On 3/9/06, Sally Caves <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I use nigh all the time, too.  I think we ought to bring fustilarian back
> into English, if we could determine what Shakespeare meant by it.

No need.  It's clearly an epithet, and as such its literal meaning is
somewhat irrelevant.  If I say to you, "Thou fustilarian!", you would
be insulted, and we would thereby have achieved communication. :)

> So... "it" + impersonal verb in 3rd > singular + pronoun in dative case + infinitive or relative >clause?

Except that is the general English mechanism for "clause as subject". 
I'd restrict the impersonal interpretation to those cases where
"clause as subject" doesn't make sense.  I think it's semantic, not
syntactic.

> Me reweth, Marie, thy faire rod.  This has no infinitive or relative clause,
> and could be turned into "thy faire rod me reweth, Marie.

Right, but in modern English, rods can't rue, only people can rue. 
I'd say the semantics make it impersonal.

> Also in modern English:  "It bothers me that you're doing this on your own."

That's clause-as-subject.  "That you're doing this on your own bothers
me." is also acceptable, if a bit formal sounding.  So it's not
impersonal.

> "I guess it falls to me to clean the house up again."

"Cleaning the house up again falls to me."  Replacing the infinitive
with a gerund bypasses the need for circumlocution . . .

 > It's necessary for Ian to be the one to tell him."
"For Ian to be the one to tell him is necessary."

> Easily replaced by "Ian needs to be the one to tell him."  You can see why the impersonals
> died out; they were too easily replaced by subject pronouns and agreeing verbs:  Me nedeth
> here noon other art to use" (Chaucer, Troilus).  I don't need to use any
> other art here.  Me liketh:  "I like," instead of "it pleases me."  (Another
> survival, although a little cumbersome: "it pleases me to see you and Frank
> getting along so well.")

"Seeing you and Frank getting along so well pleases me."

Vs. "It likes me.", which is very different from "I like it." - in the
modern language.  Yet I seem to recall reading examples of "It likes
me" *meaning* modern "I like it" in Middle English.  So maybe the
semantic distinction isn't as clear as I'd like it . . .

> Shall we invent some new impersonals?  I rather like their periphrastic
> quality.  Nicely formal.

It agrees me. :)

--
Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]>