Language Overflow

Anonymous

00:27

An interesting quote on terminology from CGEL:

Anonymous

> The classical terms 'nominative' and 'accusative' are quite opaque, and some modern grammars have replaced them by the more transparent 'subjective' and 'objective' respectively.

Anonymous

> The view taken here, however, is that the correlation between case and syntactic function is so complex that these new terms run the risk of creating confusion, and we have therefore preferred to retain the traditional terms - which also have the advantage that they are much more widely used in the grammars of other languages.

Anonymous

> As we will note in detail below, the nominative is not restricted to subject function (cf. It was I who found it, %They've invited Kim and I to lunch) and the accusative is likewise not restricted to object function, and indeed not excluded from subject function (Kim objected to him being given such preferential treatment; For him to go alone would be very dangerous).

Anonymous

(p.456)

Anonymous

Note: the % here indicates that the sentence is not grammatical for all speakers

Anonymous

00:29

(Imagine both circles being groups of speakers, and the slash being a dividing line between them, as between dialect groups)

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

@snailboat Is that official?

I mean, will everyone know what it is when I use it?

Like when I use *?

Anonymous

You can't assume everyone will understand *.

Anonymous

And fewer people yet will understand %.

Anonymous

So you'll need to add a footnote to your answer describing the symbol.

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

Darn it

Anonymous

00:32

The % should be superscripted in an answer, by the way.

Anonymous

You should also explain * when you use it.

Anonymous

I would have superscripted % in the quote above, but I don't have an easy way to do so in chat.

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

It could be a TeX comment.

Damkerng T.

* is also commonly used in text messaging to fix the error, not to denote the error sentence itself!

Anonymous

Yes, hopefully the two usages are unlikely to be confused because they appear in very different contexts

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

00:36

Hopefully.

That always appears in sentences I'm pretty sure are not gonna hold for long.

@DamkerngT. Standing at +18 now.

Damkerng T.

@snailboat Interesting!

> %They've invited Kim and I to lunch.

Anonymous

I in this example is 'Pat'.

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

Everything is interesting for you @Dam. You might remember next time to tell me what's actually not interesting to you.

Anonymous

You can tell because half of all CGEL examples involve Kim and Pat.

Damkerng T.

LOL!

Anonymous

00:40

(I'm exaggerating a lot, but if you go through CGEL, by the end when you see Kim and Pat you'll be thinking "Ah, my old friends Kim and Pat . . . ")

Damkerng T.

@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M Inquisitive is one of my qualities. :-)

@snailboat Hehe!

Anonymous

Yes, CGEL talks quite a bit about accusative/nominative case alternations.

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

@snailboat I remember a user in ELL whose example sentence are always things like My girl is not as good as another girl or I wasn't too drunk last night and  . . . you get the idea.

Anonymous

@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M Well, at least they come up with grammatical examples :-)

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

You know who I'm talking about?

Damkerng T.

00:43

@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M Oh! That's still in one of my tabs.

Anonymous

I don't know who.

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

He actually usually overcomplicates stuff.

Anonymous

I posted an answer on ELL today, but several users found it lacking and asked for more. Which is totally reasonable, because it's a pretty bare bones answer, but I'm still feeling pretty lazy. (And still sick.)

Damkerng T.

Current status: 2001 tabs, with 31 more windows

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. Wow! 2001: A Tab Odyssey

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

00:44

@DamkerngT. 2001 is my repz on ELL.

Damkerng T.

Yes!

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

Make 'em more so I earn more!

Damkerng T.

@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M Hah!

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

@snail just take a look at

Anonymous

2

A: Pronoun usage in "It ought to be him/he with whom you share your secrets, not me/I"?

This sentence is already extremely stiff and formal sounding: It ought to be him with whom you share your secrets, not me. You can replace me with I without a change in meaning, but it becomes even more formal and even less natural: It ought to be him with whom you share your secrets, n...

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

00:44

2

Q: Sentence structure - "the same girl as ~"

Here's the context. John saw a girl dancing in a bar 3 days ago. Jihoon saw a girl studying in the library yesterday. The two girls are the same girl. In this situation, The girl John saw dancing in a bar 3 days ago is the same person as/that Jihoon saw studying in the library yesterd...

sentence-construction

Anonymous

Look at all the questions under my answer. They're good comments.

Anonymous

I could edit my answer to address all of them, and maybe I will, but right it sounds like so much effort . . . :-)

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

@snailboat How unlucky are you to have Tim and F.E. comment on your answer.

Damkerng T.

@snailboat I think you've posted a similar explanation some time ago. Not sure when.

Anonymous

Well.

Anonymous

00:46

In the past I was more critical of nominative forms where accusative forms are usually expected.

Anonymous

But I have to admit there is a real alternation there.

Anonymous

Even though I do think there's a strong preference.

Damkerng T.

PEU seems to make it a clear cut between the formal and informal usage.

> The girl John saw dancing in a bar 3 days ago is the same person as/that Jihoon saw studying in the library yesterday.

Hmm... is that really okay?

Anonymous

Sure. I guess. I mean, it sounds fine.

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. The reason I wrote hyper-formal is that most formal writing these days isn't as formal as that.

Damkerng T.

00:49

@snailboat With that, I think.

Anonymous

Or as.

Damkerng T.

Oh, hmm... I don't think as really works.

Anonymous

Well, that's fine. I'm just telling you how it sounds to me, personally.

Anonymous

I'm not declaring that everyone must agree with my judgments :-)

Damkerng T.

nods

I think I need "the girl" after as.

It's a minor point, I think.

Anonymous

00:52

Hmm . . . I can't get it to sound wrong in my head. No matter how many times I read it.

Anonymous

But I can see why you'd say that.

Anonymous

Maybe as is non-standard, and that should be used there, and my idiolect just happens to allow as.

Damkerng T.

nods -- I think I've seen some similar questions that I didn't expect something to be omitted, but it could actually he a few times. One of it must be Cookie Monster's.

Hello, @Catija!

Anonymous

> "You had seen a young man to whom your attention was directed, we cannot ask in what way, but your attention was directed to a young man you saw in Broome's parlour in 1849 ; when you saw a person again there, did you recognise him as the same person as you saw before ?―Well, my lord, I should say it was the same person I saw there." (1873)

Anonymous

→ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person

Damkerng T.

00:56

Nice example!

Anonymous

> In addition to the question of personhood, of what makes a being count as a person to begin with, there are further questions about personal identity and self: both about what makes any particular person that particular person instead of another, and about what makes a person at one time the same person as [he or she was or will be at another time] despite any intervening changes.

Anonymous

personal.kent.edu/~rmuhamma/Philosophy/RBwritings/…

Anonymous

> Before we can profitably discuss whether we shall continue to exist after death, it is well to be clear as to the sense in which a man is the same person as [he was yesterday].

Catija

... So what's this room for?

Anonymous

I have to admit I tend to just talk in whatever room is on the left.

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

00:59

@Catija Writing smart chat messages.

Or typing.

Damkerng T.

@Catija For random thoughts about language and such. :-)

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

See?

Catija

HA HA. I see. I didn't even realize this was here. It showed up in the sidebar on the ELL Meta.

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

And it did because I look good chatting.

Damkerng T.

I feel a bit more comfortable to talk about any languages in here, BTW.

Anonymous

01:00

But sometimes I join here and try to post blog-ish things like Damkerng does, since the "half-blog, half-chat" thing was how he originally described it.

Anonymous

If you pay attention to this room, you'll notice Damkerng does a fair bit of "chat-blogging" in here :-)

Catija

Ah, that makes sense. Since it's not "English" it's ok to talk about Japanese etc.

Anonymous

So today, I joined here to post that little blurb about the words 'nominative' and 'accusative' from CGEL.

Damkerng T.

Yes. I described my idea about the room in the first 15-20 messages of the room.

@Catija Yes!

Anonymous

Which is actually relevant to Japanese, too, because in Japanese, the nominative and accusative case particles aren't always used for subjects and objects.

Damkerng T.

01:02

@snailboat Which is soon to be bookmarked. :-)

Anonymous

> 猫が好きだ　neko=ga suki=da　(cat.NOM like.COP-nonpast)　"[I] like cats."

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

Let's talk about Tuareg.

Anonymous

I don't know anything about Tuareg. That is about all I can say on the subject.

Catija

@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M Is that a car?

Damkerng T.

@snailboat LOL. That was my first question on JSE!

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

01:03

It's a language. That's all I can say.

Catija

Volkswagen Touareg

The Volkswagen Touareg (German pronunciation: [ˈtuːaʁɛk]) is a mid-size luxury crossover SUV produced by German automaker Volkswagen since 2002 at the Volkswagen Bratislava Plant. The vehicle was named after the Tuareg people, a Berber-speaking group in North Africa. == Development == The Touareg (internally designated Typ 7L) was a joint venture project developed by Volkswagen Group, Audi, and Porsche. The goal was to create an off-road vehicle that could handle like a sports car. The team, with over 300 people, was led by Klaus-Gerhard Wolpert, and based in Porsche main base Weissach, Germany...

Anonymous

In this Japanese example, 猫 neko 'cat' is marked with the nominative case particle が ga, but it's an object, not a subject.

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. :-)

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

Hehe it's a language used in North Africa.

Damkerng T.

@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M Oh!

Anonymous

01:04

@DamkerngT. I guess I never posted on that question!

Anonymous

A lot of linguists have written about that corner of the language, though.

Damkerng T.

@snailboat I think not. :-)

Catija

0

Q: Is 'for your health' a correct response in the context of showering?

Please is "for your health" a correct answer in the following context? Speaker A: I'll take a shower or I've just taken a shower. Speaker B: For your health. Thank you!

idioms spoken-english

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

It's a very correct response.

Catija

I want to know what language this is a correct response! How interesting.

Anonymous

01:06

Well, the basic idea is that each predicate in Japanese has its own argument structure. For most predicates, that argument structure is canonical. In other words, it's the basic type you expect: が on subjects, を on direct objects, and so on. But a few predicates take non-canonical argument structures. For example, 好きだ takes が on its subject and が on its object:

Anonymous

> 私が　猫が　好きだ　watashi=ga (subject)　neko=ga (object)　suki=da (predicator)

Damkerng T.

@Catija Hehe! @inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M must know the answer.

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

@Catija In Zulu.

Anonymous

In a main clause, the subject is typically topicalized, which means が is replaced with は:

Anonymous

> 私がは　猫が　好きだ

Anonymous

01:07

And this hides the underlying argument structure.

Anonymous

But you can see it if you look at subordinate clauses:

Anonymous

> [　私が　猫が　好きな　]　こと　the fact that I like cats
> [　　　　猫が　好きな　]　私　　I, who like cats
> [　私が　　　　好きな　]　動物　the animals that I like

Anonymous

Remember how in English, we have subject-auxiliary inversion in interrogatives?

Anonymous

But it only happens in main clauses:

Anonymous

> 1. Why does she like cats?
> 2. Do you know [ why she likes cats ]?

Anonymous

01:10

In the first example, the dummy auxiliary do is inserted so we can invert she with do to form a question.

Anonymous

In the second example, the interrogative is in a subordinate clause, so we don't do that.

Anonymous

That's because subject-auxiliary inversion is a main clause phenomenon.

Anonymous

It happens in main clauses, but not subordinate clauses.

Anonymous

Likewise, marking of topics in Japanese with は is a main clause phenomenon.

Anonymous

That's why we look at the subordinate clauses above to figure out what the underlying argument structure of the predicate is.

Anonymous

01:11

Once we do, we find that the basic argument structure is 〜が〜が好きだ

Anonymous

Even though you normally say 〜は〜が好きだ in a complete sentence.

Anonymous

This is a non-canonical case structure.

Anonymous

The first が-marked noun phrase is the subject, like usual.

Anonymous

But the second が-marked noun phrase is an object!

Anonymous

We can tell this by looking at subject and object "behavioral characteristics". For example, in Japanese, subjects can trigger something called "subject honorification". That is, if the subject is someone you respect, you can elevate their status by marking it with a change in verb form.

Anonymous

01:13

But if you take this kind of predicate, subject honorification is only triggered by the first が-phrase, not the second. The second doesn't act like a subject in this regard.

Anonymous

In fact, every test for subjecthood (jibun-reflexive binding, lack of object honorification, sloppy identity readings, etc.) point to the second が phrase as being an object.

Anonymous

Another strong hint that it's an object? Many younger speakers nowadays write 〜が〜を好きだ, even though it's not accepted by all speakers as grammatical.

Anonymous

So we have to abstract the system of case marking (が or を) away from the ideas of function (subject or object).

Damkerng T.

How did they do it? Did they do it in grammar books?

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

OMG what's going on here?

Damkerng T.

01:16

Perhaps they avoid saying the markers specify the functions.

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

Oh, Japanese going on. You may continue.

Anonymous

@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M I was giving an explanation about 私は猫が好き（だ） watashi=ga (subject)　neko=ga (object)　suki=da (predicator) '[I] like cats'

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. What do you mean?

Anonymous

In grammar books, ガ格 'ga case' is usually called 主格 shukaku 'nominative case'

Damkerng T.

It's my note on "So we have to abstract the system of case marking (が or を) away from the ideas of function (subject or object)."

Anonymous

01:17

And ヲ格 'o case' is usually called 対格 taikaku 'accusative case'

Damkerng T.

Hmm...

Anonymous

So just like in English, just like in the CGEL quote above . . .

Anonymous

We say that nominative case is the case usually used in subjects

Damkerng T.

nods

Anonymous

Accusative case is the case usually used in objects

Anonymous

01:18

But there are exceptions.

Damkerng T.

I feel a little lucky that Thai has no case. :-)

Anonymous

That's why you shouldn't understand が as a 'subject particle', as you wrote.

Anonymous

It's not always a subject.

Damkerng T.

But it'll be more difficult for me to learn a language that has a case system.

Anonymous

Japanese is traditionally understood to have nine.

Damkerng T.

01:20

Hah! Nine?

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

Computer cases?

Damkerng T.

@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M Doesn't Persian or Arabic have cases too?

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. が・の・を・に・へ・と・より・から・で

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

Cases?

I might be really needing some sleep, but what are cases?

Anonymous

You can memorize the Latinate names for all of them, but I'm not sure if that would be helpful right now. :-)

Damkerng T.

01:21

@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M Like I, me, my, mine.

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

-ive's.

Anonymous

@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M Traditionally, cases are inflected forms of nouns (declinations) that mark the function of that noun in a sentence.

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

Huh.

Anonymous

So for example, "He punched me", but "I punched him"

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

Arabic has cases.

Anonymous

01:22

The word he has a different form depending on whether it's a subject or object.

Damkerng T.

@snailboat Look like some sort of magic words in those manga. :-)

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

Persian? Let me think.

Nope.

Damkerng T.

Hah!

Anonymous

Japanese doesn't really have different noun forms for this stuff. But it's traditionally analyzed as having analytic case (basically, postpositions which mark case)

Damkerng T.

@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M I thought the two languages are close in grammar.

Anonymous

01:23

Latin has real case.

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

@DamkerngT. Not likely. They're very close in their vocab. range.

Anonymous

Japanese nouns are actually non-inflecting. 猫 neko 'cat' has only one form.

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

Which is the reason for some grammar similarities.

Anonymous

But 猫が 'neko=ga' would usually be a subject, 猫を 'neko=o' would usually be an object

Damkerng T.

From an answer to my old question:

> If you want to say "Cats like me.", you could say:
私は猫に好かれる。

Anonymous

01:26

好きだ is a highly exceptional predicate.

Damkerng T.

No が or を!

Anonymous

好き is a deverbal form―that is to say, it's derived from the verb 好く.

Anonymous

However, the verb 好く suku is basically archaic. Speakers all use 好き(だ) instead in natural speech.

Anonymous

The same goes for 嫌う kirau 'dislike' and 嫌いだ

Anonymous

There is one major exception.

Anonymous

01:27

The passive forms of 好く and 嫌う are still commonly used, which are 好かれる and 嫌われる

Anonymous

As a result, the passive 好かれる 'be liked' is in alternation with the active 好きだ (not actually a verb form at all!)

Anonymous

And the same goes for 嫌われる⇔嫌いだ

Anonymous

So, when we look at your sentence:

Anonymous

> 私は猫に好かれる。 'I am liked by cats.'

Anonymous

If we turn this into a subordinate clause by adding こと:

Anonymous

01:30

> 私が猫に好かれる（こと） '(that) I am liked by cats'

Damkerng T.

Oh, が.

Anonymous

We see a passive argument structure corresponding to 猫が私を好く

Anonymous

Where the object 私を has been promoted to subject, and the old subject has been moved to a に-phrase (like a by-phrase in an English passive)

Anonymous

And 猫が私を好く would in fact be a normal argument structure, except that active 好く is archaic and is replaced by 好きだ in normal speech, so...

Anonymous

Does that answer your question about 好かれる?

Anonymous

01:33

I realize you didn't actually ask a question―I just took it upon myself to explain it after you mentioned it :-)

Damkerng T.

I think so. (I think I will need to reread this later too. :-)

The sentence 私は猫に好かれる。 (I am liked by cats.) will sound very funny if it's translated into Thai literally.

In a way, I think Thai favors the active voice by nature.

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

@DamkerngT. Is it going to be hahahha or porn or what?

Damkerng T.

@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M Not that! :-)

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

Interesting. Not that! :-) is the Thai translation for I am liked by cats.

Damkerng T.

BTW, พร (read "porn", without the /r/) means "blessing".

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

01:38

That's more like pown.

Damkerng T.

Oh, Google Translate gives "benediction" as its translation. That works too.

@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M Sort of, but no /w/ either.

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. Passives in general are more limited in Japanese than in English.

Anonymous

Of course, even in English, they're limited by pragmatics / information structure.

Anonymous

猫に好かれる 'I am liked by cats' isn't an especially common phrase in Japanese

Anonymous

Japanese is usually said to have an animacy restriction on passives, but I don't think that really applies here . . .

Anonymous

01:44

I'm afraid I have to re-read Ishizuka's Toward a Unified Analysis of Passives in Japanese: A Cartographic Minimalist Approach (2010)

Damkerng T.

@snailboat As in the actor must be a living thing, perhaps?

Anonymous

Let's see

Anonymous

Ishizuka says

Anonymous

> 開会が議長に宣言された。　kaikai=ga　gichō=ni　sengen sareta

Anonymous

This is supposed to say "The opening of the meeting was announced by the chairman."

Anonymous

01:46

But kaikai 'opening of a meeting' is inanimate

Anonymous

So that doesn't work.

Anonymous

It works in English, though :-)

Anonymous

It looks like he's talking about the passive subject (usually the patient/theme) needing to be animate

Damkerng T.

Ah! But the opening of the meeting is the patient. So the animacy is about the patient or the subject of the sentence, not the actor?

Interesting!

Anonymous

I think that's right. Japanese broadly has a preference for animate subjects.

Anonymous

01:48

My intuition isn't very good at telling natural passives apart from unnatural passives in Japanese.

Damkerng T.

(after thinking about it a little): I think Thai has no such restriction.

Anonymous

But I think the sentence should be fine if you replace に 'by' with によって 'by means of'

Anonymous

That way the に-phrase isn't technically a passivized agent, so the agent isn't higher animacy than the subject

Anonymous

(Actually, によって should be treated as a compound particle, so it's hard to give it a gloss―it's grammaticalized)

Damkerng T.

nods

Anonymous

01:51

@DamkerngT. But Thai has a preference for active clauses in general.

Damkerng T.

@snailboat I think so, but that could depend on the context.

Anonymous

I think that in most languages 'active' is the default/unmarked form, and 'passive' is the marked form, and usually you need some justification to use the latter

Anonymous

That's one reason people dislike passives in English. They notice passives when they're used inappropriately.

Damkerng T.

> lit. Thai: "How long are you going to hit that table? That table was hit so often that it's about to break already!"

Anonymous

And that's one way passives are taught poorly to learners. They form them mechanically, but often have no awareness of when a passive is acceptable or not.

Anonymous

01:53

The Japanese passive form is used for three non-passive thingies, by the way.

Damkerng T.

@snailboat nods

Anonymous

The four main uses of （ら）れる are ① passive ② potential ③ honorific ④ spontaneous

Damkerng T.

The example sentence I posted above would sound perfectly natural (along with a little sarcastic tone, which is not very harmful for close people in Thai culture :P), but I doubt any Thai language school will teach anything like that.

Anonymous

So when looking at passives, look carefully to see if they're actually passive or something else :-)

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. Ahh

Anonymous

01:56

I was trying to think about your sentence and it reminded me that passives are used differently in different languages :-)

Damkerng T.

Oh, and the focus too!

Anonymous

Oh! I forgot whether Thai has an adversative passive

Damkerng T.

> How long are you going to hit that table? <-- the focus is on "hit"
That table was hit so often that it's about to break already! <-- the focus is on "table"

@snailboat Eh?

Oh!

Anonymous

> 私の犬に死なれた。 [ Watashi=no inu ]=ni shinareta.

Anonymous

The passive form of 'My dog died.' 私の犬が死んだ. [Watashi=no inu]=ga shinda.

Damkerng T.

01:58

So it's not surprising that my natural example would be a little adversative. :D

Anonymous

Note that this sentence has no passive form in English because die is intransitive.

Damkerng T.

@snailboat Ahh

Anonymous

In Japanese, this is a special sort of passive that can even be applied to intransitive verbs.

Anonymous

The implied subject here is 私（わたし）. It means 私 was adversely affected by the predicate.

Anonymous

Linguists often translate this something like 'My dog up and died on me.'

Damkerng T.

02:00

It's something almost untranslatable, I think.

Anonymous

It's called adversative because the emotional effect on the subject is usually negative, although I think it's also possible for it to be positive

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. There's definitely nothing like that in English

Damkerng T.

@snailboat That makes me think of another sentence pattern which is used more often for the passive voice of positive things. It sounds almost like "get + received". The word is ได้รับ. ได้ = gain/get, รับ = receive.

Anonymous

雨に降られた 'I got rained on' (lit. "was fallen by rain"??) is another example

Anonymous

Although I'm not sure how often people actually say these examples . . .

Anonymous

02:03

@DamkerngT. Can you explain a little bit more?

Damkerng T.

> (lit. Thai): He got received a promotion. Now he is our boss!

Anonymous

Can you make that into a neutral-tone passive if you want to? :-)

Damkerng T.

The passive voice hint-word for "the table was hit" is โดน, which indeed sounds adversative.

Anonymous

Oh!

Damkerng T.

But with ได้รับ, it sounds quite positive!

In English, that sentence would be: "He's been promoted. He is now our boss!"

ได้รับ is usually used with a good thing. I can't come up with anything bad. -- Oh, wait!

When it's about disease, we use ได้รับ too!

Language is so complicated! :D

It's not easy to lay out precise rules.

I think we use ได้รับ only for contagious diseases, and mostly only in the formal register (like in the news, or said by a doctor formally, etc.)

> เขาได้รับเชื้อ H5N1 จากผู้ร่วมงาน (He caught the H5N1 virus from his colleague.)

Anonymous

02:13

Language is really complicated :-)

Anonymous

I think I caught whatever I'm getting over now from my housemate.

Damkerng T.

Aww...

But basically, I think in general we use โดน with unpleasant things and ได้รับ with nice things. But be careful the exceptions!

Anonymous

02:38

ell.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/subjunctive

Anonymous

> The subjunctive is the mood used to command, a wish, a suggestion, or a condition that is contrary to fact.

Anonymous

That's not actually grammatical.

Damkerng T.

Ah, I haven't read that! :D

Anonymous

*The subjunctive is the mood used to command that is contrary to fact.　　　OR
*The subjunctive is the mood used to a wish that is contrary to fact.　　　　 OR
*The subjunctive is the mood used to a suggestion that is contrary to fact.　 OR
*The subjunctive is the mood used to a condition that is contrary to fact.

Anonymous

Well, technically you could say that the first one is nonsensical rather than ungrammatical.

Anonymous

02:40

ell.stackexchange.com/tags/subjunctive/info

Damkerng T.

How about:

> The subjunctive is the mood used to express a command, a wish, a suggestion, or a condition that is contrary to fact.

Anonymous

> The subjunctive is the mood used to command, a wish, a suggestion, or a condition that is contrary to fact.
> > The board recommended that the motion be passed immediately.
> > If I were rich, I would live on Long Island.
> Contrary to Old English, in modern English the subjunctive is distinguable from the indicative just for be, and the third singular person.
> In modern English, the subjunctive mood still exists but is regarded in many contexts as optional. Use of the subjunctive tends to convey a more formal tone, but there are few people who would regard its absence as actually …

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. Sure! Now it's grammatical.

Anonymous

That's a definite improvement, because now we can look at it and say "This is wrong" rather than "This is hard to understand"

Damkerng T.

:-)

Anonymous

02:42

I've barely contributed to ELL's tag wikis myself, and my own contributions aren't very good.

Anonymous

So I don't mean to be too harsh on our (currently unnamed) ELL tag wiki contributor.

Anonymous

Although I should note that distinguable is not an established word

Damkerng T.

A typo!

Anonymous

No, it's L1-L2 interference

Damkerng T.

Oh!

Anonymous

02:43

In Italian, it's distinguibile

Anonymous

Which looks like it should be distinguable in English.

Damkerng T.

Ahh

Anonymous

French has something similar.

Anonymous

I think a tag wiki on 'subjunctive' would have to be quite complicated.

Damkerng T.

Hmm... I wonder if Wikipedia does any better. (I hope it does!)

Anonymous

02:44

No.

Anonymous

Wikipedia is usually a bad resource for grammar.

Anonymous

It's okay for learning about what subjunctive traditionally meant when applied to English, though.

Anonymous

Unfortunately, I think the traditional system is rather confusing when applied to a language which no longer has moods.

Damkerng T.

> The English subjunctive is used to form sentences that do not describe known objective facts. These include statements about one's state of mind, such as opinion, belief, purpose, intention, or desire.

> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_subjunctive

Hmm...

Anonymous

English has zero subjunctive forms.

Anonymous

02:48

It's true that be is irregular in the distribution of was and were, though were isn't actually an additional form.

Anonymous

And it's true that be is irregular in having a plain form distinct from the plain present, but the same form is used for imperative, infinitival, and subjunctive constructions.

Damkerng T.

Our recent answer explains English subjunctive comparatively with German and Latin.

Anonymous

There are no forms that are specific to the subjunctive.

Anonymous

Sure, and that made sense hundreds of years ago.

Anonymous

We do have constructions which CGEL calls subjunctive.

Anonymous

02:49

But they don't constitute a mood.

Damkerng T.

2

A: Why is it "If I were you" and not "If I was you"?

In Latin one had a systematic logic to arrange the conjugation of a verb. See here the conjugation of "esse" (to be). This system got totally lost in English. Compare this English conjugation table of "to be" here. For me such a conjugation table is a total chaos, to say the least. And I don't ...

Anonymous

→ en.wiktionary.org/wiki/amo#Conjugation

Anonymous

Take a look at this chart.

Damkerng T.

@snailboat I think it's unclear what subjective is in the answer.

Anonymous

Note how Latin has lots of inflectional forms that are used to indicate modal meaning.

Damkerng T.

02:51

The chart closes itself!

Under "Conjugation", I think?

Anonymous

Um, click the header to open it again :-)

Anonymous

Yes.

Anonymous

I have JS off, so it stayed open for me :-)

Anonymous

See how there are three big categories of forms, indicative, subjunctive, and imperative?

Damkerng T.

nods

Anonymous

02:52

The subjunctive and imperative forms are a large system of inflectional forms that indicate modal meaning.

Anonymous

English has zero verb forms that are specific to the subjunctive or imperative.

Anonymous

Latin has, well, tons. :-)

Anonymous

You can see that Latin has a real mood system.

Anonymous

Old English had a real mood system, too.

Anonymous

But we lost it over the last thousand years.

Damkerng T.

02:53

@snailboat I think it's more than 36!

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. When you said someone compared it to Latin and German, I had a strong feeling it was rogermue before you linked to the answer :-)

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. And that's per verb.

Damkerng T.

@snailboat And you were right! :-)

I think he avoided saying outright what English subjunctive is. :D

Anonymous

Well, what we used to call the subjunctive is no more. It's a dead parrot.

Anonymous

But CGEL does call certain clauses 'subjunctive'.

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

02:56

Whee! I didn't sleep this whole night.

Anonymous

These clauses are actually rather limited in distribution in Present-Day English.

Anonymous

But they do exist.

Anonymous

They correspond to where we used to find the 'present subjunctive' form.

Damkerng T.

@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M Ugh!

Anonymous

Were on its own is the only possible justification for a 'past subjunctive', but the construction with were is entirely unrelated to the construction with be

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

02:57

It's not a night anymore,

Anonymous

So it doesn't make sense to call it the past form of the other thingy.

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

and I have to go to my morning classes in like, 10 minutes.

Anonymous

@inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M Just remember, sleep is a large part of how you learn.

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

Agreed.

Damkerng T.

What does CGEL call "be" and "were" in subjunctive sentences?

Anonymous

02:58

Well, were is not subjunctive.

Damkerng T.

Oh! Hmm...

Irrealis?

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

Indicative?

Anonymous

English has no moods.

Anonymous

So there's no need to use the word indicative in a description of English.

inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M

It's not temperamental. I get it.

Transcript for