Cato's Grammar Grumble

[Ken B]

As a noun, all of that may be quite fine!  The problem is this new desire to use the word as a verb.

*looks about furtively*
*smirks evilly*
The noun was verbed. We often verb nouns. Verbing nouns is common.

verb, v.t, to transition into a verb. Example: "Verb was verbed."

*slinks off, partly proud, partly ashamed*

[Cato]

*looks about furtively*
*smirks evilly*
The noun was verbed. We often verb nouns. Verbing nouns is common.

verb, v.t, to transition into a verb. Example: "Verb was verbed."

*slinks off, partly proud, partly ashamed*

[Mahlerian]

*looks about furtively*
*smirks evilly*
The noun was verbed. We often verb nouns. Verbing nouns is common.

verb, v.t, to transition into a verb. Example: "Verb was verbed."

*slinks off, partly proud, partly ashamed*

To quote the philosopher Calvin*: "Verbing weirds language."

*The one who's six years old, not the one who's five hundred years old...

[Florestan]

Verbing nouns is common.

How 'bout nouning verbs? 

[Cato]

How 'bout nouning verbs? 

Hmmm! 

Well, we do have The Holy See ! 0:)

[Jo498]

Re: Who/whom.
I am always slightly confused when people use things like "objective case". Maybe it is because I grew up distinguishing more cases (native: German, first language at school: Latin) but even while in English might be no distinction in flexion between dative and accusative, they are still different cases, aren't they: "I give him [Dat] the book [Acc]." [and even with the marker "to" in a different order "I give the book to him", I'd still say that it is dative] "I see him [Acc]."
"him" is an object in both sentences but once it is dative, once accusative, so talking of "objective case" is neglecting that difference. Or am I projecting from German? "Ich gebe ihm das Buch" vs. "Ich sehe ihn"
But if one had to translate these examples into German or Latin one would have to know that "him" is in a different case.
And the genitive/possessive is still there as well "The guy whose pants were on fire reached for the water jug".

I realize that this is done not to confuse people with grammar and admit that I am inflexible but it is like converting things from binary code or so. If people talk about direct/indirect etc. objects I always translate this in my mind into accusative/dative etc. I realize they are not exactly parallel although in the languages with hardly any flexion it is close enough but it is confusing for me.

[zamyrabyrd]

Re: Who/whom.
I am always slightly confused when people use things like "objective case". Maybe it is because I grew up distinguishing more cases (native: German, first language at school: Latin) but even while in English might be no distinction in flexion between dative and accusative, they are still different cases, aren't they: "I give him [Dat] the book [Acc]." [and even with the marker "to" in a different order "I give the book to him", I'd still say that it is dative] "I see him [Acc]."
"him" is an object in both sentences but once it is dative, once accusative, so talking of "objective case" is neglecting that difference. Or am I projecting from German? "Ich gebe ihm das Buch" vs. "Ich sehe ihn"
But if one had to translate these examples into German or Latin one would have to know that "him" is in a different case.

Arabic doesn't distinguish between dative and objective case. Verbs can have two objects (maflun-bihi) if they are transitive (X gave him that).

[Jo498]

But is English really like Arabic or does it just happen to have the same form of the noun for dative and accusative? I did not claim that all languages have to have these cases.
But the indoeuropean ones started out with them and later fused some of them together or "lost" them and so I think it is a meaningful question if English does have accusative and dative or if they are fused into an "objective". The forms of the noun are fused but the syntactical functions are distinguishable.
(There does not seem to be a doubt that English retains some kind of genitive/possessive as well, so it has at least three cases left.)

[zamyrabyrd]

(There does not seem to be a doubt that English retains some kind of genitive/possessive as well, so it has at least three cases left.)

I just cribbed this from Wikipedia.

"Middle English (ME) is collectively the varieties of the English language spoken after the Norman Conquest (1066) until the late 15th century; scholarly opinion varies but the Oxford English Dictionary specifies the period of 1150 to 1500. This stage of the development of the English language roughly followed the High to the Late Middle Ages...Early Middle English (1100–1300) has a largely Anglo-Saxon vocabulary (with many Norse borrowings in the northern parts of the country), but a greatly simplified inflectional system. The grammatical relations that were expressed in Old English by the dative and instrumental cases are replaced in Early Middle English with prepositional constructions. The Old English genitive -es survives in the -'s of the modern English possessive, but most of the other case endings disappeared in the Early Middle English period, including most of the roughly one dozen forms of the definite article ("the"). The dual personal pronouns (denoting exactly two) also disappeared from English during this period.".

I am a big fan of the Canterbury Tales, especially in books where the rendering to modern English is on the facing page. Nouns were inflected similar to German:
  singular
      strong   weak
nom   engel   name
acc   engel   name
gen   engles   namen
dat   engle   namen
     plural
      strong   weak
nom   engles   namen
acc   engles   namen
gen   engle   namene
dat   englen   namen

[Florestan]

Hmmm! 

Well, we do have The Holy See ! 0:)

Yes, this one is quite intriguing: why not The Holy Seat, or even literally The Holy Chair*? Why See?

* The Romanian term is Sfântul Scaun, which means exactly The Holy Chair.

[zamyrabyrd]

Yes, this one is quite intriguing: why not The Holy Seat, or even literally The Holy Chair*? Why See?
* The Romanian term is Sfântul Scaun, which means exactly The Holy Chair.

Good question. A lot of people must have been asking themselves where "See" came from.

Apparently, it is from "seat":
The term Holy See comes from the Latin Sancta Sedes, meaning "Holy Chair," and originates from the enthronement ceremony of the Bishop of Rome, the Pope.  Strictly speaking, the cathedra, i.e. the chair or throne, represents the position and authority of the Holy Father or a bishop, and the place where he resides in the territory of his jurisdiction.  Here the Holy See refers to the "seat of government" of the universal Church.  Geographically, this seat of government is located in the Diocese of Rome.
http://catholicstraightanswers.com/what-does-the-term-holy-see-mean/

[Florestan]

Good question. A lot of people must have been asking themselves where "See" came from.

Apparently, it is from "seat":
The term Holy See comes from the Latin Sancta Sedes, meaning "Holy Chair," and originates from the enthronement ceremony of the Bishop of Rome, the Pope.  Strictly speaking, the cathedra, i.e. the chair or throne, represents the position and authority of the Holy Father or a bishop, and the place where he resides in the territory of his jurisdiction.  Here the Holy See refers to the "seat of government" of the universal Church.  Geographically, this seat of government is located in the Diocese of Rome.
http://catholicstraightanswers.com/what-does-the-term-holy-see-mean/

Thanks. I suspected that See is actually a contraction of Seat and has got nothing to do with the verb.

[Jo498]

Thanks; very interesting. Of course I didn't mean to dispute any of that. I guess my point is whether it makes sense to speak of "cases" as functions in the syntax if they work almost exactly as the would in a language that still has different endings.
So English has three forms: he, his, him. Someone like me who is native German and first really learned grammar when studying Latin tends to think of this as follows
Nom: he
Gen: his
Dat: (to) him
Acc: him

I also tend to think of verbs as "going with" a case. This might be wrong but somewhat automatic because I have to relate English to my mother tongue (as soon as I think about grammar). So in "I believe him" I think of "him" as dative because in German "glauben" has the direct object in the dative case. Whereas in "I see him" it would be accusative.
Of course I understand that one can equally well call both cases of a direct object "objective case" because there is no difference in grammatical form. (This would make no sense in a language like German where a verb can have direct objects in the genitive (rare), dative and accusative.)

It is still confusing because of verbs with more than one object, at least as long as one can leave out prepositions. In "I give him the book" ("Ich gebe ihm das Buch") "him" has a different place in the syntax as in "I see him" although the grammatical form is the same. So one has to learn anyway that "him" can have different places/functions, so there is a distinction not captured by only contrasting "him" as "objective" with "he" (subjective). I realise that this might be more confusing than helpful for natives or learners of English that have not learned a language with several cases and different direct objects first. But as German and (I think) the slavic languages (and probably others as well) do have such cases, I'd think it would still be helpful to think the way I tried to sketch.

[Florestan]

It always strikes me as stridently wrong to reply to, for instance, "I love you!" with "Me too!" "I too!" is the logical and right way, methinks.

[North Star]

It always strikes me as stridently wrong to reply to, for instance, "I love you!" with "Me too!" "I too!" is the logical and right way, methinks.

"I love you too" is more accurate, though - unless you mean that you love yourself.
And 'me too' is accurate if it's an exclamation of surprise - as in, "you love me too?" (the other person apparently loves several people).
'I' can sound very contrived in colloquial English - and it certainly sounds very wrong when used improperly.

[Karl Henning]

Good question. A lot of people must have been asking themselves where "See" came from.

Apparently, it is from "seat":
The term Holy See comes from the Latin Sancta Sedes, meaning "Holy Chair," and originates from the enthronement ceremony of the Bishop of Rome, the Pope.  Strictly speaking, the cathedra, i.e. the chair or throne, represents the position and authority of the Holy Father or a bishop, and the place where he resides in the territory of his jurisdiction.  Here the Holy See refers to the "seat of government" of the universal Church.  Geographically, this seat of government is located in the Diocese of Rome.
http://catholicstraightanswers.com/what-does-the-term-holy-see-mean/

Thanks.

Thanks. I suspected that See is actually a contraction of Seat and has got nothing to do with the verb.

Aye. I rather suspect Cato knew that, and was funnin'. (And punnin'.)

[zamyrabyrd]

Thanks; very interesting. Of course I didn't mean to dispute any of that. I guess my point is whether it makes sense to speak of "cases" as functions in the syntax if they work almost exactly as the would in a language that still has different endings.
So English has three forms: he, his, him. Someone like me who is native German and first really learned grammar when studying Latin tends to think of this as follows
Nom: he
Gen: his
Dat: (to) him
Acc: him

I also tend to think of verbs as "going with" a case. This might be wrong but somewhat automatic because I have to relate English to my mother tongue (as soon as I think about grammar). So in "I believe him" I think of "him" as dative because in German "glauben" has the direct object in the dative case. Whereas in "I see him" it would be accusative.
Of course I understand that one can equally well call both cases of a direct object "objective case" because there is no difference in grammatical form. (This would make no sense in a language like German where a verb can have direct objects in the genitive (rare), dative and accusative.)

It is still confusing because of verbs with more than one object, at least as long as one can leave out prepositions. In "I give him the book" ("Ich gebe ihm das Buch") "him" has a different place in the syntax as in "I see him" although the grammatical form is the same. So one has to learn anyway that "him" can have different places/functions, so there is a distinction not captured by only contrasting "him" as "objective" with "he" (subjective). I realise that this might be more confusing than helpful for natives or learners of English that have not learned a language with several cases and different direct objects first. But as German and (I think) the slavic languages (and probably others as well) do have such cases, I'd think it would still be helpful to think the way I tried to sketch.

Prepositions were a bugbear when I was learning German, because I was thinking in English (still do). One similarity that I held onto was when they appear at the end like "pick it up".
I was surprised to learn in Arabic that dative and accusative were considered direct objects for some verbs. I never expected to see that outside English. But they have plenty of prepositions and do inflect verbs, the subject of which would be too long for this thread and past the limits of my own knowledge.

[Cato]

Thanks. I suspected that See is actually a contraction of Seat and has got nothing to do with the verb.

Aye. I rather suspect Cato knew that, and was funnin'. (And punnin'.)

Right!  Ken B.'s joke on "verbing" vs. "nouning" brought up that pun on "see" as a noun, which word, however, has nothing to do with the verb "see."

On cases and forms in English:

But is English really like Arabic or does it just happen to have the same form of the noun for dative and accusative?
(There does not seem to be a doubt that English retains some kind of genitive/possessive as well, so it has at least three cases left.)

Here is the lamentable state of the teaching of English in America: it is quite possible to major in English in many colleges and not study one foreign language connected to it.    There are even Ph.D. programs with either no specific requirement or a "2-year requirement" in "any" foreign language.  Knowing Anglo-Saxon, Gothic, Old English/Middle English, Latin, French, or German beyond the two-year level apparently is not considered important to become a professor of English at too many universities.

This is why I have heard from students throughout my 45-year career of teaching German, Latin, and Ancient Greek that "I learn more English in your class than I do in English."

Anyway, yes, I would agree that English has a Dative and an Accusative Case, although many English teachers will not know the terms "Dative Case" or "Accusative Case."  The "him" in "I gave him a dollar" vs. "I saw him yesterday" are not used in the same way, although the forms are the same.

I have known English teachers who have told me that the following sentence "I gave a dollar to him" uses "him" simply as an "object of a preposition," and that it is NOT an indirect object!     That the prepositional phrase is used as an indirect object did not occur to them. 

[Jo498]

To be fair, even in Germany where we do have 4 distinct cases, grammar is often not taught very well. Because it is boring in one's mother tongue, that's why one should study a few foreign languages, preferably at least one like Latin (or Russian or Ancient Greek...) with declensions and conjugations and all the fun stuff.

In my case I had a rather energetic teacher in 4th grade who wanted those of us who were going to transfer to the track where we'd start Latin or English in 5th grade to be well prepared, so she made us learn some grammar already then, including the Latin technical terms for the cases etc. And once one starts Latin there is of course no way to avoid grammar and because it is so  systematic and clear there, one tends to think of other languages in similar ways. This has limits and that's why I am hesitant to claim that what I sketched above is simply "right". But when one wants to translate from English into German or Latin one has to realize that there is a real difference between the two occurences of "him" in "I give him the book" and in "I see him". There might be different ways to conceptualize the difference and the "classical" way with dative and accusative might be somewhat disingenious for English but I am glad that Cato agrees that it is not nonsense.

As for foreign language requirements: it is the mixed blessing of the anglophone world that they do not have to learn foreign languages, so it is understandable that these requirements slacked over time. (Recall that English as lingua franca is fairly recent, I think it passed French only around/after WW II.)

In Germany we still have formal requirements of several years of two foreign languages for most university subjects. In practice it is difficult to pass the high school diploma without taking two foreign languages for several years, so theoretically, most students fulfil that formal requirement before university (it is a different question how well students actually know the languages although most younger Germans are actually speaking English quite well because they had 8 or even 10 years of instruction at school - one needs about 5-6 years and about 3-5 in a second language to pass the requirements I guess). (In my school time in the late 1980s it was normal for the academic track students to start the first language at 5th (10 years old), the second at 7th and a third at 9th grade. One could avoid the third language with some extra classes in other subjects but many/most students took a few years of it. Most common then was English/French/Latin (or in another order) Then one could get rid typically of one of those three in 11th or 12th grade for the last two school years if one wanted. If one started Latin or Greek in 9th grade and passed an exam in the last (13th) grade this fulfilled the requirements for divinity school or other university subjects requiring ancient languages.)
Of course anyone going for a master's or PhD degree needs a working knowledge of English in most subjects (one exception is law... they do legalese instead...) because of international publications and many universities also have the formal requirement of Latin for some humanities PhDs.

[Florestan]

The "him" in "I gave him a dollar" vs. "I saw him yesterday" are not used in the same way, although the forms are the same.

Romanian makes a clear distinction between accusative and dative without even needing the object to be mentioned as such. 

I-am dat un dolar means "I / we gave [him / her] a dollar". That I at the very beginning  indicates the dative, but if it's "to him" or "to her" is either deduced from the context or have to be explicited thus:

I-am dat lui un dolar --- "lui" means "to him"

I-am dat ei un dolar --- "ei" in this context means "to her" (in other contexts can mean "they" but only for males)

L-am văzut means "I / we saw him". That L at the very beginning indicates both the accusative and the fact that it's "him".

Am văzut-o means "I / we saw her". The o at the end indicates both the accusative and the fact that it's "her".