Returning to contact with the World, I have done my best to deal with comments and emails.
And I have capriciously decided not to enable two additional categories of comment:
1. Comments including the grammatical error "We must respect he who is the King of Tonga". We do not, in English, say "we must respect he [nominative]"; we say "We must respect him [accusative]". A curious idea seems to be growing up that whenever the relative pronoun "who" is used, it has to be preceded by a nominative. It most certainly doesn't. This is the same sort of error as using the nominative for the second of two linked names: "He spoke to Theodore and I". We do not in English say "He spoke to I"; we say "He spoke to me". So: "He spoke to Theodore and me".
I once heard a colleague refer to "Paul and I's study".
A less spectacularly horrible usage which is getting common is to make genitive only the second of two linked names. "Michael and Anne's house" is, surely, as illogical as it is imprecise. It would imply that we were talking about two objects: (1) Michael; and (2) Anne's house. If we are talking about a house which belongs to both Michael and Anne, the logical form surely is "Michael's and Anne's house".
The correct thing for that colleague (who, incidentally, was a Wykehamist, heaven help us) to have said would have been: "Paul's and my study".
2. Comments in a language which I do not understand or imperfectly understand. The reason for this is, I think, obvious.
So there. Dixi.
Dear Father you never explained what you have against the poor King of Tonga.
ReplyDelete“Michael and Anne” designates one couple, and when we speak of that couple’s household we refer to it as Michael and Anne’s, and not as Tom and Jerry’s.
ReplyDeleteYes Father, masterful – pedagogical, even…
ReplyDeleteAd primum: yes, there appears to be a distinct aversion to the use of ‘me’ in modern discourse, despite this being the ‘MeToo’ generation. I blame the 60s primarily, as at that time there began a revolt against rules of all kinds, grammar not excepted.
Just as the proliferation of hand-held calculators was the death-knell of Maths for many, so today the proliferation of hand-held means of written communication, with their attendant abbreviations, shortcuts, Emojis, etc. may spell the death of proper grammar.
Dr. Johnson would be aghast!
Oh, Father! How you smite them! And how they deserve it! I have heard people with doctorates say "They invited Cathy and I to dinner." So much for the value of a doctorate. And why would anyone, for any reason, even under torture, say "I's"? I have heard that, too. Invariably I find these people are obtuse about other matters besides grammar. Oh, I am being judgemental.
ReplyDeleteI agree. Even worse, and more commonly heard are sentences that begin "Me and Georgr..."
ReplyDeleteMy husband enjoys reading your blog and sending me links periodically. Of course he sent me this one. However, as an English teacher, I need to correct you about the joint possession. When two people own one thing together (joint ownership), the ownership is shown on the second person's name. For example, Mike and Anne own a house together, so it would be written as Mike and Anne's house. However, if Mike owns a house and Anne owns a separate house, it is not joint ownership but separate ownership of the same type of item, so both names need the 's, as in Mike's and Anne's houses. I totally agree with your frustration with the abuse of the nominative. My other beef is with the reflexive pronouns. It's typically abused by educated people trying to sound smarter when they use this case instead of the nominative or objective pronouns. My other frustration is the constant use of the apostrophe to make nouns plural, not possessive. For example, writing latte's for lattes. I could go on...and on...and on.
ReplyDeletePlease also disable comments from anyone who pronounces the T in often. We don't pronounce it in soften, nor in hustle, bustle, whistle, mistletoe, etc.
ReplyDeleteI consider myself a sage and tolerant man, but I can not tolerate a T-pronouncer. Nor should anyone. This is clearly the thin end of the wedge.
And why are things now differ TO each other and not FROM each other?
ReplyDeleteHere in the West we regularly say, "He spoke to I," and the like.
ReplyDeleteAt least in the US, a lot of people overcorrect me to I, him to he, etc. Why? English teachers with a real dislike of him, her, me, etc.
ReplyDeleteMy friend and me read your blog every day and are saddened that you will block he and I from here on in.
ReplyDeleteFather,
ReplyDeleteYou've [sic?] convinced me of good grammar. If only you could also convince PF of good theology!
Might you allow the nominative expressed as a West-country idiom, Father? As in, e.g., “Ooh arr – ’ee be sellin’ them tractor to I”. With International Talk Like a Pirate Day upcoming on September 19, this exception could be an important one to make.
ReplyDeleteAnd it always reminds me of the joke in the 1930's grammar book: Who has been trying to devour whom for centuries; and has only been prevented by the efforts of unguided grammarians
ReplyDeletePlease also ban all split infinitives, Father.
ReplyDeleteI have always assumed the use of nominative pronouns for accusative ones was a false genteelism on the part of people who had to make a conscious effort not to get it wrong the other way round and say 'Me and Bill did it.'
ReplyDeleteMost annoying are people who say 'five times more' instead of 'five times as much/many', or even worse, 'five times less' instead of 'a fifth as much'. The same people would not say 'twice less' (I hope).
ReplyDeleteI once attended the service at which the sacrament of Holy Order was readministered to an Anglican priest who had submitted to the Holy See (I use this form of words deliberately). This was some 20 years ago, before the institution of the Ordinariate. At the crucial moment the candidate was invited to present himself with the words "Let he who is to be ordained priest come forward". Is this what the official English translation says? If so, who wrote it? Was he a native English speaker?
ReplyDeleteI am somewhat amused by the fact that, despite your proscription of these grammatical howlers, most of the comments on this post have included, albeit indirectly, examples of them, including from "myself". "Let he who is without sin...". "NO!: Let HIM!!...."
ReplyDeleteYour strictures make a good case for compulsory Latin. It has been firmly planted in my memory since I was twelve that a relative pronoun takes its number and gender from its antecedent and it's case from its own clause. I fail to see what is difficult about that.
ReplyDelete