I understand that the 'you' may be considered an object, but it seems more to me like the subject of an eliptical construction: "If you please to do (think?) so." Is there any evidence for something like this being the case?
Paul D.
This strikes me as one of those fossilized forms, like “methinks” or “meseems,” that now seem archaic. “If you please,” while not so archaic, has a very formal feel to it. All the OED says of it is
b. To be pleased, to like; to have the will or desire; to have the inclination or disposition; to think proper; to choose. Chiefly Sc.in earlier use.
Equivalent in sense to the passive in sense 4b.
Chiefly used in constructions where the desirable action or state is implied or understood; now rarely with this expressed by an infinitive clause.
I don’t think the “you” is like the “me,” though, an archaic preverbal indirect object. Rather, as the OED indicates, the active has taken on the meaning of the passive.
Herb
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott
Sent: 2008-04-27 10:24
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: RSVP
Enclosed is a comment extracted from another list. I would appreciate the comments of other grammarians on the two questions posed.
1. (But do you really think "you" in phrases like "if you please" can be called a direct object? This construction is at least 500 years old.
2. (Would "if you like" be the same?)
Scott Catledge
Professor Emeritus
history & languages
To 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/
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/