I am not a native speaker but I am positive "who" replaces the subject and the verb is conjugated accordingly. It is easier if you try the plural: You would never say

"The children who lives nearby"

Of course in this example you could argue that "who" is still third person, but can be either plural or singular, but also the construction

"I who does not know any English"

sounds downright wrong.

And, if that helps, comparable constructions in German or English always conjugate the verb according to the subject replaced by "who".

In English, the relative pronouns who/whom are only used with the third-person, and therefore, your example "You, who..." sounds rather odd to me.

In a relative clause, the verb conjugations do correspond to number of the replaced subject, hence:

"The man who was here yesterday..." vs. "The men who were here yesterday..."

Dear Steve-ö, of course you know better than I do, but couldn't there be a phrase like:

"Even I who have never been to India know there arelots of cows there"?

(Sorry, nothing more intelligent came to mind)

Or would that sound really really odd as well?

@Panalotta - the construction is perfectly good English idiom
www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199798/cmhansrd/vo980519/debtext/80519-34.htm

www.bbc.co.uk/cult/sherlock/lostworld1.shtml

the Beeb and Parliament *can't* be wrong :o)

thanks, odondon, that's a relief :o)

Generell würde ich sagen, dass man die 3. Person anwendet. Allerdings bin ich mir im Zusammenhang mit "seem/seems" nicht sicher.
see related discussion:

  related discussion:grammar

odondon *wink*? what do you think?

BTW: I guess there is no English bible then ;-)?:
Matthew 27:39-40:
And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads, and saying, "You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross."

Panalotta's right. It's not I who am crazy...

Fowler has the following to say:

example: "to me, who has also a copy of it..."

Read have: the relatives take the person of their antecendents


_____

and that is clear enough for me.

@babs: what does your Bible quote show? "you ... would" is normal

How about this:
Ps. 22:3 "Yet Thou art holy, O Thou who art enthroned upon the praises of Israel."
Matt 6:9 "After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy name..."

@steve-ö: I'd question that statement of yours -- "who/whom are only ever used with the 3rd person"?? I agree it's a difficult construction. And it's clear that it often soudns better to put the incorrect 3rd person in there.

A google search of "it is I who is" gets 3990 hits, e.g. "Ah, lady, it is I who *is* called the fool, but methinks perhaps the fool is the lady!"

Also: "it is you who is" gets 20,800 hits:
"You are wrong, Mr Blair: it is you who *is' prejudiced about science, and it is the people at large who have respect for the ..."
"In reality, It is YOU who is the coward."

I still say it's best (if you are unsure) to avoid constructions with who/whom that are not with the third-person, as it is usually only used with the third-person... and most people don't speak like they walked out of the Bible ;)... then again, maybe it's me who's crazy! (ack!!)

ahhh... and a couple more things:

@Panalotta & odondon irl: Your examples sound quite wrong to me, so I suspect this is likely a BE vs. AE difference

@Ghol: these constructions are fine for me, however they are special "it is.." constructions (called cleft construction), which provides for all kinds of exceptions in English

I'm sticking to my guns!

A non-native's naive question:

May the difference be
... I who am...
... me who is...?

Sorry, I was mislead by another sentence in another construction ("it is you who is..) - which doesn't apply here and the "grammar-discussion" is nonsense in that context anyway *blush*

@Ghol <GB>: The bible quote was pointed at steve-ö's remark and was supposed to underline the "you who"-possibility and missed a ";-)" .

Sorry once again, and today I can't even blame it on the heat :-(.
(I hope I didn't write even more nonsense)

I agree with Panalotta, Peter <us>, odondon, and Ghol. There is nothing at all wrong with using this construction in any person, as long as the verb agrees with its antecedent:

I who have
Thou who hast
You who have
He who has
We who have
etc.

babs and Ghol are also right to think of biblical/liturgical usage. Another example:

Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi
O Lamb of God, (thou) that takest away the sins of the world
O Lamb of God, you (who) take away the sins of the world

One catch is that in elevated language such as prayer, the pronoun may be elided: Our Father, (thou) who art in heaven. I struggled recently over how to put elisions like this back into German; cf.   related discussion:meet girt about)


>"it is I who is"
>"it is you who is"

In my book these are both simply wrong, even if they're heard in speech.


>It's not I who am crazy
>maybe it's me who's crazy!

The first is correct but awkward because hardly anyone ever says 'It is I' anymore. The second is incorrect but heard in speech. However, the way to say this both colloquially and correctly is

I'm not the one who's crazy!

Here Panalotta, who was the first to respond, is right. And you, stev-ö, who were the second to respond, unfortunately didn't give good advice. And I, who just had to add my 2¢ worth, support Panalotta and hm--us.

<somewhat off topic> But I don't agree with hm--us that "maybe it's me who's crazy" is "incorrect". Indeed, it's the natural way that a native speaker would phrase the thought. "It's not I who am crazy" is never heard outside the classroom, and "I'm not the one who's crazy", although perfectly correct, expresses a somewhat different thought. <end/off topic>

"I, who am [first person singular] a long-time native speaker, am comfortable that this is grammatically correct. You, who are [second person singular or plural] not, may disagree. We who have [first person plural] lived here for a long time..."

In the initial example, B is correct ("you, who seem to be...").

This is the grammatically correct way. (The examples are a little forced, but they are correct.) I can't cite a source, but I am quite sure I am correct. (I don't mean to sound arrogant. I just mean to convey certainty, as a native speaker, for your benefit.)

"I disagree with them who think [third person plural] differently. I am comfortable with you who agree [second person singular or plural] with me."

A construction like "do you agree with me, who am (or is).." sounds so awkward and artificial, that it hardly matters what is grammatically correct.

@odondon irl: In your example from Fowler ("to me, who has also a copy of it..."), the explanation doesn't seem to match the example: "Read have: the relatives take the person of their antecendents" - if this were true, this does not explain the "is". You can't say "me (or I) is". Right?

Eine Frage an die Nichtnativen, insbesondere steve-ö:

Wer hat die Meinung überhaupt aufgebracht, dass "who" auf die dritte Person beschränkt ist? Steht das irgendwo? Wird das irgendwo gelehrt? Und vor allem: Spricht jemand so, dass er den Gebrauch von "who" auf die dritte Person beschränkt?

A pronoun is still a pronoun whether it is a relative pronoun or not and stands for the noun or pronoun it replaces.
You,who(you)seem to be an native speaker.
I who(I)have nothing

the second example is correct, don't know why, english grammar is often like that.

Panalotta:
"Even I who have never been to India know there arelots of cows there"?
- i would say "even i, who'S never been to India, know there are lots of cows there"

But it's true, we dont generally say that. To get round it you could say,
"I've never been to India but i know there are lots of cows there."
"You talk very fast, even tho you seem to be a native speaker" etc etc.....

No, babs, there is no English Bible and teachers are no longer allowed to teach the difference between proper English and spoken, colloquial speech or proper spelling as it would block the kiddie-winkles' freedom of expression.

Steve ö is not correct in what he says, but it is colloquial English - like what it is spoke - and not grammatically correct as the others point out.

It is like my bugbear - weather forecasters who say, "There's clouds" instead of "There are clouds". Unfortunately, it is not grammatically correct but it is said.

I'm just rehearsing "Half a Sixpence" and the character Helen, a school teacher trying to teach Kipps the finer points of proper pronunciation, is actually given the line, "There's aitches". The girl playing the part and I agreed that the line should be changed to, "There are aitches". [As in the letter 'H'.]

Ah yes, finally someone in the same boat as me... thank you Claire A!
I agree with Claire A, because I really do only use relative pronouns in the third-person - hey, call me crazy! - otherwise I would avoid such constructions, as Claire A suggested.

This brings up a few points which I think the Hon. Mr. J. Paul Murdock and others could take to heart: People speak differently, language is diverse and constantly changing! What's right to some native speakers is not to others... and this doesn't mean that one native speaker is "right" and the other is "wrong" - rather, both are "right" and both are using "correct" English.

And to really shock Mr. Murdock: There's nothing wrong with "There's clouds"! You might not find it in Dickens and you might not hear it at the tea parties you throw for refined speakers of proper antiquated English - but it is correct English that complies to the linguistic rules of the language as it is spoken by many people today.

I will now retreat to the comfort of the boat for speakers of freaky new English and party hearty with Claire A...

@steve-ö

your argumentation is somewhat obscure:

you say: " there is clouds " is correct English, and conforms to linguistic rules.

if so, then the constructions:
I is
you am

are just as correct, aren't they?
yet I doubt very much if you would ever *seriously* use one of these two examples in everyday speech, and not feel a right twit doing so.

rules have the basic problem, that if you apply them to one case, you have to apply them to each and all, or else you would have no need of rules.

for the construction 'there is clouds', which can be heard often, I would suggest a typical feature of spoken language: one starts off with an idea in mind of what one wishes to say, and changes ones mind in the process of saying it. this happens so quickly, and is such a universal phenomenon, that we excuse others and ourselves for doing so. perhaps the users of the phrase wanted to say: "there is danger/risk/probability of clouds this afternoon" and change in the middle of speaking to " there is clouds"

no problems with that for the spoken language, but the rules for the written language are different, and those native English speakers who wish to speak correct English orientate themselves to the rules of written English, meaning that (even) in AE there is correct and incorrect language.

there's clouds is incorrect, since clouds is plural and demands a plural verb

think, too, of those non-native speakers eagerly wanting to learn English - should we damn them to learning an incorrect English, when it is just as easy to learn correct English, instead?

@odondon irl:

First of all, I never said that "There is clouds" is correct (for me). I said "There's clouds" is correct (for me), along with "There's bottles" and "There's monkeys". In fact, "There is clouds" is incorrect for me, and I don't think that it can be heard quite often, as you say. This is made more clear by the fact that the yes/no question derived from that indicative statement - "Is there clouds?" - sounds completely wrong to me and I suspect to others who accept "There's clouds".

As for your explanation for the existence in speech of "There's clouds" - I hope others find it as unlikely as I do - but even so, that explanation does not apply to my use of the phrase "There's...", which (and here is the rule) can be followed (in my twisted, improper, yet native version of the language) by either a singular or a plural noun phrase.

And I do indeed write this phrase in informal writing, however the problem does not arise in formal writing because of the general convention of avoiding contractions. And as I wrote above, "There is clouds" is plain incorrect to me, so "There's clouds" expands to "There are clouds".

(cont'd...)

I agree that people learning English as a foreign language should learn writing conventions of the language. However, it is important to consider: first of all, that there isn't a even a single set of writing conventions for English, but rather many, sometimes conflicting, sets; and second of all, that even native-speakers have to learn writing conventions and have problems themselves with these conventions. This tells us that formal written language is actually a bit distant from Language - the correct language that all native speakers use when speaking (or informally writing) their native language, language that is correct because it adheres to a set of linguistic rules that overwhelmingly conform to but might slightly vary from the set of rules belonging to the guy next door. Just imagine it... we have understood each other perfectly, it just so happens that I say "There's clouds" and you don't.

As for those non-native speakers eagerly wanting to learn English (that is, after all, what this forum is for)... you can teach them perfect proper English as much as you like, but they still should know how people actually speak English, and I and many others say things like "There's clouds".

The same goes for me - I want to learn how people actually speak German, a language which is of course well-know for its variation. If I spoke German like perfect written Hochdeutsch, people would think I was some nutjob who thinks he's Kant.

And after all, that's what these forums are for - for getting different (and indeed sometimes conflicting) opinions from native speakers about the usage of their language. And as a native speaker of English, I'm glad to give my opinions - that is, of course, only if they are welcome...

Ich habe fertig

@steve-ö -
as I said, I consider your argumentation obscure.

there's clouds, whether spoken or written, *is* the shortened form of 'there is clouds', and is nothing else.

so whether I write the phrase with an apostrophe, or whether I write it out in full, the phrase remains exactly the same, and is, according even to yourself - wrong.

@odondon irl: then maybe that is precisely why I can accept "There's clouds" and you can't...
so let us agree to disagree ;)

@steve-ö: Do I take it that you are teaching people incorrect English in Austria? Do you then also teach them that it is acceptable to say "I done" or "I seen" or "her what hit me" or "them folks ain't no good" and all of the other possibilities that incorrect grammar usage by native speakers has to offer? Democratic English????

@Mary (nz/a): why how clever you are... I am indeed teaching improper English to little Austrian schoolchildren in the hopes that they will grow up to say "Zem folks ain't no goot". And I presume you are keeping yourself busy down under by being scared of difference and looking down on people because of how they speak?

Trollalarm?

@steve-ö - I consider it rude and unfair to get polemic with people who are pointing out what they consider to be mistakes.

you opened the discussion with the placative remark that who is only used with the third-person - that this is blatantly incorrect has been sufficiently documented by others.
you yourself have failed to provide checkable source material to support your assertions.

you then continue the discussion by arguing that an obviously incorrect formation reflects a rule of language, whereas others have shown that this, too, is incorrect.
and then, instead of offering checkable proof that what you are asserting is correct, and accepted English, you turn to polemic.

the old saying that abuse is the argument of those without proof seems applicable here.

@odondon irl: a few things...
- on re-reading my first comment, I agree that it seemed too authoritative - however, it still reflects my use of the language, and I consider every posting here to be a personal opinion
- my hostility is in response to Mary (nw/a)'s comment directed at me, which was hostile and indeed polemic
- lastly, I disagree with your arguments that such-and-such is incorrect, but it is pointless to continue to flesh out our arguments because we are clearly at a standstill - which is why I said let us agree to disagree

so... let us agree to disagree

@steve: My question was not hostile, I don't know why you take it as such. I was simply horrified at the thought that you might be teaching incorrect grammar because you yourself claimed that certain incorrect grammar (as documented by enough others) was acceptable and that you used it. Therefore I wondered if it was your philosophy to teach that there are no rules, or that the way people speak rules (democratic), as your argumentation seemed to be implying.

Your answer, by contrast, was not only hostile, it was downright nasty.
By the way, I'm in Austria, so watch out!

@Odondon: thank you for your support.

@Mary (nz/a): It was the six question marks and the presumptive tone of your comment that made it seem aggressive - however if it was not, I am sorry for the misunderstanding and rest assured that I will not be confrontational unless I feel that others are being confrontational
As for arguing with you people, I'm through, you can consider yourselves victors or whatever, but it really is utterly pointless to continue
And finally, I wish you (truly!) a lovely time in Austria, it is a wonderful country and, for those who have not been, well worth a visit!

As a native (AE) speaker, I think it's perfectly acceptable to say "There's clouds", as long as you follow it with something like "in them thar mountains."

@Tom - delicious!
:o)

@odondon irl: hmmm... and Tom's comment isn't hostile? I'm glad you have different standards for those you agree with and those you do not...

@steve-ö

you appear to have difficulties differentiating between hostile comments, and those that use a touch of irony to illustrate a point.
your answers to Paul Murdock's posting I consider extremely hostile, whereas Tom's comment on the use of 'there's' I consider very mild indeed.

instead of polemicising, perhaps you'd be better off putting your money where your mouth is, and producing some shred of authoritative evidence that what you have been asserting is correct?

simply stating that, for instance, 'there's clouds' is a correct formulation, and ignoring the arguments of others, or answering with more than spurious arguments yourself, speaks volumes concerning your interest in language; it might have been more of a service to those language-lovers, and those wanting to learn and use a language correctly, to have produced evidence of what you are so authoritatively stating here.

considering the form of the arguments you have used here, and the absolute lack of any evidence as to credibility, I consider it a trifle sad that you are teaching anybody anything.

@odondon irl: thank you for spelling out that you do indeed have different standards for those you agree with
have a nice weekend! (ahh, irony!)

It's true that there is a huge difference between what is proper, grammatically correct english and what is spoken. We can blame teachers, the americans or whatever but it's the sad truth that most people say, "me and lucy went to the park" and "there's clouds".

I find it refreshing to hear germans speaking a proper english, because they've learnt all the grammar rather than speaking colloqially like the native speakers. But it has to be said, sometimes it sounds a bit stilted....There has to be a happy medium somewhere.

By the way, everyone seems to be getting hot under the collar. Hope everyone's entitled to their opinion!!!!

If the 'who' asks a question, then use third person?

E.g.

"Who was at the door just now?" "Oh, that was Tom and Sheila."

"Who has ever eaten sheeps' eyeballs?" "Me. I have."

"Who is coming to the party?" "Everybody."

In a relative clause, it depends on whom it refers to.

e.g.

"I know the man who lives next door."

"I don't know the people who live in the flat below mine."

@Claire - considering the opinions offered here, and the lack of readiness to accept that language has a correct and incorrect usage, you needn't wonder that so many native speakers use it incorrectly.
were people to take more care learning and using their native language, we would have no need of such discussions.

Ah, thank you Claire A, your comments are so refreshing! You're clearly the most level-headed person in this virtual realm, which has gotten a little out of hand I must say!

And, nina_glyndwr, you are correct in my book - who in a question is third-person (singular)

@steve-ö:

Consider this example:

"Who are those people standing at the bus stop?"

"Are" is not singular.

Personally, I would have thought that anyone who was aware of the fact that an expression they were used to using was incorrect would make the effort to change it in order not to be considered ignorant by others. But perhaps I am being presumptive...

"Education is man's going forward from cocksure ignorance to thoughtful uncertainty." - Kenneth G. Johnson

Herzlichen Dank Euch allen, die Ihr hier so schön für die englische Sprache eine Diskussion nachvollzogen habt, die es schon zu meiner Schulzeit in Deutschland gab:
Schüler zum Lehrer: Aber Mann, das kannst du doch nicht als Fehler anstreichen, Alter, das saacht man bei uns doch so! Lehrer antwortet: Das kann ich sehr wohl als Fehler anstreichen, im Duden steht nämlich.... Schüler: Aber wir sagen das doch so, das ist doch nicht falsch!

Hoffnungslos, sich mit dem Schüler anzulegen... Schade, daß er selbst Lehrer geworden ist.

Yeah, but- if us wot is native speakers sez somfing, then that must be right, 'innit? Cos that's wot language is, like- it sort of changes according to how it's spoke, and we all speaks it proper...

;)

Sorry I spoke! ;o)

Thanks, folks, for backing me up about my own language. I had a very similar experience earlier in the week on a German-language hobby forum where a German guy thought it was "cool" to use highly offensive English swear words. When I objected, his argument was that he had lived in America for a year and that was how people speak. Fine. I studied Linguistics and understand the dynamics of language. But I also studied Socio-Linguistics and where certain levels of language are appropriate and not apporpriate. I also believe in the maxim that the first rule of language, the basic need for language is communication. If you don't have rules - grammar - then language and therefore communication breaks down. Of course, rules are there to be broken, but not by blind ignorance.

Another thing that this guy came up with was that I was wrapped up in Political Correctness, the "ancient" Royal House of Windsor [though not, presumably, the Guelphs of Hanover...] and had my head stuck in old books like Dickens's works. Mmm, don't know how anyone could just presume that. As for Steve Ö's "Honourable", where does that come from? Just because I am known by my middle name and chose to include the initial of my first name? Or is it because the English version of my surname with a "K" looks posher than the original Scottish version with an "H"? Pity I come from a long line of steel workers on my father's side and farm labourers on my mother's.

As I come from an area of England called the Black Country, west of Birmigham, I could claim that Steve Ö "dow know wot hi's a-spaykin' abowert" ["Doesn't know what he's talking about"].

I blame the hot weather. So is it all worth it?

@Richard: Brilliant! ("We don't need no education...")

We could also consult my four-year-old nephew (a native speaker and self-acclaimed grammar expert, or so it seems):
"I winned!"
"No, dear: 'I won'."
"NO!!! *I* winned!"

@Richard -- I have been struggling with the German language off and on (mostly off) for a good thirty years, and using your logic I can now declare my German to be absolutely perfect. The fact that most Germans cringe when I speak or write it doesn't matter a bit. Thanks for showing me this shortcut!! With all this spare time on my hands, I will spend next week going from not speaking a word of French to total fluency.

:-)

I thought I would put in a word of support for steve-ö (even though I objected to his original statement that who/whom is used only in the third person.)

First, I think an expression like "there's clouds in the sky today", is quite natural. (At least in AE.) And I, who do use this expression, am not someone who would say "in them thar mountains", as suggested by Tom and others.

<original-topic> I wouldn't say "I, who does use..." But I can imagine saying "Even I, who does use..." I can't explain why. <endoriginal-topic>

Also, and with all due respect to ordondon, I agree with steve-ö that "there's clouds" is _not_ a shortened form of "there is clouds." Certainly, in many cases, "there is" can be shortened to "there's", but the reverse transformation obviously is not always possible.

In short, the expression "there's clouds" is _not_ indicative of uneducated usage, or dialect, or vulgarity, or anything other negative characteristic (other than a lack of slavish obedience to artificial rules). At least in AE - I can't speak for other countries' usage.

So what is a teacher to do? It's a fair question. Especially since grammar books only too often do not reflect the actual usage of educated people in normal conversational situations. (This, in my view, is the fault of the grammar books, not of the speakers.)

I think steve-ö's approach (as I surmise it to be)is the correct one. Teach the students the grammar book rules, for sure -- they usually are valid for formal written English. But also teach English as it really is spoken. If you imply to your students that someone who says "it's me" or "drive slow" or "less than 10 items" or "there's clouds" is uneducated or vulgar, you will be doing them a real disservice.

I'm sorry that this view doesn't get more support in the forum. Steve-ö, I think you're doing the right thing.

As Fowler's (Burchfield) puts it:
"In present-day English, agreement in number between subject and verb is overwhelmingly normal".
That does not mean there can be no exceptions.
I have no problem with singular verbs very occasionally being used with formal plurals that designate a singular concept (such as an overcast sky):

"I wonder why there's clouds in the sky";
"There's no rhyme and reason to it"

I'm sorry, but I'm confused by the last two entries.

@Martin (CA). "There's" IS an abbreviated form of "There is". What else? The abbreviated form of "There are" is "There're". In speech. And why don't you just say, "I who use..."?

@Mike E. The phrase is "There's [or "There is"] no rhyme or reason to it". Which makes grammatical sense.

I also notice that we haven't heard much from Steve Ö lately.

I've have just seen the advert on the BBC for digital TV. Penelope Keith [Margot from "The Good Life" and Audrey in "To The Manor Born"] does the voiceover. It always made me whince when she said in her natural cutglass English accent, "There's 3 ways..." Guess my amazement when I noticed that the voiceover has been changed and Penny Keith now says, "There are 3 ways..."

I presume there are enough people who care and have complained enough for the change to be made.

Das Plädoyer ist abgeschlossen! :o)

@J. Paul Murdock
The phrase is "There's . . . no rhyme or reason to it". Which makes grammatical sense.

I have seen both, but I should have picked a better example of a formal plurality being used a single concept and taking a singular verb.

Consider the following:

"Tarring and feathering is too good for him."
"Hanging, drawing, and quartering was the normal punishment."
"Little brown spots on the leaf is a sign of fungal infection."
"Some clouds in the sky is normal, but many clouds is a sign of bad weather.
"Some clouds in the sky are normal, but many are not.

It is often easier to formulate a simple grammatical rule than a correct one.

@ Martin (CA) <<If you imply to your students that someone who says "it's me" or "drive slow" or "less than 10 items" or "there's clouds" is uneducated or vulgar, you will be doing them a real disservice. >>

The only one of these expressions which is acceptable is "It's me", as nobody says "It is I" anymore (except jocularly) and it has long been accepted use to use the object form of the pronoun in such emphatic phrases. (Not to be confused with saying "Her what is wearing the yellow dress" or "Them kids" etc.)
The other usages you cite are simply and clearly incorrect, even if Americans and others say them.

(1/2)

I have been teaching English (to adults) in Austria for 15 years, and this may be part of my objection to hearing that Steve-ö is teaching incorrect English. While I agree that grammar books don't give students a full picture of how the English language is used, you will indeed be doing them a disservice if you teach them that it's ok to say "There's clouds in the sky" or even worse, "drive slow".

It takes about three lessons to teach students to use there is/there are correctly, with constant revision required. Teaching the difference between adjectives and adverbs is considerably more intensive, especially with German speakers, since in the German language there seems to be no difference between the two (at least, as far as the students are concerned). The difference in use between less and fewer (and much and many) also causes many students difficulty (as it obviously does many native speakers) and therefore also requires many lessons before the students are able to use these correctly.

Imagine if someone then goes and tells these students that it doesn't matter what you say - they will be confused and discouraged, and wonder why they needed to learn all of these things. (Quite apart from undermining my years of work.)

I do make students aware that not all native speakers use correct grammar, as in such examples, but I tell them that it is important to learn it correctly so as not to be considered uneducated. (Correct English need not mean stilted English.) And the students want to learn correct English - otherwise they wouldn't be doing a course.
(2/2)

@ Mike E.
"Tarring and feathering is too good for him."
"Hanging, drawing, and quartering was the normal punishment."
"Little brown spots on the leaf is a sign of fungal infection."
"Some clouds in the sky is normal, but many clouds is a sign of bad weather.
"Some clouds in the sky are normal, but many are not.

In the first two examples you are talking about a single activity composed of more than one noun (tarring and feathering/hanging, drawing and quartering) which therefore takes a singular verb.

In the third and fourth examples you are speaking of a condition (of some clouds (being) in the sky/brown spots (being) on the leaf); the condition, not the clouds is being described as normal. The same applies to "many clouds" in the fourth sentence (the condition of there being many clouds in the sky).

In the last sentence "normal" refers to the clouds themselves, and therefore takes a plural verb.

This is another thing I explain to my students: grammar is dependent on meaning, and not only on rules.

Thank you for your contributions Mary (nz/a). A balanced argument that isn't just based on a blanket "Well, that's what people say".

Having said that, whilst I completely agree that "Tarring and feathering" and "Hanging, drawing and quartering" are conceptual phrases and take the singular, "Little brown spots on the leaf IS a sign of fungal infection" grates as the subject of the sentence is "spots" which is in the plural. With "Some clouds in the sky is normal, but many clouds is a sign of bad weather" the second "is" should definately be in the plural ["...many clouds are a sign..."] for the same reason as "spots", but for some reason "Some clouds in the sky" comes over a conceptual phrase and though, according to the rule in my, it should take "are", "Some clouds in the sky are..." also grates. Help! ;o)

@JPaul Murdoch: Well, the third and fourth examples do grate for me, too, at least on first reading. I was just analysing the reasons for the writer using the singular in that case. I wasn't saying it's a hard and fast rule (as you could say for the first two examples). If the examples (3&4) are not grammatically incorrect (depending on how you look at them), then they are at least stylistically awkward.
Perhaps Mike E. could assist us by telling us where he got his examples from.

Should we continue this discussion of "correct" English a little further?

To start off, let's outline our areas of agreement. Mary and J.Paul, I think we would all agree on the following:

1. Many native speakers of American English (the variant I know) will use expressions such as the following
(a) You should drive slow.
(b) There were less than 10 people in the room.
(c) Between you and I, ...
(d) If I was in his place, ...
(e) The issue which I'm talking about is ...

2. Some grammar books instruct students that the correct expression is
(a) You should drive slowly.
(b) There were fewer than 10 people in the room.
(c) Between you and me, ...
(d) If I were in his place, ...
(e) The issue that I'm talking about is ... ("restrictive clause")

(We'll put "there's clouds" and "it's me" aside, as muddying the waters.)

3. Indeed, some expressions that can be heard from time to time do identify the speaker as uneducated or using dialect, or perhaps being in a very informal situation. (For example, "I says", or "youse"... and many others.)

4. But (and I assume you'll agree with me here), educated speakers in normal conversational situations will often use expressions as in #1 above.

Now, what I think steve-ö was doing, and what I approve of, is letting his students know that expressions in (1) are often heard. He should let his students know that native speakers (apart from some English teachers and other defenders of linguistic orthodoxy) don't judge this usage to be incorrect, and that the students should not depreciate those that do as uneducated or vulgar.

Indeed, saying something like "there were fewer than 10 people in the room" can identify the speaker as pedantic.

Things would be easier for steve-ö, and for his students, if the grammar books were brought up to date to reflect actual usage (of educated people in normal conversation). Then teachers wouldn't have the dilemma of choosing between teaching the textbook version of English and the actual language.

@Martin CA:

This is more complex than you perhaps imagine. Firstly, I find your first examples (a) and (b) especially to be absolutely unacceptable grammatically. That is not to say that I condemn people using these examples of incorrect grammar as vulgar, but it will utterly confuse the students, especially beginners, if you say that it's ok to mix up adjectives and adverbs, or to interchange less and fewer. You can tell them that some people do mix them up - but it is better to reserve such explanations for advanced (or conversation) classes, who already have a solid founding in grammar and are not likely to be put off or demotivated by the earth-shattering realisation that native-speakers actually use incorrect grammar - an insult to all of their (the students') learning efforts.

As I've said, I also sometimes tell my students that some native-speakers make certain mistakes, but that they are going to learn it right first off. And that makes the students feel motivated. And I think they should be given the opportunity to learn correct grammar, and not to make the mistakes certain native-speakers make because they didn't learn grammar properly at school (which is not necessarily their fault). (How would you be helping the students by teaching them incorrect grammatical usages?)

As regards grammar books, there are a lot of very good books available for teaching English, at least as far as adult education is concerned. They teach grammar in context - we are not talking about staid, dry books full of rules. That type of book may still be found in Austrian schools, however. In my experience, most of the problems with outmoded and pedantic grammar rules come from what the students learnt at school, which may be anything from between 1 and 50+ years ago.

Thanks, Mary - I respect your views. (After all, I'm not the one facing the challenge of teaching English.)

Mary wrote "Perhaps Mike E. could assist us by telling us where he got his examples from."

The precise sentences were designed to be fairly short, and had the specific purpose of being increasingly "grating" without being definitely recognizable as ungrammatical (unless you apply over-simplified grammatical rules that also reject valid utterances).
They were supposed to illustrate that there are rules permitting use of a singular verb with a plural subject treated as a unit (e.g. a symptom or condition) and where to draw the line is a matter of judgment with no simple, clear-cut line.

Not that all the examples were completely invented without reference to utterances "in the wild".
Googling, for instance, will turn up:

"Tarring and feathering is too good for him"
"As late as the Victorian era in England, hanging, drawing and quartering was
still an accepted method of capital punishment for treason."
"The brownish spots on the leaves is probably a symptom of the persea mite."

The last two examples
"Some clouds in the sky is normal, but many clouds is a sign of bad weather." and
"Some clouds in the sky are normal, but many are not."
were completely invented and intended to make the reader search for and find the intuitive rule in his/her own intuitive "rule-book", indicating that the rule is there (though one can argue about how to apply it).
Note that no native speaker would dream of saying
"There is rules permitting use of a singular verb".
but one might say
"There’s rules and rules."
or sing
"I wonder why,
There’s no clouds up in the sky"

"This is another thing I explain to my students: grammar is dependent on meaning, and not only on rules."
Agreed -- though I would put it slightly differently. From the point of view of generative grammar, I would say that the normal "rules" are sometimes "incorrect" in that they are over-simplified or imprecise. This over-simplification is, of course, usually adequate -- and necessary -- for teaching English as a foreign language. This is just a different use of the word "rules", of course.

OTOH some people can be so indoctrinated or intimidated by over-zealous grammarians that they comply with over-simplified (or downright incorrect) rules, sometimes in defiance of linguistic intuition, leading to an impoverishment of language.
Even careful writers can be lured or browbeaten into writing things like "The battery life is fewer than 200 hours" and might feel uncomfortable with utterances like "If anyone calls, tell them I’m out." because 19th Century grammarians had never heard of bound variables and the self-appointed experts therefore advise that the pronoun "he" should be used to refer to the singular antecedent "everyone".

Though I would probably avoid it myself, I would regard an utterance such as "There's clouds up in the sky" (for instance in song lyrics) as grammatically justifiable, as the equivalent of "There is a partially overcast sky". That doesn't mean I would recommend it, myself. But there is IMO a difference between clear-cut grammatical incorrectness and a use of judgment that I personally disagree with.

Adverbial use of "slow", in defiance of the general rule that the adverb is formed by adding "-ly" to the adjective, is also not something invented by people who can't speak proper English. It is retained in such phrases as "go slow". There is a subtle distinction between "go slow" and "go slowly".
Fowler (1965) writes:
<<Of the 'conditions' [for using "slow" as an adverb], the chief is that the adverb, and not the verb etc. should contain the real point; compare "We forged slowly ahead", where the slowness is an unessential item, with 'Drive as slow as you can', where the slowness is all that matters.>>
Of course, one does not wish to confuse people learning English as a foreign language, so it is obviously better to avoid adverbial use of "slow" when reaching Germans, in particular. But it is not just a matter of incorrect usage by some native speakers.

"Less than 10 <whatever>" is IMO another case where it is a matter of judgment (which does not mean that one cannot argue about how to use that judgment).
Burchfield (Fowler's) writes that _in most circumstances_ [my emphasis] "fewer" is used with countable nouns, whereas "less" is used with uncountable nouns. The main issue is (IMO) that "fewer" is normally used for smaller *numbers* of something (e.g. countable things), whereas "less" is normally used for smaller *amounts* of something" (e.g. measurable things). If something can be regarded as a number or an amount, a careful writer should be able to choose which meaning he intends and use the appropriate word.

@Martin (CA)

Like other "educated" English speakers, I slip from time to time, since I'm crafting my sentences on the fly. Still, a couple of your examples make me cringe when I hear them in day-to-day conversation, and while I may not think the speaker is stupid, I think he or she is sloppy. Phrases such as "between you and I" make me lose the next several words, as I try to recover my wits. I would correct any of your examples if a child were to say them, and I'd edit them out of anything I were proofreading.

There have to be *some* standards. If not, our German teachers would be trying to teach us that throwing a few words of Bavarian into a conversation is "accepted practice." It may be okay in selected parts of Bavaria, but ultimately it will make communication more difficult.

It's one thing to note what is obviously to a speaker of *any* language, namely that when speaking quickly, lots of anomolies are used; I wouldn't even object too strongly to such a statement in English textbooks. At the same time, I think that officially "condoning" these, even to the point of encouraging students of English to use them so as to sound "cool" is going too far.

But Tom, it's not a matter of "slipping" -- people who say "between you and I" and similar constructions say so when speaking slowly and also when writing - it's easy to find lots of examples in carefully written English. (Shakespeare among them, by the way.)

So are we going to say that all of these speakers and writers are careless, sloppy, or flat-out wrong? A much more reasonable analysis of the situation is to conclude that the grammar books that insist that all pronouns following a preposition have to be in the "objective case" (as if English were a variant of Latin or German) are wrong, and are in need of revision. That's my view, any way.

By the way, linguists are studying the actual grammar of this particular usage, and undoubtedly someday the results of these studies will make their way into popular grammar books (like "it's me" now has, apparently.) See, e.g. "The case for politeness: Pronoun variation in co-ordinate NP’s in object position in English"; Philipp S. Angermeyer and John Victor Singler, "Language Variation and Change", vol. 15, pp 169-207.

It's not at all a question of teaching your students to be "cool", but instead, to teach them the range of acceptable variation in modern English.

And you don't have to worry about maintaining "standards" here. Everybody understands "between you and I" (or "fewer than 10 people") -- there is no chance of misunderstanding -- and I think you'd have to admit that you're one of the few who this usage grates on. Most people don't notice it at all.
 

@eric: "Read 'have' " means it *should* read 'have.' It's like saying, "To correct this mistake, substitute 'have' for 'had.' "

@Mary: Presumably you're not presumptive, since we're all convinced you exist. Whether you were being presumptuous probably depends on how your tone of voice came across.

@Martin (CA): What difference in meaning do you see between 'It's not me who's' and 'I'm not the one who's'? I don't see any at all.

On the broader subject: I wasn't going to post all this, since I thought Tom and many others had made the point sufficiently. But once again for the record I'm afraid I have to disagree firmly with your use of the word 'educated.' You seem to assume that anyone who has been to college must have learned the educated use of language. I can't agree.

Genuinely educated usage is more typical of speakers with the kind of background in classic literature that used to be required of all university entrants back in the days when higher education was much more exclusive and class-bound. As Bryan Garner points out in his book on American usage, in Britain this used to be called 'U,' as opposed to 'non-U.'

As J. Paul M. says, such 'good' usage is defined in *socio*linguistic terms. And as Tom and others have said, most of the examples you defend are generally considered to be markers of lower-class language. Obviously not everyone who uses such language is from a lower economic class or lacks higher education. But statistically, looking at groups rather than individuals, there is indeed a correlation.

More importantly, the difference in perception is consistent. If you say 'Between you and I,' yes, it grates (a lot), and yes, I will assume that you lack a certain linguistic intelligence or knowledge or both. That doesn't mean you're a bad person, nor does it say anything about your intelligence or knowledge in other areas, but it does mean that good English is apparently not your forte. It's an aesthetic judgment rather than a scientific one. Language is an art, not a science; bare minimum understanding is not the point (or else we'd all be speaking pidgin).

So it's simply wrong, and indeed a disservice, to tell learners that they can use the expressions you list and still sound educated. (Particularly since foreign speakers are usually judged more critically.) The level of diction is not *as* uneducated as 'I ain't got no money' or 'He done gone,' but it's still generally considered substandard.

Just how glaringly substandard is of course subjective. Of course we all use many expressions in casual speech that we wouldn't use in formal writing. The question for learners is how to avoid things that most educated speakers would never say at all. Here's where I personally draw the line:

• Pedantic to formal --
It is I
With whom are you going?
Whom are you going with?
If I were he
The issue which concerns us is (AE)

• Standard to casual --
It's me
The issue which concerns us is (BE)
Who are you going with?
If I were him
There're some clouds in the skiy

• Okay in speech but not in writing --
Go slow
Less than ten people
It's not me who's crazy
It's you who's crazy
Like I said

• Unacceptable --
Between you and I
If I was him
There's some clouds in the sky
It is you who is
Even I, who's never
I disagree with them who
Me and Lucy went

Certainly reasonable people can disagree on which category any particular pet peeve belongs in (and do, around here, all the time *g*). But surely very few educated speakers would place the bar overall as low as you, steve-ö, and Claire A. have -- as seems evident from the majority opinion in this thread, from all sides of both ponds.

One good way to test your feel for educated usage is to check a dictionary such as American Heritage or NOAD that includes usage notes representing a consensus of educated speakers. I like AHD because it often gives percentages for its usage panel, or at least used to. If 80 or 90% of them reject a particular usage, it's pretty safe to say it's a real no-no.

Assuming one wants to sound educated, that is -- which you're entirely right to point out that most people don't. But IMO it's more honest just to say you don't care about stuff like that and don't think anyone else ought to either -- a perfectly reasonable ethical argument BTW -- than to try to redefine educated usage out of existence.

@Mary

I completely agree with your sentiments. The mere fact that errors exist in the English language and are made by large numbers of native speakers, does not make this correct.

Pet hates of mine include "he could of done that" and "we was going".

Both are widely used, but nonetheless incorrect.

The language that is used by a person does reflect on them, and as Professor Higgins stated in My Fair Lady "An Englishman's way of speaking absolutely classifies him; the moment he talks, he makes another Englishman despise him".

While we have come a long way since then, and accent is no longer an all important characteristic, speaking grammatically incorrect English is still not as widely accepted as has been suggested by some posters.

Finally, to my mind there is a difference between a native speaker making mistakes "cos that's what they talks like" and a foreigner (who can almost be certain of making a sufficient number of mistakes without having to learn any) who is actually taught incorrect usage.

@Richard, "he could of done that" is just a spelling mistake. No need to get upset about that...

@hm: This is a small point, but you asked, "What difference in meaning do you see between 'It's not me who's' and 'I'm not the one who's'?" I agree -- not much of a difference at all. But the statement I made earlier was that "I'm not the one who's crazy" is a different thought from "Maybe it's me who's crazy."

@hm, I do agree (of course) that different English is appropriate for different circumstances, and I can agree with your statement, "The question for learners is how to avoid things that most educated speakers would never say at all."

I do disagree though with your many of your examples of what is unacceptable English. I don't see much point to continue the discussion here, but if you want to take it off-line, you can write to me at martin circle-a energymail dot com.

What I would like to continue to discuss in this open forum though is what appears to be a very elitist attitude towards language usage. You wrote, "You seem to assume that anyone who has been to college must have learned the educated use of language. I can't agree. Genuinely educated usage is more typical of speakers with the kind of background in classic literature that used to be required of all university entrants back in the days when higher education was much more exclusive and class-bound."

I wonder, about what percentage of English speakers do you estimate show "genuinely educated usage"? It would appear to me that the vast majority of speakers do not, by your definition.

My belief (stated once more) is that teachers may be doing a disservice to foreign students of English by teaching them the usage of a very small percentage of English speakers (i.e., those who never use what you term "unacceptable" language) and instructing them that deviations from this standard (a wholly artificial standard, in my view) are unacceptable.

OK - I think I'll let this issue rest now. (For a while, anyway.)

@Martin: there are people who really say it that way - pronouncing the "of" quite distinctly (one of my sisters, for instance, though she has a Master's degree in psychology) - perhaps it's a mental spelling mistake - but basically it indicates that the speaker doesn't know what he or she is actually saying (lack of grammar awareness). As in the NZ classic "if I had of known" or "if I had have known", both being incorrect.
I still say it's a disservice to students to teach them that incorrect English is acceptable - it's almost immoral. Why do you want to do that? Would you want to learn to say "i hob denkt" or "de wos de göben socken onhot" or "mir gehn im Park mit die Kinder" in a German course? (And then be laughed at by the Germans?)

@hm-us: I suppose I should have known better than to copy a word originally used against me by steve-ö (the defender of incorrect grammar) - of course it should be presumptuous (and not as in "the heir presumptive").
I like your varying scales of acceptable grammatical usage - very succinctly put. It's also assuring that not all AE speakers wish to defend incorrect grammar and sloppy usage.

@Richard: Glad you agree. Actually, the sister of mine in question has asked me to give her help with her grammar and usage of English - because she is now aware that she makes mistakes and wants to improve the standard of her language - obviously she doesn't want to sound uneducated (it's not cool anymore when you're over 30). (My Eliza Doolittle...)

@Mike E.: The over-simplification of grammar rules is by far the greatest problem in teaching English here. Students have learnt at school to slavishly follow rules, even when they don't fit (syntactically, for instance), for fear of losing marks (because the schoolteachers slavishly follow these rules, often without understanding them).

@Mary "The over-simplification of grammar rules is by far the greatest problem in teaching English here. . . . "

Point taken. I meant over-simplification in the sense of simplifying them to the extent that they *occasionally* classify correct sentences as incorrect and vice versa.

I should, perhaps, add that I broadly agree with your general stance in this thread, though I may have stressed differences to highlight my pet peeve of native speakers slavishly following over-simplified rules that have been elevated to the status of religious laws.

As Einstein once said "Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler".

@Mike E. Indeed, one of the "pet peeves" frequently mentioned here is a result of oversimplifying rules.

"Between you and I" or "Jane went with my son and I" (another one my sister uses all the time) really comes from people trying to be hypercorrect as a result of half-learnt (or possibly half-taught) rules.

At primary school you learn that you should say "Jane and I went to the swimming pool" and not "Jane and me went...". The rest is often never taught (unless you study languages or linguistics), or falls by the wayside. So a vast majority, I fear, conclude that you should always say "Jane and I", even if both are the object of the sentence.

In a foreign-language context, the slavishly followed rules are usually guidelines for the use of the tenses, particularly those that have no equivalent in the other language, for example the continuous tenses.

In Austrian schools (not my doing), the use of the past continuous is usually paraphrased as "a long action interrupted by a short action" - although the latter is only intended as an example of use, yet it is taken to be a rule in itself. Therefore the students are at a complete loss if the past continuous appears on its own, or in conjunction with another verb in the past continuous.
E.g. "I was reading a book when the telephone rang."
presents no problems, but
"It was raining and the clouds were growing darker and gloomier. People were running for shelter."
will be perceived as incorrect because it doesn't follow the "rule".

In these cases it needs to be explained that the use of the particular tense has a meaning in itself, and that we don't just use the tense for the purpose of a grammatical exercise.

Just a small point, English usage varies from region to region and while Mary NZ/A may say 'some clouds' we would say some cloud or there is a lot of cloud about. In short we use cloud as a sigular word even though we may be referring to many clouds.
Also while I accept that 'did' is the past tense of 'do', I notice that many UK speakers in day to day usage say 'done'.
And.Mary NZ/A, I notice somewhere back there you split an infinitive,'pupils are taught in school to slavishly follow rules...' This has become acceptable, but it was not always thus and it is something I still never do. I would have said 'pupils are taught in school to follow rules slavishly.'
There's nothing wrong with ' I could of..'except as already pointed out, 'of' is mispelt. It should be 'I could 'ave...'. The f in of is pronounced as a v, not as an f as in off, hence the similarity in sound. could've/could of.

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/errors/nonerr...
@JGMcL. Kindly allow me to refer you to this link.

@JGMcl

I disagree. There is something wrong with "could of", namely that it is incorrect. It happens, because "could of" sounds similar to "could have" and people mistakenly use it in place of "could have".

The simple fact is, however, that "could of" makes no logical or grammatical sense, and it is only because the average listener makes the connection that the speaker/writer must mean "could have" that any sense can be made of that phrase.


To a lesser extent this also applies to your other example of using "done". While it is true that this is occasionally heard now in GB in sentences such as "I done that" or "he went and done his foot in", this does not make it correct. Again, I would argue that both examples reflect on the speaker. No one in GB will be derided or thought to use antiquated English if they use "could have" and "did" (or "done" where it is correct to do so), as this is neither stilted nor dated in any way.
I cannot recollect having heard either of the above examples used by any of my friends or acquaintances.

As was pointed out earlier, usage alone does not make something correct. Otherwise consider:
"We was going to the footie"
"He ain't got no right to do that"
"Me mum is the bestest cook in the world"
all of which are used, but not grammatically correct.

@Martin (CA): Yup. We're not getting anywhere, we've had this discussion before, so we should just agree to disagree. (-:

But lest I seem to ignore your question: Yes, of course it's elitist, that's the whole point. If you're going to the effort of learning a foreign language, surely you want to learn it as well as possible, not at some statistically merely average level. Would you take piano lessons from someone who was, say, at the 50th percentile of the entire American population? Given that only around 10% of us play the piano at all (if my web search was right -- 20+ million out of 200+ million)?

How many people really have reliably good English usage? It depends in part on the group you take as the norm. Not many compared to the population at large, sure; but still probably a lot more than you might think, and many more among the 'educated.' Still, I would venture to hope, the large majority of graduates of top universities and holders of advanced degrees. And of course, many more older people than younger people. What you might stigmatize as elitist today was not so long ago the bare minimum acceptable to graduate from high school, or even junior high or elementary.

It also depends on which examples of bad usage you take. In my book, things like 'Between you and I' or 'Me and her went' or 'Lay down and rest' are so egregious that it's really ludicrous to suggest that they could be acceptable to anyone who ever managed to pass 6th-grade English. That's why it would be such a jolt to hear them on the lips of German speakers who are otherwise well educated, and why it's a disservice not to warn them about that.

A lot of the other examples mentioned here and in similar threads, though, really do fall into a much grayer area, like who/whom, splitting infinitives, ending sentences with prepositions, and whatnot. And about those I actually tend to be relatively liberal: we should know the traditionally correct way, and consider it first if there's a choice, but we should also be prepared to reject it for sufficient reason. Hopefully we can also agree on that. (-;

@Richard I agree it is incorrect to write 'could of',but if I say it, how do you tell I am not saying 'could 'ave'. Some who say 'could of' say it as if saying 'could off'. I would never use 'could 'ave' because in these parts we do not habitually drop our 'H's.
'Done' in place of 'did'is equally wrong, but it must have been around a long while and universally to give us words like 'a whodunnit'and to enter songs like 'Fankie and Johnny'- She shot her man 'cos he done her wrong.
Anyway,I shouls not have posted so late at night. I should of have went to bed early and read a book instead.

@Mary (NZ/A) Thank you for the reference to that link. I am aware that the split infinitive is now commonly used and accepted.I was not implying that you were wrong to use it,but it is an example of how frequent usage can affect what is grammatically acceptable.However, anyone who attempts to reverse the trend is fighting a losing battle,for many do not know what a split infitive is.
I blame Captain Kirk of Star Trek for it was the introductiuon of that series to British television that gave us those immortal words 'to boldly go where no one has gone before'

@JGMcI -

fifty years before Star Trek was even conceived of, Fowler wrote:

We maintain that a real split infinitive, though not desirable in itself, is preferable to either of two things, to real ambiguity, and to patent artificiality.
For the first, we will rather write 'Our object is to further cement trade relations' than, by correcting into 'Our object is further to cement...', leave it doubtful whether an additional object or additional cementing is the point.
And for the second, we take it that such reminders of a tyrannous convention as 'in not combining to forbid flatly hostilities' are far more abnormal than the abnormality they evade. We will split infinitives sooner than be ambiguous or artificial; more than that, we will freely admit that sufficient recasting will get rid of any split infinitive without involving either of those faults, and yet reserve to ourselves the right of deciding in each case whether recasting is worth while.

@Mary(nz/a): I've read this thread with fascination and I do like your Austrian examples for German usage (living in NW-Germany): simply great!
May I ask you a question concerning your answer from August 7th (21.33.05)? You wrote, speaking about adverbs and adjectives, "...since in the German language there seems to be no difference between the two (at least, as far as the students are concerned)."
Ia that an ironic remark?

@Reinhard W. Yes, that was a somewhat ironic remark, but many of the students I have had (from a broad cross-section of society, as is usual in community colleges and the like) really do find it difficult to tell the difference between adverbs and adjectives in German, since the form is often identical (and they've never thought about the function.)
E.g. Das ist ein *schnelles* Auto. - adjective
Das Auto ist *schnell*. - adjective
Das Auto fährt *schnell*. - adverb

The first example, where the adjective comes before the noun, is more easily recognised as an adjective because it gets an ending (-es).
The postpositive adjective (second example) is not inflected, however, making it look exactly the same as the adverb "schnell" in the third example.
Therein lies the difficulty.

For beginners I like to use the simple explanation we were taught at primary school:
"An adjective describes a noun" and "an adverb describes a verb" ("What's it like?" /"How?" present another difficulty for German speakers: both translate as "Wie?" in German.) The tricky part is that the verb "to be" doesn't count as a verb for this purpose, of course (just as in German).
(Of course, the rule is simplified, but for beginners this is necessary. You can say that adverbs are used in other cases, too, but that they will learn this later.)
In the end, I think (hope) that the students come to understand a bit more about their own grammar by learning English grammar.

@odondon irl Yes I think you ,or someone else, pointed that out to me before,but I still blame Star Trek. I preferred Blake's Seven, but on this may I quote from memory a letter to Belfast Telegraph, 'Can it truly be said that we have a ceasefire until such time as the TV detector vans are seen to boldly go where no TV detectoer van has gone before'
Your example of avoiding confusion confuses me.

@odondon irl .. The confusion was due to fmy first reading cement trade as meaning the cement trade. However withat point cleared and it being understood that what is desire is the further cementing of trade relations, further being the word that splits the infinitive 'to cement'. To avoid splitting it, I would simply have placed 'further' at the end,'Our object is to cement trade relations further.'
If it is in order to split the infinitive, and I don't doubt that it is,then is there a limit to the number of words by which it is split. Again I quote from memory from a radio report.'How awful it must have been to all those cold winter mornings cycle along that road.

@hm (This is not against you, but you seem to have raised a number of interesting questions.
<<Yes, of course it's elitist, that's the whole point. If you're going to the effort of learning a foreign language, surely you want to learn it as well as possible >>

I think social elitism and linguistic elitism are often confounded (sometimes deliberately). I am all for the latter, if it means aiming high linguistically, but I object strongly to the so-called experts of yesteryear attempting (with some success) to impose alien ideas on the English language, based on bad science and bad logic.

It's always possible to argue about individual examples, but here is one, nevertheless:

In answer to the question "What's that noise?", a native speaker might answer something like "It's us." or "It's them chopping wood".

I would object strongly if a self-appointed expert pointed out that the pronoun should be in the nominative (or subjective) case. In other words, I don't think the following are particularly good English (if I applied a *lower* standard, I might tolerate some of them):

"It's we."
"It is they."
"It's they chopping wood."
"It is I"
"It is I chopping wood"

I am also not too keen on
"It's their chopping wood" (another shibboleth).

It is (sometimes) not a case of colloquial or lower-class English being permitted to be of a lower standard; it is a case of correctness being *different* for colloquial and formal English and of some "rules" for formal English being wrong (or at least seriously inconsistent and at odds with linguistic intuition).

@Mike E.: I agree. Let me try again. First, I'm not in favor of social elitism. In my view the great thing about linguistic elitism is that these days anyone motivated enough can aspire to it, as opposed to a century or two ago when even things like accents were a much bigger deal, especially in Britain.

Nor do I have the slightest urge to defend 'It is I/we/etc.' as a general rule. Maybe I didn't state clearly enough that I too find the pedantic end of the spectrum unacceptable in most cases, and that particular example in nearly all cases. It would certainly be wrong in answer to the question 'What's that?', since that context is obviously normal conversation, which by definition is not formal. So I completely agree that the broad rule is that 'It is they' is too pedantic and should not be used.

But since you seem to like marginal cases that require us to reconsider broad rules, what about a more formal example? Say, a politician waxing rhetorical:

'Who, I ask you, my fellow citizens, who is responsible? Which party must take the blame for this moral decay? Is it we, we who represent truth and decency? No! No, I say to you this very day, it is _they_ who have presided over the decline of the innocent youth of our nation ...'

Or to take another context that's not terribly formal: When we answer the phone we say 'This is he' or 'This is she.' Apparently that's only AE, but believe me, it's absolutely normal here.

So we can't really say flatly that it's always too pedantic, just that it often is.

>>"It's their chopping wood" (another shibboleth).

Huh? Still in answer to the question 'What's that?' I don't think even those of us who prefer the possessive before a gerund would defend that one, since that -ing form is really an active participle. The underlying logic is "It's them, chopping wood." I thought we'd covered that in one of the gerund threads, and someone, maybe Peter <us> or even you, had even quoted Foster or someone on how to tell the difference.

In another context, though, sure: 'It's not their chopping wood per se that bothers us, it's that they do it at 3 a.m.'

Again, I'm not bent on defending my list of examples in detail. It was pretty hastily jotted down; just looking back, the boundaries between the middle sections are sort of vague, and I'd already probably make a change or two, like maybe bumping 'If I was him' down a level. I even change my mind on stuff like this from time to time. My broad point was indeed just to show a range of contexts. I agree that the formal cluster would be wrong in speech, and the speech cluster would be wrong in writing.

The only absolute point I wanted to make was that for me, some things are just wrong in any context. I still think most English speakers in this forum would feel the same way about, say, 'between you and I' -- to take the one overused example we're probably all now really sick of. (-:

hm -- us, thanks for your very enlightening remarks (me not being a native English speaker).

@hm
Good examples, which I have also thought about without arriving at a definite opinion.

My first approximation of the rule would be that the standard form of the pronoun (“me", “him”,“us”, “them”) is used *except* when it is the subject of an explixit verb.
I can imagine a few explanations for your examples, but at the moment I waver between the following two:

1. They are fundamentally incorrect English, but the speaker’s performance is impaired by the proximity of the relative clause, with “who” being the subject of the verb, thus making the speaker’s error excusable to the extent that it would be permissible except when applying the highest standards.

2. The pronoun is treated as the effective subject of "represent". The construction “It is we who represent . . .” is quivalent to “We represent . . .", but with the “we” being put into the emphasized rheme position. I don’t like the way semantics and syntax interact in this explanation, but it does bring us back to the original question, which I will modify slightly to give “It is you who are/is the native speaker.”. If we choose “are” we are saying that the person of the verb in the subordinate clause is governed (at least indirectly) by the “you” to which the “who" refers.

Oops. That went off by mistake, before I could correct the "equivalent" and add, at the end, " . . . as it would be by a subject".

@hm
“<<Still in answer to the question 'What's that?' I don't think even those of us who prefer the possessive before a gerund would defend that one, since that -ing form is really an active participle. The underlying logic is "It's them, chopping wood." >>

It didn't fit very well, but I thought I could squeeze it in.
I don’t actually think it is explained adequately by interpreting it as a participle, because it is the chopping that is heard rather than the people. It is not extremely clear in this example but it might be clearer with an utterance like "I don’t like them chopping wood in the middle of the night", which IMO does not indicate any antipathy toward the people when they are chopping wood but merely a dislike of their action. The *action* described by “they chop wood” is what is disliked and the nominal construction is “them chopping wood” -- irrespective of whether the aspect is continuous (“they are chopping wood”) or habitual (“they chop wood”).

I also sometimes prefer a possessive before a nominalized form with “-ing”, but not here, and I don’t think the construction can be adequately explained as a participle.

<<I'm not bent on defending my list of examples in detail.>>
I also don’t want to attack your specific examples as such. My main contention is that grammarians drew up many rules a long time ago and, naturally, some of them did not fit the facts precisely. To my mind, there has often been a tendency to attempt to alter the language to fit the rules rather than perfect the rules.

I agree with your point that some things are just wrong in any context.

<<I still think most English speakers in this forum would feel the same way about, say, 'between you and I' -- to take the one overused example we're probably all now really sick of. >>

I would agree with that --though I have seen the usual logic behind that attacked by a serious linguist (without going so far as to say “between you and I” is right).

My appologies for resurrecting a discussion that's been dormant for several weeks, but I just saw something on another web site relevant to one of the issues discussed in the thread.

Some of you may remember the discussion (in this thread) of whether the English phrase "there's clouds in the sky" is plain wrong, or is (as I contended) just informal.

I invite those interested in seeing an analysis of just this issue to check the following web-site:

<http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/ar...>

I really don't want to warm up this controversy (I think we all stated our opinions) but just wanted to give some further food for thought for those interested in the issues.

Interesting point, but I don't think it adds anything to the discussion.

No one disagreed with the fact that "there's + plural" is commonly used, even by those who should know better.

Nevertheless, the contention of many of those who actually studied the language, work with the language, or are linguists in some other way shape or form, was that it is nevertheless plain wrong.


But then again, it obviously don't matter, 'cause there's less and less people what speaks proper