After Hours

General discussion


The other day

By santeewelding ·
Tags: Off Topic
I had occasion to use the word, "all", in a sentence. The prompt, of course, was singular third-person, "is", as in, "all is". Trouble being, "all" can't be, "is". It might with argument be, "are", explicitly or implicitly, the latter of which I chose in the sentence in order to get the job done.

"All" can't be "is" because "all" can't be tidied up into singular with boundary.

Do you ken?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Ken and keth

by AnsuGisalas In reply to The other day

Sort of like "We am", you mean?
On the other hand, if we apply "all" without boundaries, how can we claim that word to be in the plural (are)? If there be an all unbounded, that all - being unbounded - can't be but singular.
Which of course means that there can't be an "all" unbounded.

Collapse -

I was on my way to bed

by santeewelding In reply to Ken and keth

Having flung this one out into the ether without expectation of immediate reply.

I'll sleep on it.

Collapse -

I will add

by santeewelding In reply to Ken and keth

That it can't unless you back up and screw with, "is" -- which is sure to upset.

Collapse -

I never understood the purpose in conjugation.

by CharlieSpencer In reply to Ken and keth

Why use different forms of the same verb dependent on who does the action? It's the same action either way.

I be, you be, he / she / it be, we be, they be.

It sounds ignorant only because we've been taught differently. But what purpose does subject / verb agreement fulfill? What advantages does the accepted construction have over the simpler one?

Does anyone know if Esperanto has conjugation? Creating a language from scratch seems like a fine way to eliminate this outmoded construction.

Collapse -

Danish doesn't have verb number agreement

by AnsuGisalas In reply to I never understood the pu ...

jeg er (*I are)
du er (*thou are)
han er (*he are)
vi er (we are)
I er (you are)
de er (they are)

The purpose of agreement is to allow more flexibility in word order. English has a pretty locked down word order, so could do without the agreement.

It also provides a form of multiple redundancy (seeing as how a sentence can often be understood even if only half-heard).

My training commands that I say that all languages are equally sound, only different. But you can judge for yourself

Collapse -

Vaguely on topic, but

by CharlieSpencer In reply to The other day

I occasionally wonder how different English speaking cultures (well, English writing ones) would be if, instead of capitalizing the first-person singular 'I', we left it lower case and instead capitalized the second person singular / plural, 'You'.

"What can i do for You?"

Maybe it would relieve some of our self-emphasis.

Collapse -

Ask not

by AnsuGisalas In reply to Vaguely on topic, but

"What can You do for i?"
ask, "What can i do for You?"

Collapse -

This prompts me to wonder

by seanferd In reply to Vaguely on topic, but

what it would be like if English still used Thou in addition to You.

Collapse -


by pfeiffep In reply to The other day

fair in love and war??

Collapse -

Y'all are great!

by AnsuGisalas In reply to All's

I luv y'all very very much!

Related Discussions

Related Forums