tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27807460.post1964400535326397188..comments2023-12-22T04:42:24.341-05:00Comments on Wishydig: Not so gratingWishydighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06141057866370676641noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27807460.post-43932196534564441852008-02-07T14:41:00.000-05:002008-02-07T14:41:00.000-05:00Is it possible that "with..." is not a less-elipti...Is it possible that "with..." is not a less-eliptical form than simply omitting it might be?<BR/><BR/>That is, when I say, "Are you coming?", is it possible I mean, "Are you coming (with me)?"Caseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03820693522030084335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27807460.post-26266725590151500362008-02-07T12:26:00.000-05:002008-02-07T12:26:00.000-05:00Robert Burchfield once mused about a construction ...Robert Burchfield once mused about a construction like <I>Me, I always go to bed at 11:00</I> as part of a discussion of the surprisingly sparse use of nominative pronouns in English (see also: <I>Me and my friend went to the movies</I>). An argument could be made, maybe-maybe, that nominative is used only when a pronoun a) is non-compound and b) immediately precedes the verb. Move the pronoun or add a buddy, and all bets are off. (Not however explaining <I>between you and I.</I>) <BR/><BR/>A prescriptively-oriented friend of mine proposed that <I>me</I> in <I>Me, I ...</I> "obviously" meant <I>[As for] me, I ...</I>. This is also a fellow who maintains that "of course" people didn't use <I>Me and my friend ...</I> and that this latter construction was an uneducated anomaly. I'm not so sure, of course. That was the discussion that first got me suspicious about positing elements what just warn't there. <BR/><BR/>I kinda like the idea that really the objective form of a pronoun is the base form, and under certain limited circumstances, we deign to decline it nominatively. :-) IOW, nominative isn't about case, it's more about sentence position.<BR/><BR/>Ok, now I'll up-shut.WordzGuyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04618408509448732889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27807460.post-14622999557115700872008-02-07T12:06:00.000-05:002008-02-07T12:06:00.000-05:00I agree that the come along comparison works prett...I agree that the <EM>come along</EM> comparison works pretty well. I think Spartz has done some work to show that <EM>with</EM> doesn't work with verbs stasis or non-movement verbs. Buffy doesn't judge "stay with" or "sit with" as well-formed.<BR/><BR/>regarding ellipsis:<BR/>There's of course no official word. But there's plenty of evidence that there are segments that function in a sentence even if they're not uttered.<BR/><BR/>But I wouldn't say that a linguistic analysis that proposes a null form is the same as a prescriptive argument that seeks to change usage by using a null segment as evidence of what <EM>should</EM> be said.<BR/><BR/>I'd expect a linguistic analysis to use the absence or presence of a null form in order to describe why people differ in they're judgments and usage -- never to argue that a speaker should change use.Wishydighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06141057866370676641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27807460.post-32771331924336581992008-02-07T08:03:00.000-05:002008-02-07T08:03:00.000-05:00"Come with" and its kin always struck me as a vari..."Come with" and its kin always struck me as a variant of "come along" rather than as "missing" or "eliding" their objects.The Ridger, FCDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01538111197270563075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27807460.post-66203096168641472022008-02-07T01:13:00.000-05:002008-02-07T01:13:00.000-05:00What's the official position on analyses that posi...What's the official position on analyses that posit that a construction actually involves ellipsis? Like the nominal "come with [us]" structure. I've heard similar explanations for constructs like "He is taller than I" instead of the much more common "He is taller than me," with the explanation that the supposed real structure is "He is taller than I [am]". Etc.<BR/><BR/>It seems suspect to me to offer an explanation that purports to "correct" a common usage (specifically, that offers a usage that people only use if they've been school-trained in its use) by pointing to phantom elements that are supposedly elided. <BR/><BR/>Any thoughts?WordzGuyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04618408509448732889noreply@blogger.com