# Grammar question



## Guest (Oct 12, 2020)

Today the spouse and myself were talking, over our morning cup of tea, about grammar in relation to a comment raised in a Letter to the Editor. The letter was about the word "concerning". I always like to identify the part of speech in sentences (sad, I know) and I wondered about this sentence:

"I am writing to you *concerning* the new submarine contract".

Can anybody identify the part of speech for "concerning"? Is it a verb? Or an adverb?


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Neither. It is, in this context, a preposition like "about" (which could replace it).


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

it is preposition, you could replace it with "because of"


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

I would say it's a present participle (formed by the infinitiv 'concern' + 'ing') that has taken over the function of the left out accusative of 'a letter'. So the complete sentence "I am writing to you a letter concerning..." has been shortened to "I am writing to you [..] concerning..."


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Christabel said:


> Today the spouse and myself were talking, over our morning cup of tea, about grammar in relation to a comment raised in a Letter to the Editor. The letter was about the word "concerning". I always like to identify the part of speech in sentences (sad, I know) and I wondered about this sentence:
> 
> "I am writing to you *concerning* the new submarine contract".
> 
> Can anybody identify the part of speech for "concerning"? Is it a verb? Or an adverb?


This might sound rude, 'sorry in advance, but "the spouse and myself were talking" is not correct grammar. When you parse it you realize it should be "the spouse and I".


----------



## Guest (Oct 13, 2020)

Luchesi said:


> This might sound rude, 'sorry in advance, but "the spouse and myself were talking" is not correct grammar. When you parse it you realize it should be "the spouse and I".


Actually I was taught that it should be "the spouse and me" because *you ask the question "who"*? in the second instance. *Who*? 'Me' and not *Who*? 'I'.


----------



## Guest (Oct 13, 2020)

TxllxT said:


> I would say it's a present participle (formed by the infinitiv 'concern' + 'ing') that has taken over the function of the left out accusative of 'a letter'. So the complete sentence "I am writing to you a letter concerning..." has been shortened to "I am writing to you [..] concerning..."


That makes some sense because I've never heard of "concerning" as a preposition per se. It might FUNCTION like one but I'm not sure it actually IS a preposition. So, you're saying a present participle of the continuous verb "writing"? (This sort of thing interests me, tragic though that might sound.)


----------



## Tristan (Jan 5, 2013)

It is a preposition. Its origin is verbal, but it is a verbal form that has become prepositional. "Regarding" is similar and could be used in this sentence. Same goes for the phrase "with respect to".



Christabel said:


> (This sort of thing interests me, tragic though that might sound.)


I have a degree in linguistics, so it goes without saying that this sort of thing interests me.


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

Christabel said:


> That makes some sense because I've never heard of "concerning" as a preposition per se. It might FUNCTION like one but I'm not sure it actually IS a preposition. So, you're saying a present participle of the continuous verb "writing"? (This sort of thing interests me, tragic though that might sound.)


To me the English language exhibits a predilection for shortcuts. That explains the incomplete main sentence: what can possibly be omitted is simply left out. The predilection for "...ing" forms is possibly the result of a lasting influence of the King James translation on American and the Queen's English, because Biblical Hebrew loves the same ploy with continuous verbs & incomplete sentences.


----------



## Guest (Oct 13, 2020)

TxllxT said:


> To me the English language exhibits a predilection for shortcuts. That explains the incomplete main sentence: what can possibly be omitted is simply left out. The predilection for "...ing" forms is possibly the result of a lasting influence of the King James translation on American and the Queen's English, because Biblical Hebrew loves the same ploy with continuous verbs & incomplete sentences.


Yes, you often see sentences with a conjunction - 'but' - understood but not stated, inter alia. Spoken forms might be quite different and the reason for this remains enigmatic to me.


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

It's a preposition. Simples. That's its function, that's what it is.


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

Christabel said:


> Actually I was taught that it should be "the spouse and me" because *you ask the question "who"*? in the second instance. *Who*? 'Me' and not *Who*? 'I'.


I've never heard of this and am not sure what you mean. "Myself" cannot be used as a subject. Neither can "me" be a subject. If you take "the spouse" out and modify the sentence to fit one subject, it would read, "Today me was talking ..." or "Today myself was talking ..." Neither one of those makes sense grammatically.


----------



## Guest (Oct 13, 2020)

adriesba said:


> I've never heard of this and am not sure what you mean. "Myself" cannot be used as a subject. Neither can "me" be a subject. If you take "the spouse" out and modify the sentence to fit one subject, it would read, "Today me was talking ..." or "Today myself was talking ..." Neither one of those makes sense grammatically.


Today "spouse and me were talking" OR "I was talking with spouse". I learned grammar in the 1960s and we were taught to ask the question "who" when deciding on the pronoun (always placed second!) in a sentence such as the one I gave, when there is a THIRD person. In short, you always put the other person first, then yourself and then it's *ME* and not I - *myself* is a form of first person pronoun and can substitute for "me".

1st person: I, me
2nd person: You, him etc.
3rd person: They them Bob

But used alongside a third person pronoun you would write "Me" and not "I". In short, the movie title "Withnail and I" isn't grammatically correct from what I was taught all those decades ago.

In any case, usage prevails and usage in many respects is several degrees of separation apart from what I was taught. An erstwhile Professor of English who taught my daughter some decades later was talking to me about this issue of usage and he wistfully said "yes, but how I wish it wasn't a bottom-up formula"!!


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

Christabel said:


> In short, you always put the other person first, then yourself ....


Yes, but whether it's 'me' or 'I' depends...

I went to the shops.
David and I went to the shops.
(not 'David and me went to the shops')

The bird-droppings fell on me
The bird droppings fell on Claude and me
(not 'the bird droppings fell on Claude and I')

"Withnail and I" doesn't have enough context to make a call.
Did you go to the shops, or did the bird droppings fall on you?


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

Christabel said:


> Today "spouse and me were talking" OR "I was talking with spouse". I learned grammar in the 1960s and we were taught to ask the question "who" when deciding on the pronoun (always placed second!) in a sentence such as the one I gave, when there is a THIRD person. In short, you always put the other person first, then yourself and then it's *ME* and not I - *myself* is a form of first person pronoun and can substitute for "me".
> 
> 1st person: I, me
> 2nd person: You, him etc.
> ...


Sorry, I have been trying to follow this, but now I'm confused. Who is Bob?


----------



## Guest (Oct 14, 2020)

Pat Fairlea said:


> Sorry, I have been trying to follow this, but now I'm confused. Who is Bob?


Bob is an *EXAMPLE* of a 3rd person pronoun in English grammar.


----------



## Guest (Oct 14, 2020)

GraemeG said:


> Yes, but whether it's 'me' or 'I' depends...
> 
> I went to the shops.
> David and I went to the shops.
> ...


Point taken about context; this is quite right. Thanks for the clarification. I was really responding to the comment made that _my original posting_ was grammatically incorrect.

Ten years ago I was attempting to learn German as we were about to live in Vienna for all of 2011; I found many similarities between German and English in terms of grammar though I never really got a grip on the language, one of the major reasons being that the Austrians where we lived mostly spoke Wienerische rather than Hochdeutsch.

German is a wonderful language, I have to say. I enjoyed the rigour of Hochdeutsch. Many hours were spent trying to master all the pronouns - nominative, accusative, dative. These were written up on coloured cardboard in my house and each time I passed by I would say "Ich..mein..mir...mich" etc. etc.


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

Pat Fairlea said:


> Sorry, I have been trying to follow this, but now I'm confused. Who is Bob?


In Holland Bob stands for the the consciously abstinent driver, who will bring the drunken I, me, You, him etc. & They them home from the boozing visit to a bar. By the way: You is 2nd person, him is 3rd person.


----------



## Guest (Oct 14, 2020)

TxllxT said:


> In Holland Bob stands for the the consciously abstinent driver, who will bring the drunken I, me, You, him etc. & They them home from the boozing visit to a bar. By the way: You is 2nd person, him is 3rd person.


Of course 'him' is third person!! Seniors' moment!!


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

Well, "Today the spouse and myself were talking" was definitely wrong in the original post!
It should have been "Today the spouse and I were talking", rather like going to the shops with David.
cheers


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

GraemeG said:


> Well, "Today the spouse and myself were talking" was definitely wrong in the original post!
> It should have been "Today the spouse and I were talking", rather like going to the shops with David.
> cheers


Yes. And I think _Withnail and I_ does have enough context and it's grammatically dubious. The movie is the story of (or of the relationship between or the history of) Withnail and me.


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

I like this thread. Like an idiot, I never listened during 8th grade English where we learned the grammatical breakdown of sentences. A regret I still bear. I have learned quite a lot and am thankful to have had a mother and grandmother who constantly corrected our grammar growing up. So because of that, even though I can't break down a sentence properly to every detail, at least I talk good. 

V


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Varick said:


> I like this thread. Like an idiot, I never listened during 8th grade English where we learned the grammatical breakdown of sentences. A regret I still bear. I have learned quite a lot and am thankful to have had a mother and grandmother who constantly corrected our grammar growing up. So because of that, even though I can't break down a sentence properly to every detail, at least I talk good.
> 
> V


Every sentence can be diagrammed into something logical. And that's what's held my interest in grammar. But I realize that languages are always changing, and a large part of their progress is due to misheard phrases. So that something grating and wrong to the person of one generation becomes the new in vogue result du jour. 'Even foreign phrases.

'Way back, in my lifetime, there was less to learn (computer procedures, social correctness, relevant recent history, whole worlds of astronomy and biology and physics) so there was more time for grammar.


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

Varick said:


> at least I talk good.


Talk _well_.   ..............................


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

adriesba said:


> Talk _well_.   ..............................


hence the wink at the end of my sentence. And actally, it should be "Speak well." Lol

V


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

Varick said:


> hence the wink at the end of my sentence. And actally, it should be "Speak well." Lol
> 
> V


I see...  I think you could say "talk well", though "speak well" sounds better.


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

With "speak well" I'm missing a subject. "Speak well of ...., say, Beethoven". When "speak well" is about the art of pronunciation, I would rather choose "pronounce well", or "articulate well", or "enunciate well".


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Preposition. Nuff said.


----------



## Guest (Oct 21, 2020)

EdwardBast said:


> Yes. And I think _Withnail and I_ does have enough context and it's grammatically dubious. The movie is the story of (or of the relationship between or the history of) Withnail and me.


The reason that the "I" is used (incorrectly) in the title is because of the amusing histrionics of the central characters. It's an absolutely HILARIOUS film.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

"Incorrect" grammar can be a powerful sound for expressive purposes. There are so many examples in southern dialects here and Black English. 'Very expressive.


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

Here are some random opinions that seem to fit the thread at least to an extent.

In my opinion, the word "so" should be respected as a coordinating conjunction. Many people use it that way, and such use makes words flow much better. I suppose you could write a sentence, end it with a period, and start the next sentence with "so", but that just interrupts the flow. Example:


The apple tasted rotten, so I spat it out.

vs

The apple tasted rotten. So I spat it out.


The second example has it's flow interrupted by the period and thus seems choppy, but the first example just rolls right out.


I also think people should be less picky about using the word "like". Often it is used before creating dialogue to convey another person's feelings or to convey something else without needing to recite actual words that were said. Example:


We saw the trailer and were like, "Nope, not watching that movie!"


Did "we" actually say out loud, "Nope, not watching that movie!"? Probably not, but the overall mood was communicated very effectively. Overusing the word "like" can sound irritating, but so can any word or phrase when used in excess.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

Probably not very helpful to the thread topic, but I can't resist sharing the classic grammar joke, another example of the sheer weirdness of the English language:

"Let's eat Dad!"

"Let's eat, Dad!"

Using a comma can save Dad's life.


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Probably not very helpful to the thread topic, but I can't resist sharing the classic grammar joke, another example of the sheer weirdness of the English language:
> 
> "Let's eat Dad!"
> 
> ...


A little joke I heard in school, something like this -

What's the difference between ten dollars and one thousand dollars? - A decimal point!

_____________________________

I need sleep. :lol:


----------

