and them, a few English. Lots of phrases."

[Christo]

I can make this work! With a little punctuation.

Cato asked me if I knew some phrases in German. And I said to Cato, "Those prases?  I know them.  I also know phrases in French, and just a few in English. I know a few french phrases, and them, a few English. Lots of phrases."

Your grammar is fine indeed. But now your French capital is wrong. 

[Karl Henning]

There is in fact. It is the same purpose served by wearing tie-died shirts or shopping at Whole Foods.

By their tie-dyed apparel shall ye now them.

[Cato]

You two, I didn't say them know.

Yes, you did: it is understood from the opening "I know."  If not, then please tell us which verb is supposed to go with the incorrect "them."

It might have followed from the sentence but I didn't say it. They and them had their functions in the sentence and are both fine.

I don't think you're going to see this so I'll agree to disagree. Another topic perhaps.

There is no idea of "might" involved: "know" MUST follow from the sentence.

You can agree with yourself.  The world will disagree with you.

[Sean]

Because I didn't actually say it, I can get away with it just fine; it's clearer as it is.

[aquablob]

Sean is right in general principle but wrong in the specific case.

Yes, it's sometimes perfectly idiomatic to use an objective pronoun where a subjective one is technically called for, or vice versa. For example, a colloquial it's me or who do you love? is usually preferable to the "correct" alternative, which would raise eyebrows. And frankly, if following a "rule" of Standard English would cause a majority of educated speakers to think that you're an obnoxious pedant, then the rule isn't a rule at all.

But the present they/them question is an opposite situation.

[Sean]

[Ken B]

Sean is right in general principle but wrong in the specific case.
... the present they/them question [he is wrong].

"Prefer the specific to the general, the definite to the vague, the concrete to the abstract."

(I am quoting scripture here  )

[Florestan]

"Prefer the specific to the general, the definite to the vague, the concrete to the abstract."

(I am quoting scripture here  )

Of course. Any Orthodox Christian monk worth of his name would urge you to do the same. 

[jochanaan]

"Prefer the specific to the general...

If I'm fighting a war, I don't think I want a specific to lead my armies!

the definite to the vague

Or to Vogue?

the concrete to the abstract."

That last is true, when you're building buildings; I can't stand on "abstract." Although I'd want an abstract in hand before I bought the land...

(I am quoting scripture here  )

Whose scripture?

[North Star]

If I'm fighting a war, I don't think I want a specific to lead my armies!

So you don't want a specific general to lead the army?

Or to Vogue?
That last is true, when you're building buildings; I can't stand on "abstract." Although I'd want an abstract in hand before I bought the land...Whose scripture?

The Elements of Style, by Oliver Strunk

[Ken B]

So you don't want a specific general to lead the army?
The Elements of Style, by Oliver Strunk

I knew you would recognize it!