Re: i am sleeping / i am asleep

"J. W. Love" <Lovejw@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1142249951.394549.322930@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Alexei wrote:
"Mark Brader" <msb@xxxxxxx> wrote
Alexei Frounze:
I went with her to the movies last night.
I and her constitute the subject.
No, the subject is "I". If "her" was part of the subject, you would
use "she".
Nothing would change if I with her would be replaced by we, would it?

Yes, it would:

(1) I went with her to the movies. <---Subject is <I>.
(2) We went with her to the movies. <---Subject is <We>.
(3) We went to the movies. <---Subject is <We>.

I explicitly stated 3rd, not 2nd. To me there's no difference beween I
and/with her and we amounting to the same union of the two of us.
But, there's one oddity in Russian. It's quite common to say exactly that
kind of thing as in 2nd sentense above, yet only 2 people would be involved
in the action, not 3 or more.

Since the third person singular is marked, maybe these examples will
help:

(4) He goes with her to the movies all the time.
(5) *He go with her to the movies all the time.

(The asterisk means that the sentence is ordinarily unacceptable to
native speakers.)

I don't see how this errorneus sentense is related to the subject (or the
object:).
My whole point is that I +/and/with she/her = we/us. The sentense can be
different depending on what's chosen (due to the (pro)noun and verb number
agreement), but the meaning would be the same.

Interestingly, in Russian both forms could be used: I with her and I and
she...
*With* is like *and*, not *to*...

That may be fine for Russian, but it has no bearing on English.

So, don't "with" and "and" form a union out of the things they're placed
between?
If they don't, something's been wrong for years.
E.g. I ordered a cheeseburger with pickles. I ate it. I ate both the pickles
and the rest of the cheeseburger. the whole thing.

No, not at all. Why do you think that?
Because of the very meaning of with.

Syntax isn't a matter of "meaning":

(6) I hit the nail with a hammer.
(7) We hit the nail.

That's different. Here "with" has entirely an different meaning and
basically playes the role of "by". If you interpreted "I went with her" in
the same way as here, you could just as well then say that the object is her
and the subject is I.

Sentence (7), though it's acceptable and has meaning in its own right,
is unacceptable as a rewrite of (6), because it doesn't ordinarily mean
"The hammer and I hit the nail."

I kissed her on the cheek. Were we standing on the cheek when that happened?
:)

Alex


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: i am sleeping / i am asleep
    ... Because of the very meaning of with. ... I hit the nail with a hammer. ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: MESSAGE for David Christainsen
    ... You hit the nail right on the head. ... Well of course I put the laundry in the 'fridge, ...
    (alt.med.fibromyalgia)
  • Re: Deja Vu all over again.
    ... Unfortunatly Harry, I think you've hit the nail on the head. ...
    (rec.boats)
  • Re: Birth of a song
    ... You have hit the nail right on the head; ... Jay provokes you he has succeeded in his aim. ...
    (rec.music.indian.misc)
  • =?iso-2022-jp?B?UmU6IBskQiRKJHMkOCRjJDMkaiRjITwbKEI=?=
    ... >> well, i'm back to reading some blogs, and i came across the following ... > And it appears that it has just hit the stands... ... > in this context means big hit, fad, craze, etc. I'm quite comfortable ... I admit this is the fourth and last meaning given. ...
    (sci.lang.japan)
Loading