Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 00:15:04 +0000 (UTC) From: naddy@mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber) To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Laugh: [Fwd: Microsoft Security Bulletin MS01-008] Message-ID: <962168$1abq$1@kemoauc.mips.inka.de> References: <xzpzofxffa2.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <4.3.2.7.2.20010208193726.04763b10@localhost> <20010209143121.J16260@wantadilla.lemis.com> <20010209153743.D18596@cs.mcgill.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mathew KANNER <mat@cs.mcgill.ca> wrote:
[French]
> > "on" is masculine.
>
> Really? I have a vague memory of being taught that it was
> used when the speaker is referring to a group of people, which he is a
> member of -- no inference on the makeup of the group nor speaker can
> be made, Much like "we" in English.
Semantically, "on" can be either:
- An impersonal third person, like German "man". In English the
same is expressed variously with one/you/they or passive voice.
- First person plural in colloquial language.
Grammatically, "on" is always third person singular as you can see
from the verb agreement. The gender can be deduced from the
participle in compound tenses: "on est allé" => masculine.
Of course French has grammatical gender, which makes all this
somewhat irrelevant to the discussion at hand as Modern English
doesn't. The English pronoun coreference (he/she/it, they--which/who)
is based on the semantics of the word. The resulting system is quite
complicated. A simplified overview from Quirk/Greenbaum/Leech/Svartvik,
_A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language_:
PRONOUN
GENDER CLASS EXAMPLE COREFERENCE
.- (a) male brother who - he
|- (b) female sister who - she
.- personal ----+- (c) dual doctor who - he/she
| .- |- (d) common baby who - he/she/it
animate --| | | which - it
| |- `- (e) collective family which - it
| | who - they
`- non- --+---- (f) higher which - he/it
personal | male bull (who) - he
| animal
|---- (g) higher which - she/it
| female cow (who) - she
| animal
`---- (h) lower ant which - it
animal (he/she)
inanimate ------------------ (i) inanimate box which - it
> Can anyone suggest a good "English grammar for programmers" type book?
In practice, you don't learn grammar from reading a book about it.
You learn it by unconsciously mimicking other people's speech or
writing.
English grammar is fiendishly complex. The abovementioned book is
the standard reference. Weighing in at 1780 pages, it is indeed
quite comprehensive but certainly not complete.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?962168$1abq$1>