Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Antonio Marques Newsgroups: sci.lang,alt.usage.english Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re:=20To=20waffle,=20=E2=80=98to=20waver,?= =?UTF-8?Q?=20to=20vacillate,=20to=20equivocate,=20to=20dither=E2=80=99?= Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 15:49:32 -0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 83 Message-ID: References: <874jbqlz6d.fsf@parhasard.net> <889c5dbf100f389994b0045c982b3eb2@www.novabbs.com> <87msp8kbr3.fsf@parhasard.net> <878qyubqar.fsf@parhasard.net> <9fea766cbbc374662852afbbd2fe511b@www.novabbs.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 17:49:33 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e1d89c202324538a66be09985e17a47b"; logging-data="1066172"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1888O4DzVO+iomXJBJPDKSxqNOqhPwYcURRINoFBROrvQ==" User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPhone/iPod Touch) Cancel-Lock: sha1:ViqjLKag2wuIhKTI1+8P/iordsU= sha1:Co4UDgsONyWL3xuhJfpnTJC/S1s= Bytes: 4344 jerryfriedman wrote: > Aidan Kehoe wrote: > > >> Ar an ceathrú lá de mí Bealtaine, scríobh jerryfriedman: > >>> Aidan Kehoe wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Ar an chéad lá de mí Bealtaine, scríobh Antonio Marques: >>> >>>>>>>>> Never mind that in the bit that Steve quoted to flippantly >> inquire >>>>>>>>> on what 'that' meant, it was quite explicitly said >> 'dither'. >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> The "it" there isn't idiomatic >>> >>>>>>> The sentence sounded wrong to me, but even now I'm not sure >> why. As >>>>>>> to 'it', maybe it's not idiomatic, but is it ungrammatical? >> I >> don't >>>>>>> quite see it. >>>>>>>> "It" refers to "dither", >>>>>> No, it's an impersonal passive, and I've just found out that >> for the >>>>>> last 30/40 years I may have been using a construct that >> english >>>>>> doesn't have. >>> >>>> English does have an impersonal passive, and and what you wrote is >>>> grammatical, but again, not idiomatic. No one would have noticed >> or >>>> commented except that the sentence was posted to >> alt.usage.english. >>> >>> I disagree wth both sentences. What's an example of an impersonal >> passive in >>> English that anyone would say? And if Antonio tries posting >> sentences >> like >>> that on the Internet as, say, Anthony Marks, I'll bet it wouldn't be >> long >>> till someone asked him what his native language is. > >> https://books.google.com/books?q="it+was+said" > >> Now, a lot of those results are from court reports and so don’t qualify >> as >> “anyone would say,” but that register of English is still English. > > I think "It was said that" isn't what Antonio meant by "impersonal > passive". In "It was said that", the "It" refers to the thing that was > said, I don't think it does, just like my 'it' doesn't either: It was said (that ...) It was said (quote) It is often said (that ...) It is often said a picture is worth a thousand words In all cases, 'it' doesn't refer to anything. It's there because the syntax requires a subject. The thing you think it refers to is the object, not the subject. > but Antonio said his "It" did not refer to "dither". > > I don't object to calling "It was said that..." an impersonal passive, > though, and I may have misunderstood Antonio. > >> Is the British Council wrong? > >> https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/grammar/c1-grammar/advanced-passives-review#:~:text=The%20impersonal%20passive%20has%20two,from%20the%20third%20century%20BCE. > > They're right, because they rule out Antonio's sentence; they say > what follows the past participle must be either a "that" clause or > an infinitive (with "to"). No, they go to the trouble of parenthesising 'that'.