TJ,
We had a discussion of the nominative absolute sometime back that you may be able to find in the archive. Denis Baron wrote several pieces on the NA on his blog Web of Language when the Supreme Court was considering the DC handgun ban. The most relevant of them is at http://illinois.edu/db/view/25/3721?count=1&ACTION=DIALOG, but you’ll find several others on his index if you search “Second Amendment.” The five justices opposing the ban disagreed with the linguists who filed an amicus brief on the matter.
Herb
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of T. J. Ray
Sent: Saturday, December 25, 2010 11:08 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Despain, Mastering the Challenge
Mary Jo, you're right. One final thought on this current topic and then I'll pose
a new question.
The problem with instant deletion may very well blip folks who are talking about
something other than whatever was originally offending. May I suggest that one
might at the very least add a caveat in the original Subject line to indicate a change
of topic?
Now, to my ignorance: I'd very much like to hear a discussion of what some of us
old folks once called nominative absolutes.
tj
On Saturday 12/25/2010 at 3:16 pm, Mary Jo Napholz wrote:
I have learned to use the delete button often with this list serve. Some discussions are relevant to me and others not. I just check out the tread and if I see the bickering attitude, click on delete. Some want to prove that they are "right," but most of us just wish to be part of the discourse; sometimes as observes, sometimes as contributors. Don't leave the list serve because of a few, start your own thread about what is relevant to you. Delete those conversations that are not. Happy Holidays to all. Mary Jo Napholz
-----Original Message-----
From: T. J. Ray <[log in to unmask]>
To: ATEG <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Fri, Dec 24, 2010 11:44 am
Subject: Re: Despain, Mastering the Challenge
It is very unpleasant to access this listerv only to find petulant jibes at other
subscribers. As I know very little about how such listservs function, I have
no idea how to establish a protocol of politeness and civility. At the end of
the day I think that is more important than the sort of exchange below and
the smug superiority it displays.
tj
On Friday 12/24/2010 at 9:13 am, Brad Johnston wrote:
From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Fri, December 24, 2010 7:49:52 AM
Subject: Re: Despain, Mastering the Challenge
>> Brad,
>> I know what the past perfect is,
Fine. Let's see it.
>> and I understand its value on the time axis.
Fine. Let's see it.
>> I use it in a couple of languages
You haven't yet demonstrated it in English
>> I can also define it,
Fine. Let's see it.
>> but what difference would it make to you?
Lots, Eduard. You think I have nothing better to do than grapple with a defensive grammarian? Hardly.
>> You are not a believer.
I believe in the obvious results of a 10-year inquiry into the nature and extent of the misuse of 'had' in contemporary English.
>> I am not peevish.
Resipsa Loquitur.
>> I am just tired of your endless repetitions of the same ignorant affirmations on the tenses in English.
If you're tired, hit the 'delete' button. I'll miss you. You're interesting and good fun until you get peevish.
>> You need to do a little reading before you can make some relevant conversation.
I have read more than you will ever read on the subject.
>> Quirk and Comrie's books are not diversions from the topic. They contain information that might improve your understanding of the English tenses.
Fine. Let's see it ... or direct me to page numbers or sections. I stand by "Quirk won't help you."
>> Happy Holidays!
>> Eduard
"No offense intended"
.brad.24dec10.
----- Original Message -----
From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, December 23, 2010 20:29
Subject: Re: Despain, Mastering the Challenge
To: [log in to unmask]
> Eduard is peevish because I asked him, after a number of
> pleasant and
> interesting exchanges, to define the past perfect. He can't do
> it. He doesn't
> know what it is. That makes him cross. (If you can do
> it, Eduard, do it. Don't
> rant at me. Just do it.)
>
> I then asked him to ask each person in one of his classes to
> send me a
> definition, without him explaining what it is. I don't want to
> read 30
> variations on what he tells them. Make it open book. Let them
> look it up if they
> want.
>
> He won't do that either, so he sends out a spleen-gram, and he
> drops Quirk's
> name as a smoke screen but Quirk won't help him. How's that for
> a definitive
> statement? Quirk won't help.
>
> Please prove me wrong, Eduard. Maybe the others will help you.
> Who has Quirk
> handy?
>
> .brad.23dec10.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask] join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
|
