I definitely consider "plan on" as a phrasal verb but reserved for use in
casual speech and writing. Would I use it on an email--possibly; in a
classroom lecture--not likely, in formal writing--not at all. I keep Joos's
five clocks in mind always.
Scott Catledge
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of ATEG automatic digest system
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 12:02 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: ATEG Digest - 18 Aug 2010 to 19 Aug 2010 (#2010-130)
There are 3 messages totalling 322 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Case of disappearing cases (2)
2. Some gramatical red meat
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/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 10:11:43 -0400
From: Brett Reynolds <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Case of disappearing cases
On 2010-08-18, at 8:54 PM, Herb wrote:
> Those rules weren't an accurate representation of English pronoun use =
in the 18th c. any more than they would have been five centuries earlier =
or two and a half later. But they are requirements of Formal Standard =
English today.
Yes, they are part of current formal standard English, but if they've =
been used in the non-standard way since middle English, then I'm not =
sure what basis there is for claiming that spoken English is shifting =
from case marking to focus marking. The word 'shift' implies change, but =
is the evidence for the change there?
Best,
Brett
-----------------------
Brett Reynolds
English Language Centre
Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
[log in to unmask]
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/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 21:37:17 -0400
From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Case of disappearing cases
Brett,
To respond completely to your thoughts here would take more research than I=
have access to at the moment. Certainly the history of non-case governed =
uses of pronouns goes back to Early Middle English, maybe to Late Old Engli=
sh, but the course of development from Old English case-governed usage to P=
resent Day English function-governed usage is the issue you're raising--and=
it's a good one. I'm sure we would find considerable variation across dia=
lect and register at any point in the past nine centuries, but I don't have=
data available on this. Perhaps others on the list who have worked on the=
history of English can help here. Until SVO word order became firmly fixe=
d, as well as the orders Noun + 's + Noun and Noun [PP of Noun PP], some ca=
se governed usage would persist. Once those orders became fixed, more posi=
tional marking of grammatical relations and functional government of pronou=
n form would occur. But I don't have data at hand on all of this. =20
I know you don't assume that Formal Standard English is static, but people =
often make that assumption. It's worth pointing out that Formal Standard E=
nglish does change, not only by the acceptance of formerly banned forms and=
by the creation of new rules not based on descriptive data. A case of the=
former might be the increasing acceptance of "hopefully" as a sentence adv=
erb and an example of the latter would be the Possessive Antecedent Prohibi=
tion, which dates only to the early 1940s.
There's an interesting paper for someone: the propounding and acceptance o=
f new prescriptive rules. David Mulroy in his The War against Grammar poi=
nts out that the prohibition on split infinitives dates back no farther tha=
n the 1860s.
Herb =20
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]
OHIO.EDU] On Behalf Of Brett Reynolds
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 10:12 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Case of disappearing cases
Importance: Low
On 2010-08-18, at 8:54 PM, Herb wrote:
> Those rules weren't an accurate representation of English pronoun use in =
the 18th c. any more than they would have been five centuries earlier or tw=
o and a half later. But they are requirements of Formal Standard English =
today.
Yes, they are part of current formal standard English, but if they've been =
used in the non-standard way since middle English, then I'm not sure what b=
asis there is for claiming that spoken English is shifting from case markin=
g to focus marking. The word 'shift' implies change, but is the evidence fo=
r the change there?
Best,
Brett
-----------------------
Brett Reynolds
English Language Centre
Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning Toronto, Ontar=
io, Canada [log in to unmask]
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/
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/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 21:31:19 -0600
From: Webmail bdespain <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Some gramatical red meat
--0016e68fa78097e3e7048e38eeee
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
I was surprised that no one mentioned the analysis of *plan on* as a phrasal
verb. This analysis would have us take the gerund *attending* as the direct
object of the transitive phrasal verb *plan on*. There is a long literature
among syntacticians about phrases like *depend on* and even a whole
volume A. P. Cowie & R Mackin, *Oxford Dictionary of Current Idiomatic
English, vol. 1, Phrasal Verbs* (Oxford Univ. Press, 1975). Maybe this
analysis has been rejected by English teachers in the classroom. Have they
not caught up, or is the analysis just not accepted even among linguists?
Maybe Herb can tell us about this.
Bruce
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Brett Reynolds
<[log in to unmask]>wrote:
> On 2010-08-18, at 1:28 AM, Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> wrote:
>
> > One of my pet peeves is when I hear people use "plan on" instead of
> "plan to." One example would be: "If you plan on attending, arrive
early,"
> instead of the correct "If you plan to attend, arrive early." I hear it
more
> and more on television and radio (no surprise there), but I am now reading
> it in newspapers.
>
> Here's the relevant part of the entry from the OED:
>
> e. intr. colloq. to plan on: to intend to carry out (some action); to
> anticipate or be prepared for.
>
> 1914 E. R. BURROUGHS Tarzan of Apes xxvii. 370 She is planning on our
going
> up there the first of the week. 1926 Amer. Oxonian July 99 If I were
> planning on going after a Rhodes Scholarship next year, I should read a
> great deal on foreign affairs. 1936 L. C. DOUGLAS White Banners ix. 195 We
> had not planned on such a large house. 1963M. SHADBOLT in C. K. Stead N.Z.
> Short Stories (1966) 314 We don't plan on any drinking. 1977 H. KAPLAN
> Damascus Cover iv. 35 Ari pressed for a date when he could plan on going
> abroad. 1996 Mountain View (Middlebury, Vermont) 24 Apr. 3/5 If you plan
on
> travelling in the beginning of summer, the nights will bring a slight
chill,
> so jeans and sweats are necessary.
>
> I can antedate that by only 2 years with this citation from the Atlantic
> Monthly 1912:
> "For them to plan on building them more stately mansions?"
>
> 'Plan on' went from 0.04 instances per million words in 1910-1919 to 0.4
> per million words in the 50s to 3.15 PMW today, at least according to the
> COHA (search for [plan].[v*] on [v*g]). Coincidentally, 'plan to' was at
> that same frequency (3.15 PMW) in the first decade of the 20th cent and is
> now at 42.28 PMW. So 'plan on' is likely only about 100 years old, and is
> about 1/10th as common as 'plan to', but does that make the one right and
> the other wrong? Perhaps 'plan to' has taken over from 'mean to' and
> 'propose to'.
>
> > The way that I explain it to my high school students is as follows:
> "on attending" is a prep phrase which can be an adj. or an adv., but not
a
> noun, which is needed as the direct object of the transitive verb "plan."
> Conversely, the infinitive phrase "to attend" may be used as the direct
> object noun that is needed here.
> > Well, have at it; I can take it.
>
> Well, for starters, a prepositional phrase is what it is. A dog is a dog
> and a pig is a pig. Dogs often function as pets and pigs commonly function
> as a livestock. When people raise dogs for food though, the dog is
> functioning as livestock, not as a pig. And when the pig gets a name and
> lives in the house, it's functioning as a pet, not as a dog.
>
> Similarly, to say that a PP can be an adj. or and adv. simply confuses the
> matter. A PP can function as a complement, and adjunct, or a modifier, but
> it can only belong to one category: PP.
>
> Secondly, 'to'- infinitives do not function as objects, unless you're
> prepared to allow objects where no standard noun would fit (e.g., I hope
> ____).
>
> Best,
> Brett
>
> -----------------------
> Brett Reynolds
> English Language Centre
> Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning
> Toronto, Ontario, Canada
> [log in to unmask]
>
> 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/
>
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/
--0016e68fa78097e3e7048e38eeee
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div>I was surprised that no one mentioned the analysis of <em>plan on</em>=
as a phrasal verb.=A0 This analysis would have us take the gerund <em>atte=
nding</em> as the direct object of the transitive phrasal verb <em>plan on<=
/em>.=A0 There is a=A0long literature among syntacticians about phrases lik=
e <em>depend on</em> and even a whole volume=A0A. P. Cowie & R Mackin, =
<em>Oxford=A0Dictionary of=A0Current Idiomatic English, vol. 1, Phrasal Ver=
bs</em> (Oxford Univ. Press, 1975).=A0 Maybe this analysis has been rejecte=
d by English=A0teachers in the classroom.=A0=A0Have they not caught up, or =
is the analysis just not accepted even among linguists?=A0 Maybe Herb can t=
ell us about this.=A0 </div>
<div>=A0</div>
<div>Bruce=A0<br><br></div>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Brett Reynolds =
<span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]">brett.rey=
[log in to unmask]</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex=
; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class=3D"gmail_quote">
<div class=3D"im">On 2010-08-18, at 1:28 AM, Assembly for the Teaching of E=
nglish Grammar wrote:<br><br>> =A0 =A0 =A0One of my pet peeves is when I=
hear people use "plan on" instead of "plan to." =A0One=
example would be: "If you plan on attending, arrive early," inst=
ead of the correct "If you plan to attend, arrive early." I hear =
it more and more on television and radio (no surprise there), but I am now =
reading it in newspapers.<br>
<br></div>Here's the relevant part of the entry from the OED:<br>
<div class=3D"im"><br>e. intr. colloq. to plan on: to intend to carry out (=
some action); to anticipate or be prepared for.<br><br></div>1914 E. R. BUR=
ROUGHS Tarzan of Apes xxvii. 370 She is planning on our going up there the =
first of the week. 1926 Amer. Oxonian July 99 If I were planning on going a=
fter a Rhodes Scholarship next year, I should read a great deal on foreign =
affairs. 1936 L. C. DOUGLAS White Banners ix. 195 We had not planned on suc=
h a large house. 1963M. SHADBOLT in C. K. Stead N.Z. Short Stories (1966) 3=
14 We don't plan on any drinking. 1977 H. KAPLAN Damascus Cover iv. 35 =
Ari pressed for a date when he could plan on going abroad. 1996 Mountain Vi=
ew (Middlebury, Vermont) 24 Apr. 3/5 If you plan on travelling in the begin=
ning of summer, the nights will bring a slight chill, so jeans and sweats a=
re necessary.<br>
<br>I can antedate that by only 2 years with this citation from the Atlanti=
c Monthly 1912:<br>"For them to plan on building them more stately man=
sions?"<br><br>'Plan on' went from 0.04 instances per million =
words in 1910-1919 to 0.4 per million words in the 50s to 3.15 PMW today, a=
t least according to the COHA (search for [plan].[v*] on [v*g]). Coincident=
ally, 'plan to' was at that same frequency (3.15 PMW) in the first =
decade of the 20th cent and is now at 42.28 PMW. So 'plan on' is li=
kely only about 100 years old, and is about 1/10th as common as 'plan t=
o', but does that make the one right and the other wrong? Perhaps '=
plan to' has taken over from 'mean to' and 'propose to'=
.<br>
<div class=3D"im"><br>> =A0 =A0 =A0The way that I explain it to my high =
school students is as follows: =A0"on attending" is a prep phrase=
which can be an adj. or an adv., but not a noun, which is needed as the di=
rect object of the transitive verb "plan." =A0Conversely, the inf=
initive phrase "to attend" may be used as the direct object noun =
that is needed here.<br>
> =A0 =A0Well, have at it; I can take it.<br><br></div>Well, for starter=
s, a prepositional phrase is what it is. A dog is a dog and a pig is a pig.=
Dogs often function as pets and pigs commonly function as a livestock. Whe=
n people raise dogs for food though, the dog is functioning as livestock, n=
ot as a pig. And when the pig gets a name and lives in the house, it's =
functioning as a pet, not as a dog.<br>
<br>Similarly, to say that a PP can be an adj. or and adv. simply confuses =
the matter. A PP can function as a complement, and adjunct, or a modifier, =
but it can only belong to one category: PP.<br><br>Secondly, 'to'- =
infinitives do not function as objects, unless you're prepared to allow=
objects where no standard noun would fit (e.g., I hope ____).<br>
<br>Best,<br>Brett<br><br>-----------------------<br>Brett Reynolds<br>Engl=
ish Language Centre<br>Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced =
Learning<br>Toronto, Ontario, Canada<br><font color=3D"#888888"><a href=3D"=
mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</a><br>
</font>
<div>
<div></div>
<div class=3D"h5"><br>To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the=
list's web interface at:<br>=A0 =A0 <a href=3D"http://listserv.muohio.=
edu/archives/ateg.html" target=3D"_blank">http://listserv.muohio.edu/archiv=
es/ateg.html</a><br>
and select "Join or leave the list"<br><br>Visit ATEG's web s=
ite at <a href=3D"http://ateg.org/" target=3D"_blank">http://ateg.org/</a><=
br></div></div></blockquote></div><br>
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"
<p>
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--0016e68fa78097e3e7048e38eeee--
------------------------------
End of ATEG Digest - 18 Aug 2010 to 19 Aug 2010 (#2010-130)
***********************************************************
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/
|
