|
Post by Twoddle on Jan 25, 2012 9:01:51 GMT
I think Tone is saying that am is establishing the relationship between I and Twoddle rather than I or Twoddle doing the establishing. And by establishing something, something is being done. And by writing this, he can be right while being opposite the popular view! Yes, indeed, Dave. Tone has his own inimitable way of viewing the Universe, and I'd be the last to want to deprive him of it. (That's very far from my saying he's right, of course.)
|
|
|
Post by Tone on Jan 25, 2012 21:12:40 GMT
>I think Tone is saying that am is establishing the relationship <
Indeed he is. (Very perspicacious, Dave.)
The "Twoddle" is the object of the "am" (or the "to be") statement. The statement has itself acted on the subject.
And:
If we have "I am Twoddle", then do we have "Twoddle is me" or "Twoddle is I"?
Tone
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Jan 25, 2012 23:07:09 GMT
>I think Tone is saying that am is establishing the relationship <Indeed he is. (Very perspicacious, Dave.) Yes, I know Tone is, and I'm saying that "am" isn't (establishing the relationship). There isn't a relationship and, even if there were, it would have been there all the time and nothing would have established it. If the verb were establishing a relationship, the sentence would read, "I am establishing a relationship with Twoddle". It doesn't; it reads, "I am Twoddle", which is an entirely different concept because "I" is doing absolutely nothing to "Twoddle". Statements can't have objects; only transitive verbs can have objects, and "be" isn't a transitive verb. The latter, as already stated. Tone, we're going to have to agree to disagree about this: that's to say you're going to have to disagree with every other grammarian. How I wish we had an English Academy to pontificate on such matters. At least we've straightened things out for Vadim. Thanks for that, Tone!
|
|
|
Post by Sue M-V on Jan 26, 2012 18:31:14 GMT
I would agree with Twoddle (how could anyone not?!) and suggest that Tone is thinking divergently here. "Am" isn't establishing anything or doing anything at all (it's just sitting there!) and any relationship is evidently being established by Tone, in his head, because he knows what "am" means.
Sue
|
|
|
Post by Tone on Jan 26, 2012 20:58:41 GMT
>Tone, we're going to have to agree to disagree about this: that's to say you're going to have to disagree with every other grammarian. <
I agree with that. I was acting as Devils' Advocate (sic) because I just think it's a wrong situation.
Tone
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Jan 29, 2012 20:40:35 GMT
>Tone, we're going to have to agree to disagree about this: that's to say you're going to have to disagree with every other grammarian. <I agree with that. I was acting as Devils' Advocate (sic) because I just think it's a wrong situation. Tone As my in-laws used to say, "Well, you know what thought did: not a lot".
|
|
|
Post by Tone on Jan 29, 2012 20:55:33 GMT
>As my in-laws used to say, "Well, you know what thought did: not a lot".<
Why did they stop saying it? Did they find that it was inaccurate?
Tone
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Feb 2, 2012 11:40:47 GMT
>As my in-laws used to say, "Well, you know what thought did: not a lot".<Why did they stop saying it? Did they find that it was inaccurate? Tone No, it was because they died.
|
|
|
Post by Tone on Feb 3, 2012 20:54:01 GMT
>No, it was because they died. <'Tis an old joke. Say thankyou for my giving you the feed line for it. Tone
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Feb 3, 2012 22:27:42 GMT
Say thankyou for my giving you the feed line for it. Tone Almost. I'll say "Thank you" and thus send you a thankyou.
|
|
|
Post by Tone on Feb 10, 2012 20:31:37 GMT
>Almost. I'll say "Thank you" and thus send you a thankyou.<Hmm ... Well, I pondered over that. Mayhap we should consider it a moot point. (Or just leave it as a mute one! ) Tone
|
|