Talk:English grammar - Definition and Overview

I'm uncertain about the accuracy of this article's distinction between the meanings of "shall" and "will". In American English, at least, "shall" is almost never used except as an affectation; "will" is the verb used in all cases to conjugate a verb into the future tense. There may be some difference between "shall" and "will" in other countries, although I'm uncertain of this as well, because even the author of this article seems to have used "will" to represent the future tense independent of intention, as in this quotation (emphasis mine):

Simple future: "I shall listen." (I will listen expresses intention, prediction, and other conditions, whereas shall simply expresses what will occur, irrespective of the speaker's intention.)

In any case, the note that "shall" is not part of common usage in American English should be added, but I'm not sure where in the article it should go. The part about shall/will is already riddled with parentheses.--AaronW 23:50, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Check out what The King's English says about it at http://www.bartleby.com/116/213.html, but bear in mind that it refers to British English and dates from 1908. My feeling is that the reality in actual usage was never as cut-and-dried as this prescriptive article makes out, especially in the more complicated parts of the system, but I shall was undoubtedly the Standard English future in the past, even if in practice it was fighting I will. Spellbinder 12:19, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

English speakers will prefer the use of "they" (3rd. plural) when a person's gender is unknown or irrelevant to context -- they may prefer it but this is clearly incorrect as it will cause a number disagreement. Where does it say in this article that "he" is the correct pronoun? --Daniel C. Boyer

there's also a number disagreement with the pronoun "you". It's not incorrect. -- Tarquin

But isn't "you" both singular and plural? Where does the number disagreement come in? -- Daniel C. Boyer

Well, technically, Daniel's right about "you". I believe Tarquin may be referring to the fact that historically, "you" was plural and "thou" was singular: "you are" and "thou art". It's entirely possible that "he/she" and "they" are undergoing a similar sort of shift; it's too early to tell. For more info, check out the singular they article.

If you'll look at the opening paragraph of the article, you'll note that its intent is descriptive, not prescriptive. I also am inclined to disagree that it is "incorrect"; from a descriptivist point of view, correctness is defined by usage. Certainly, from a prescriptivist point of view, using "they" instead of "he" or "she" is incorrect. In fact, strictly speaking, the correct pronoun should be it; the fact that traditional prescriptivists prefer "he" and modern prescriptivists prefer "s/he" or "he or she" is also a demonstration of the occasional arbitrariness of prescriptivist rules.

Though, in the long run, good prescriptivists have clarity of writing as their goal. Their source data should be descriptive information about the language in question, with decisions of "rightness" based on what is the usage most in line with descriptive data that will produce the clearest written text, which lacks the sorts of contextual cues found in daily usage. Or at least, so it would seem to me.

(The fact that 19th-century grammarians mistakenly thought that Latin was a good model for prescriptive rules of English grammar is an entirely different discussion. *grin*) -- pgdudda

Fowler notes that "they" / "their" can be used in non-grammatical constructions, but that this arises because there is no suitable alternative ("his" to mean "his or hers", or unwieldy "his or hers" itself). "they" as a singular pronoun has been used by writers since the 16th C so we're in good company. :) Tarquin

The following discussion was moved from the discussion page, since all the contents being discussed were moved here. Steverapaport 10:08, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I deleted all the following:

The claim that the future tense is nonexistant comes from the realization that the auxiliary "will" is not a prefix of the main verb. The proof comes from questions, "Will I go?" for example.

[Comment: I suppose the person meant suffix, not prefix, but even with that error corrected this paragraph is not correct. The more important reasons for believing that English doesn't have a future tense are given by Huddleston & Pullum].

However, if one uses that line of reasoning with the "future tense", it is illogical to restrict it to only that verb form. Thus, it immediately follows that English has only two tenses, "past" and a form usually called "present", but more properly called "indeterminate" or "non-past."

[Comment: Logic is not the issue here. Biber et al. take this position, but Huddleston & Pullum do not. It's a question of theory, not logic].

These same arguments restrict the number of tenses in all the Germanic Languages.

[Comment: This is probably untrue (has the writer checked all the Germanic languages, including Yiddish and Faroese?) and certainly not helpful for readers].

Another way of counting tenses is to consider the number of forms that the verb itself can take. For most modern English verbs (except for "to be") there are essentially no more than five variants, made up of the infinitive; simple present (usually the 3rd person singular differs from the infinitive); present participle; past participle; and preterite (which is often the same as the past participle). For example (with duplicate forms in brackets):

• go; (go,) goes; going; gone; went
• count; (count,) counts; counting; counted; (counted)
• -; can; -; -; could
• be; am, is, are; being; been; was, were

[Comment: This paragraph confuses inflectional forms of the verb with tenses, assuming that each inflectional form is a tense. But no one believes that the past participle and the present participle are tenses. So this section is very unhelpful]. Rsalkie 11:53, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[Further comment: Counting "can" and the other modals as verbs may be stretching it. The modals cannot function as heads of VP, at least without at least an implied "main verb:" it is nonsense to say "Susie should" except in understanding some V to complement "should." Probably better to regard them as a separate lexical category to help construct the Infl head of the InflP. On morphological grounds, wouldn't it also be simpler to consider the modals as a separate lexical category than to postulate a group of paradigmatically defective V forms (no infinitive, gerund/present participle, past participle) that, unlike all other V, do not take the /s/ suffix in 3s present simple indicative active? ]

I do. :P lysdexia 12:49, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

== Spatial tenses? ==

Does anyone ever use the term "tense" to refer to space? I've never heard of this, and the textbooks in linguistics never have either. Rsalkie 11:53, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• I could only find Google evidence for spatial tense in constructed languages such as "Lojban", the "logical language". I don't see that it's ever been documented in a natural language, though. Gwimpey
• The Hopi Language contains spatial tences.
• I removed the reference to 'spatial tense'. I think there are some problems with the notion of spatial tense in natural language. See my post on Talk:Spatial tense. - Mark Dingemanse (talk) 15:40, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What about the table of pronouns? What do *they* mean by saying 'my', 'our' ,'his' etc. are dative forms?

You're right - there's definitely an error in that table. Deb 22:17 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)

Plural possesives of plurals that don't end in s?

This is something I always have problems with in writing. Is it, say, childrens' or children's? Sheeps' or sheep's? If there's some rule about these words, could it be added to the article, or at least mentioned that there isn't a rule if there isn't? Thanks much. ^_^ --Sparky the Seventh Chaos 17:15, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

I've always been taught that you put the comma after because your dropping the second s. So for apples, the incorrect plural is: apples's. Then you drop the last s and get apples'. ie. the only reason we do that is to correct the problem of 2 s's. Therefore, when the plural does not end in s, you treat it as you would a singular. Children's and Sheep's. But I'm no scholar, so I'm not willing to edit the article and say this. --EatMyShortz

Pass the preterite conditional, darling!

Some of this article is well written, but some of it still smacks of latinate grammatical terminology. Proper analysis of the English tense-aspect system is missing, along with use of auxilliary verbs. Giving pronouns as nominative, accusative, genitive and dative (?) is misleading. It is generally preferred to talk about subject, object and possesive pronouns and possessive adjectives. There is very little indication of how the grammar of English has changed over time. Can we have some linguists sort this out, please?

Gareth Hughes 00:29, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The main reason IMHO to keep the mention of such things is that such did exist as such in Middle English, as well as historically in the other West Germanic dialects (even though many, such as Low Saxon dialects and many modern High German dialects have lost or are in the process of losing the genitive case, and Low Franconian dialects primarily preserve the entire case system in pronouns, retaining just the nominative and the genitive (true genitive case, not genitive clitic(s)) in normal nouns). On the other hand, I think that the ideas of genitive pronouns and possessive adjectives should be kept seperate (considering English has both), considering that they're separate in both English and in West Germanic dialects in general (if they have both). 146.151.47.17, 11:33, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and in addition, the overall grammar of English still retains traces of separate cases, as shown by things like preposition usage (as the difference between accusative or dative-using prepositions and genitive-using prepositions is still apparent, as shown by things like prepositions which use "of" after them, which historically were genitive, or which, at times, directly take a genitive pronoun (NOT possessive adjective), even though the difference between accusative-using and dative-using prepositions has been lost, and hence also the allative sense of the use of accusative with prepositions, as in, say, High German) and the ability to, for verbs that historically could take either dative nouns directly, or which used dative-using prepositions (but NOT accusative-using prepositions), to alternately (or not so alternatively) use prepositionless dative constructions, albeit without explicit separate marking of dative and accusative cases. 146.151.47.17, 11:41, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm following what you're trying to say. It is true that English grammar has changed sufficiently over its history for Old English to be unintelligible to speakers of the modern language. However, it doesn't make much sense for an article on English grammar to plough through the history of English only to find out that they did things differently then. Referrence to German here is like referrence to Latin in the past: it confuses the issue. Sure comparative Germanic linguistics is a worthy subject, but it is not this subject. Descriptive grammar should do its thing on its own terms. Is there anyone who agrees? - Gareth Hughes 12:41, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I was speaking in the context of West Germanic (and North Germanic also, considering that for a set of West Germanic dialects, English has had a lot of overall North Germanic influence, and Old English was relatively close to Old Norse, all things considered) linguistics overall, rather than viewing English as an isolated quantity, without a history, and without remains of that history left behind, often hidden in plain sight, such as that prepositions in English still have remainents of their taking genitive, accusative, and dative cases, even when the specific case distinctions are no longer being marked at all (such as with accusative and dative). Without understanding such matters, then it becomes more difficult to understand why specific verbs in English can or cannot take dative constructions (albeit without dative case marking), and so on. For example, why do verbs that use "to" to mark a receiver of something able to make dative constructions, whereas many other prepositions do not have this capability? Well, that's because, "to" originally took the dative case, whereas some other prepositions, such as "into", happened to take things like accusative, genitive, or (yep) instrumental case (yes, Old English was weird, for a set of West Germanic dialects, for having a distinct instrumental case; but then, of course Gothic had a separate vocative case, which is an oddity by Germanic language standards...). Without history and context, languages're much harder to understand, because many things that do not make sense in isolation at a fixed point in time make perfect sense when you take their history and overall context into account. 146.151.47.17, 14:08, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's all very well, and I'm not disputing what you say, but this is an article on English grammar and not Germanic philology. There is consensus here that the article cover a descriptive treatment of Modern English grammar. What you propose goes against this: that's a comparative grammar. The difference is that descriptive grammars try to set the rules of grammar in their own image, rather than the image of any other language. It has taken centuries of struggle to be able to insist on this. I wrote the article on Aramaic language, which has a small section on the grammar of the language. Some may have found it helpful to say 'Aramaic lacks noun classes', but that would be as helpful as saying that 'English cannot mark nouns with tense': true, but a bit of misdirection. Likewise, a proto-Germanic treatment of case in English is misdirection. However, it would be appropriate for this article to have a section about the development of English grammar from Germanic roots to Modern English. Put yourself in the position of someone without any linguistics training coming accross this article, and wanting to know how English 'works', a treatment of comparitive philology isn't what they would want. Gareth Hughes 19:29, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I never said that I was for simply going and trying to apply the rules of other languages to English, without regard for a descriptive approach. I do not propose simply trying to fit English within the rules of Latin, like misguided eighteenth and nineteenth century grammarians. Rather, I am for a descriptive approach that is useful within a historical context, that is, in comparison to Middle English, Old English, and then reconstructed proto-West Germanic and proto-Germanic, as well with respect to other germanic languages which Old English was in contact with, such as Old Norse. That is, approaching English from a descriptive standpoint, but doing it from one that is useful for analyzing it within its historical context, rather than removing it from it, and hence using common terms with those used for Middle English, Old English, West Germanic languages in general, and then finally Germanic languages in general, rather than ones that are specific to English alone. Hence, that is why I think that for pronouns, the case names nominative, accusative, and genitive (for the actual genitive pronouns, not possessive adjectives) are appropriate, because they function like those of the same name in other Germanic languages historically in general, for the most part, besides the merger of the dative and accusative cases. Note that I do not think they should be used when their use would be in appropriate, of course, like the common mistake of trying to view "my", "our", "your", etc. as genitive pronouns, rather than possessive adjectives, or the other common mistake of regarding "'s" as marking a genitive case, rather than acting as a possessive clitic which was historically derived from a now-defunct nominal genitive case. I do not mean to view such within the rules of the predecessors of Modern English, and other Germanic languages, just to view such within common terms, when they are appropriate, which are suitable for discussing matters related to Modern English with respect to other Germanic languages, especially Old and Middle English. (BTW, I am the same person as 146.151.47.17, but now I'm at a different location, using a dynamic IP) 09:44, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I am in complete agreement with you. I was worried that the historical approach might be so complicated that Modern English grammar would get lost in a fog of defunct inflexions. I still would feel more comfortable with the labels subject pronoun and object pronoun (referring to the object of prepositions as well as verbs). Then it could be stated that the latter is a merger of the older cases. I'm not quite so comfortable with possessive case, as it does more than mark possession in English.

I feel that this article is about ready for an overhaul. Would you be willing to work on it? I would be happy to work with you on it, but would feel it's too much to do without some active collaboration. If you had an account it would make contributing and using WP a lot easier. Gareth Hughes 21:47, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In the process of improving this article, you might want to take advantage of the bits of English grammar scattered all over Wikipedia in the form of individual articles. Some can be found in the LPOV section of the Countering Systemic Bias project. — mark ✎ 00:21, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Mark, there is a lot of English grammar displayed in general grammar articles that need to be universalised. So, it might be a good idea to save some of it here, especially tables and the like, before it gets the rewrite. I had the thought that the article should start by expressing the distinction between standard English grammar (a relatively informal standard), and various dialect grammars. For example, "You done good" and "Ask a doctor their opinion" are not standard grammar, but are perfectly acceptable by many English speakers in certain contexts. Gareth Hughes 17:30, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

External link: Learning English online

I visited the "Learning English Online" (http://www.englisch-hilfen.de/en/) external link and noted that one of their lessons on gerunds (http://www.englisch-hilfen.de/en/grammar/gerund_prepositions_adjectives.htm) contained a very glaring spelling mistake i.e. "They are afraid on loosing the match"! There are also other grammatical and spelling anomalies scattered across the site. Can I propose that this link be removed?