Print

Print


Hi all

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:14 AM, Raymond Brown <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> Allowed?  Who by?  We don't have an 'English Academy' (like _l'Académie
> française_) nor, as with some language, has the US, UK or, AFAIK, any
> other anglophone government sought to control language.  The whole point
> surely is that we're noting what happens as people use the language, i.e.
> we're taking a desriptive not a perscriptive standpoint.


​This ​is a bizarre point to make. For me, and certainly in Standard
English, 'us saw they yesterday' is not a grammatical sentence sentence. It
has nothing to do with being allowed by any particular prescriptivist but
by the language itself. Even if it is licit in some dialects, it doesn't
automatically prove anything for the dialects where it is not.

I also think the weirdness of the pronouns is being exaggerated; what's
wrong with analysing the form of 'me and her' as governed by the
conjunction and 'us Yorkshiremen' governed by its inclusion in a complex
noun phrase, rather than its relation to the verb? Surely that analysis is
still talking in terms of a grammatical relation and thus case?

Even if we argue for a 'syntactic allomorph' analysis for 'me and her' and
'us Yorkshiremen', it stills seems more natural to describe the nominative
pronouns where they appear as being the subject of the verb as that is the
only place it can appear (for me, that is, in anything but a formal written
register).

So I am not really disagreeing with Ray and And that the conditioning is by
and large purely syntactical, but I still have no problem describing it as
a vestigial case system. At the very least, this is slightly more
descriptive than 'syntactic allomorphy'.

James