Is there a name other than “absolute” for this kind of construction?
In some languages there are absolute constructions like the Genitive Absolute in Greek:
- Καὶ ἤδη ὥρας πολλῆς γενομένης προσελθόντες αὐτῷ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἔλεγον ὅτι ἔρημός ἐστιν ὁ τόπος καὶ ἤδη ὥρα πολλή·
Where the genitive phrase (in bold) is grammatically independent from the rest of the sentence and is translated as a dependent clause ("When it had already become late...").
In English as well there are absolute constructions like, "All things being equal," and so on.
Is there a name for a construction that is actually a part of the main clause but is nevertheless seemingly unaffected by the grammatical rules?
I am thinking of instances of compound subjects and objects that do not get inflected (in some speakers' speech) for case, such as:
- My dad got tickets to the premiere of the new Star Wars tickets for he and I! Early birthday gift!!
- Please stop asking what happened out of respect for she and I. Just know it’s over.
- Ask not for whom it tolls. It tolls for he and she.
- Nothing’s gonna change not for we and you.
In all of these cases (all of which were recorded from statements made online) it looks like the compound objects are unaffected by the prepositions that proceed them.
However, it seems unlikely that the speakers of these sentences would say, "My dad got tickets to the premiere for he" or "Please stop asking out of respect for I" or "Nothing's gonna change for we."
It looks like it's a function of being in the compound object that renders the constituent parts impervious to the requirements of the sentence structure. In this way, it's like an absolute but is still nevertheless part of the main clause.
Is there a term for such a thing?
grammatical-case absolute
asked 1 hour ago
Mark SchaeferMark Schaefer
213
add a comment |
In some languages there are absolute constructions like the Genitive Absolute in Greek:
- Καὶ ἤδη ὥρας πολλῆς γενομένης προσελθόντες αὐτῷ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἔλεγον ὅτι ἔρημός ἐστιν ὁ τόπος καὶ ἤδη ὥρα πολλή·
Where the genitive phrase (in bold) is grammatically independent from the rest of the sentence and is translated as a dependent clause ("When it had already become late...").
In English as well there are absolute constructions like, "All things being equal," and so on.
Is there a name for a construction that is actually a part of the main clause but is nevertheless seemingly unaffected by the grammatical rules?
I am thinking of instances of compound subjects and objects that do not get inflected (in some speakers' speech) for case, such as:
- My dad got tickets to the premiere of the new Star Wars tickets for he and I! Early birthday gift!!
- Please stop asking what happened out of respect for she and I. Just know it’s over.
- Ask not for whom it tolls. It tolls for he and she.
- Nothing’s gonna change not for we and you.
In all of these cases (all of which were recorded from statements made online) it looks like the compound objects are unaffected by the prepositions that proceed them.
However, it seems unlikely that the speakers of these sentences would say, "My dad got tickets to the premiere for he" or "Please stop asking out of respect for I" or "Nothing's gonna change for we."
It looks like it's a function of being in the compound object that renders the constituent parts impervious to the requirements of the sentence structure. In this way, it's like an absolute but is still nevertheless part of the main clause.
Is there a term for such a thing?
grammatical-case absolute
asked 1 hour ago
Mark SchaeferMark Schaefer
213
This doesn’t seem related to absolute constructions to me. It’s simply that, to people who say and write it this way, conjunct pronouns act as complex noun phrases rather than pronouns. Since phrases do not inflect for case in English, it makes sense that the unmarked form is used. You’ll even occasionally hear someone treat an infinitival clause (with subject!) as a phrase and forego case marking, as in Bob Marley’s “is it feasible, I wanna know now, for I to knock some more?”. I’m not aware of a term for it, but there’s nothing absolute about it as far as I can see.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
41 mins ago
(As an aside, though I think this is a good question which is entirely on topic here, I think it would be at least an equally good fit, if not a better fit, on Linguistics.)
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
38 mins ago
Janus Bahs Jacquet, thank you for your response. I agree that it's not absolute, but does seem somewhat impervious. And thanks for the suggestion about Linguistics—I'll share it there as well.
– Mark Schaefer
33 mins ago
add a comment |
In some languages there are absolute constructions like the Genitive Absolute in Greek:
- Καὶ ἤδη ὥρας πολλῆς γενομένης προσελθόντες αὐτῷ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἔλεγον ὅτι ἔρημός ἐστιν ὁ τόπος καὶ ἤδη ὥρα πολλή·
Where the genitive phrase (in bold) is grammatically independent from the rest of the sentence and is translated as a dependent clause ("When it had already become late...").
In English as well there are absolute constructions like, "All things being equal," and so on.
Is there a name for a construction that is actually a part of the main clause but is nevertheless seemingly unaffected by the grammatical rules?
I am thinking of instances of compound subjects and objects that do not get inflected (in some speakers' speech) for case, such as:
- My dad got tickets to the premiere of the new Star Wars tickets for he and I! Early birthday gift!!
- Please stop asking what happened out of respect for she and I. Just know it’s over.
- Ask not for whom it tolls. It tolls for he and she.
- Nothing’s gonna change not for we and you.
In all of these cases (all of which were recorded from statements made online) it looks like the compound objects are unaffected by the prepositions that proceed them.
However, it seems unlikely that the speakers of these sentences would say, "My dad got tickets to the premiere for he" or "Please stop asking out of respect for I" or "Nothing's gonna change for we."
It looks like it's a function of being in the compound object that renders the constituent parts impervious to the requirements of the sentence structure. In this way, it's like an absolute but is still nevertheless part of the main clause.
Is there a term for such a thing?
grammatical-case absolute
asked 1 hour ago
Mark SchaeferMark Schaefer
213
In some languages there are absolute constructions like the Genitive Absolute in Greek:
- Καὶ ἤδη ὥρας πολλῆς γενομένης προσελθόντες αὐτῷ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἔλεγον ὅτι ἔρημός ἐστιν ὁ τόπος καὶ ἤδη ὥρα πολλή·
Where the genitive phrase (in bold) is grammatically independent from the rest of the sentence and is translated as a dependent clause ("When it had already become late...").
In English as well there are absolute constructions like, "All things being equal," and so on.
Is there a name for a construction that is actually a part of the main clause but is nevertheless seemingly unaffected by the grammatical rules?
I am thinking of instances of compound subjects and objects that do not get inflected (in some speakers' speech) for case, such as:
- My dad got tickets to the premiere of the new Star Wars tickets for he and I! Early birthday gift!!
- Please stop asking what happened out of respect for she and I. Just know it’s over.
- Ask not for whom it tolls. It tolls for he and she.
- Nothing’s gonna change not for we and you.
In all of these cases (all of which were recorded from statements made online) it looks like the compound objects are unaffected by the prepositions that proceed them.
However, it seems unlikely that the speakers of these sentences would say, "My dad got tickets to the premiere for he" or "Please stop asking out of respect for I" or "Nothing's gonna change for we."
It looks like it's a function of being in the compound object that renders the constituent parts impervious to the requirements of the sentence structure. In this way, it's like an absolute but is still nevertheless part of the main clause.
Is there a term for such a thing?
grammatical-case absolute
grammatical-case absolute
asked 1 hour ago
Mark SchaeferMark Schaefer
213
asked 1 hour ago
Mark SchaeferMark Schaefer
213
asked 1 hour ago
Mark SchaeferMark Schaefer
213
asked 1 hour ago
Mark SchaeferMark Schaefer
213
asked 1 hour ago
Mark SchaeferMark Schaefer
213
213
This doesn’t seem related to absolute constructions to me. It’s simply that, to people who say and write it this way, conjunct pronouns act as complex noun phrases rather than pronouns. Since phrases do not inflect for case in English, it makes sense that the unmarked form is used. You’ll even occasionally hear someone treat an infinitival clause (with subject!) as a phrase and forego case marking, as in Bob Marley’s “is it feasible, I wanna know now, for I to knock some more?”. I’m not aware of a term for it, but there’s nothing absolute about it as far as I can see.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
41 mins ago
(As an aside, though I think this is a good question which is entirely on topic here, I think it would be at least an equally good fit, if not a better fit, on Linguistics.)
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
38 mins ago
Janus Bahs Jacquet, thank you for your response. I agree that it's not absolute, but does seem somewhat impervious. And thanks for the suggestion about Linguistics—I'll share it there as well.
– Mark Schaefer
33 mins ago
add a comment |
This doesn’t seem related to absolute constructions to me. It’s simply that, to people who say and write it this way, conjunct pronouns act as complex noun phrases rather than pronouns. Since phrases do not inflect for case in English, it makes sense that the unmarked form is used. You’ll even occasionally hear someone treat an infinitival clause (with subject!) as a phrase and forego case marking, as in Bob Marley’s “is it feasible, I wanna know now, for I to knock some more?”. I’m not aware of a term for it, but there’s nothing absolute about it as far as I can see.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
41 mins ago
(As an aside, though I think this is a good question which is entirely on topic here, I think it would be at least an equally good fit, if not a better fit, on Linguistics.)
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
38 mins ago
Janus Bahs Jacquet, thank you for your response. I agree that it's not absolute, but does seem somewhat impervious. And thanks for the suggestion about Linguistics—I'll share it there as well.
– Mark Schaefer
33 mins ago
This doesn’t seem related to absolute constructions to me. It’s simply that, to people who say and write it this way, conjunct pronouns act as complex noun phrases rather than pronouns. Since phrases do not inflect for case in English, it makes sense that the unmarked form is used. You’ll even occasionally hear someone treat an infinitival clause (with subject!) as a phrase and forego case marking, as in Bob Marley’s “is it feasible, I wanna know now, for I to knock some more?”. I’m not aware of a term for it, but there’s nothing absolute about it as far as I can see.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
41 mins ago
This doesn’t seem related to absolute constructions to me. It’s simply that, to people who say and write it this way, conjunct pronouns act as complex noun phrases rather than pronouns. Since phrases do not inflect for case in English, it makes sense that the unmarked form is used. You’ll even occasionally hear someone treat an infinitival clause (with subject!) as a phrase and forego case marking, as in Bob Marley’s “is it feasible, I wanna know now, for I to knock some more?”. I’m not aware of a term for it, but there’s nothing absolute about it as far as I can see.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
41 mins ago
(As an aside, though I think this is a good question which is entirely on topic here, I think it would be at least an equally good fit, if not a better fit, on Linguistics.)
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
38 mins ago
(As an aside, though I think this is a good question which is entirely on topic here, I think it would be at least an equally good fit, if not a better fit, on Linguistics.)
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
38 mins ago
Janus Bahs Jacquet, thank you for your response. I agree that it's not absolute, but does seem somewhat impervious. And thanks for the suggestion about Linguistics—I'll share it there as well.
– Mark Schaefer
33 mins ago
Janus Bahs Jacquet, thank you for your response. I agree that it's not absolute, but does seem somewhat impervious. And thanks for the suggestion about Linguistics—I'll share it there as well.
– Mark Schaefer
33 mins ago
add a comment |
0
active
oldest
votes
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f485876%2fis-there-a-name-other-than-absolute-for-this-kind-of-construction%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
0
active
oldest
votes
0
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f485876%2fis-there-a-name-other-than-absolute-for-this-kind-of-construction%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
This doesn’t seem related to absolute constructions to me. It’s simply that, to people who say and write it this way, conjunct pronouns act as complex noun phrases rather than pronouns. Since phrases do not inflect for case in English, it makes sense that the unmarked form is used. You’ll even occasionally hear someone treat an infinitival clause (with subject!) as a phrase and forego case marking, as in Bob Marley’s “is it feasible, I wanna know now, for I to knock some more?”. I’m not aware of a term for it, but there’s nothing absolute about it as far as I can see.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
41 mins ago
(As an aside, though I think this is a good question which is entirely on topic here, I think it would be at least an equally good fit, if not a better fit, on Linguistics.)
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
38 mins ago
Janus Bahs Jacquet, thank you for your response. I agree that it's not absolute, but does seem somewhat impervious. And thanks for the suggestion about Linguistics—I'll share it there as well.
– Mark Schaefer
33 mins ago