Language desk
< November 15	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 17 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 16

Another question about pronouns

After reading this question, I got to thinking about a recent issue of the Transformers: Regeneration One comic book where Spike Witwicky says to his girlfriend: "We'll make it. Us Witwickys always do." Isn't this an example of the same phenomenon as in the question I linked to? Could this be considered in anyway grammatically correct? I think it should be: "We'll make it. We Witwickys always do." Or if this is indeed the direction the English language is going in, will it some day be written as: "Us'll make it. Us Witwickys always do."? JIP | Talk 13:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they thought "we witwickys" sounded a bit silly. Back in the 1960s when cigarettes were still allowed to be advertised, there was a minor stir caused by slogans such as "Winston tastes good like a cigarette should" and "Us Tareyton smokers would rather fight than switch." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So is this somehow specific to having a descriptive noun/name after the subject? I don't think anyone would say "Us Tareyton smokers, us would rather fight than switch." but rather "Us Tareyton smokers, we would rather fight than switch." But what are the grammatical rules here? JIP | Talk 14:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the colloquial usage of the objective pronoun is intended (originally) to be a shortening of "I'm talking about (pronoun in objective case), (pronoun in subjective case) ...". For example, in my local dialect, I might say "Me and her, we ...". Perhaps someone can confirm my theory (or it shoot down, as appropriate)? Dbfirs 15:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take the witwickys out of the sentence and it reads "Us always do". Obviously not. "Us" is an object pronoun. "We" is a subject pronoun. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is the disjunctive pronoun use. The english "I, the king, command you" would be "Moi, le roi t'ordonne". (Unfortunately there's no we/us example in French, since both forms are "nous".) μηδείς (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or to put it another way, it is one of the edge cases where the prestige rule ("We Witickys") clashes with the normal ("Us Witickys"), but isn't common enough that the prestige usage is established in most people's minds, so people get uncomfortable either way. --ColinFine (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The usage that really grinds my gears is "That sort of thing doesn't cut any ice with we Smiths" (or whomever). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that sort of hypercorrection seems to be getting more common (or is it just that I'm noticing it more?), even on BBC Radio 4. I once heard an extreme case: "[something of] Sheila and I's". Dbfirs 23:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard that construction too. A church organist I know once received a thank-you card from a bridegroom saying "Thank you for playing for Heather and I's wedding". Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what would be the correct usage here? I don't think it would be "Heather and me's wedding". Would it be "Heather's and my wedding"? "Heather and my wedding" would sound a little strange. In Finnish the equivalent phrase would naturally be "Heatherin ja minun häissä" with both Heather and minä "I" in the genitive case, with the -n ending. JIP | Talk 15:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize minun and mine, along with Mongoliam маань and Turkish benim < mäniŋ P 192 are cognates. μηδείς (talk) 02:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hence, "Heather's and mine wedding" could be good Turkish or Mongol. Not such good English, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heather's and my. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mine and Heather's. "Thank you for playing at Heather's wedding and mine." Not "Thank you for playing at Heather's wedding and my." μηδείς (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite sure User:Baseball Bugs meant "Heather's and my wedding". JIP | Talk 19:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am too. But "Heather's" is a noun, and "my" is called a pronoun, but is effectively an adjective, or better, a determiner. The terms aren't parallel. You would say "the wedding is Heather's" and "The wedding is mine." You wouldn't say "The wedding is my." You could name a boat "Mine and Heather's" You'd be a barbarian if you called it "Heather's and My". So, either one says "Mine and Heather's wedding", or "Heather's wedding and mine". μηδείς (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Heather's" and "my" are certainly parallel in construction. There's no reason why "Heather's and my wedding" should be logically wrong, and even if it were, I think a majority of native speakers would accept it as grammatical, which is all that really matters. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the terms are parallel, then why is "The book is Heather's" okay, while "The book is my" is not? Of course all sorts of people say all sorts of nonsense. But if we're to accept whatever is used, why shouldn't the "used" construction "Heather and I's wedding" also be accepted as vox vulgarium. μηδείς (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: see here for an argument that possessive pronouns like "my" are in the Spec of DP, just like possessive nouns like "Heather's". Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Er, what? There's nothing wrong with "Thank you for playing for Heather's and my wedding". But there is definitely something wrong with "Thank you for playing for mine and Heather's wedding". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll assume that bald assertion is a result of an exclusive diet of eucalyptus leaves, Jack. μηδείς (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have not yet become a koala. To answer the question "Whose wedding was it?", responses could include (a) "It was Heather's and mine", (b) "It was Heather's and my wedding", and (c) "It was Heather's wedding and mine". But not (d) "It was mine and Heather's wedding", because that is short for "... mine wedding and Heather's wedding". Only mine host might be tempted to say that. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's curious whether wombats also eat eucalyptus. But your paraphrase is wrong. The expansion is, "it was mine, and it was Heather's wedding", not "it was my, and it was Heather's wedding". "It was my" is not a full sentence, like "it was Heather's wedding" is. But "It was mine" is indeed a full sentence. Sic phascolarcto dictum est. μηδείς (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I question your strawman-like expansion. How about "It was my wedding and Heather's wedding"? Why does that have be reduced to "It was mine and Heather's wedding" and only that? Would you support "It was her and his wedding", or would you insist on "It was hers and his wedding"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Heather's" is a possessive noun and "my" is a possessive subject pronoun. "Mine" is a possessive object pronoun. And, yes, "Heather's and my wedding". Or to keep it simple, "our wedding." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possessive subject pronoun Possessive object pronoun? μηδείς (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see the problem. They're nouns acting like adjectives. Heather's wedding. My wedding. But not "mine" wedding. Unless you're speaking German or being funny. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the proper proper parallel is "Heather's wedding" and "mine". One can say "Here are pictures of Heather's wedding and mine." One cannot say "Here are pictures of Heather's wedding and my", nor can one say, "The wedding was Heather's, and it was my." μηδείς (talk) 23:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Heather's wedding and mine" sounds like two different weddings. "Heather's wedding" + "my wedding" = "Heather's and my wedding." Or just "our" wedding. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you meant two different weddings, you'd say, "At mine and Heather's weddings." μηδείς (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It still doesn't work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes you just have to recast completely. Heather and I thank you for playing at our wedding. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That works. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There you go again, with your incessant reasonableness. Now if only I knew whether you are, or are addressing Judith. μηδείς (talk) 00:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

rasafrats

My whole life, (and I am 59) my Dad has used the word "rasafrats" as his go-to word instead of cussing. I looked on the WWW but only found a few references using it the way he did. I am just curious to know if it ever was a word, and if it wasn't, it should be. I never once heard my Dad cuss. He used another word, that I was sure he made up, and it was spizzerinctum. It turns out to be a good word. Thanks. My Dad is dying, and I am thinking a lot about him. He is a great and Godly man. Thanks for your kind attention to this. Jan Kelleher — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.255.92.42 (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard it before. I think the idea is when somebody mumbles swear words, it sounds something like that. Also, it sounds something like Jehosaphat, which has been used in the same role.StuRat (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is God really going to think more kindly of someone who says something that sounds like swearing, fills the linguistic place of swearing, but isn't? I seriously doubt if he could be bothered. HiLo48 (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The prohibition against swearing is a prohibition against testifying while swearing by God. One is supposed to be honest, and not need to invoke God's name--otherwise one is being dishonest, or using the Lord's name in vain--i.e., lying while sworn to God not to lie.

As for ratsafrats, some version of that is used in Looney Toons cartoons; Sylvester and Tweety I suspect. I couldn't find a relevant link at google r youtube, though. μηδείς (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Again you have heard that it was said to the men of old, 'You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.' But I say to you, Do not swear at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let what you say be simply 'Yes' or 'No'; anything more than this comes from evil.
— Jesus of Nazareth, Matthew 5:33–37

That seems pretty explicit to me — do not swear at all. That's the reason, if I understand correctly, that the US constitution always says things like "swear or affirm", which to me seems like a cheap way out, frankly. --Trovatore (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, but where I do agree with Medeis here is that the prohibition has nothing to do with taboo language per se. If "rasafrats" is a minced version of, I don't know, "ass farts" or something, that's not "swearing" in the sense the Bible talks about. --Trovatore (talk) 23:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where you are disagreeing with me. It's not like I said, "then Jesus said, swear instead by the great hypnotoad". (My comment was made in the context of clarifying to HiLO, who said God wouldn't be fooled by disguised vulgarities, that the issue was one of oaths, not using vulgar words.) I said one was (simply) supposed to be honest. There are plenty of examples of this, such as in Jeremaiah, where the Lord tells the prophet, "There's not a man who says, 'as God lives', who isn't lying." μηδείς (talk) 02:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I read too fast — somehow I read "testifying" as "lying", probably conditioned by your second sentence. But I don't quite buy your explanation in your second sentence. As I read the passage, I don't see where Jesus is saying that swearing is necessarily lying, just that it's unnecessary puffery that an honest person doesn't need.

You have to take what he is saying in context of prior teaching, like the quote from Jeremaiah that there's not a man who swears "as god lives" who isn't lying. If people didn't lie they would need oaths to get others to believe them. Jesus is saying be as good as your word. He's not just warning against puffery. :) μηδείς (talk) 19:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, George Fox took this injunction especially seriously. --Trovatore (talk) 08:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The prohibition against swearing on Wikipedia has nothing to do with "testifying while swearing by God". HiLo48 (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You were the one who brought up God, not wikipedia. You are terminally unserious. You might want to have a specialist check that out before it's too late. μηδείς (talk) 22:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first mention of God here is in the OP's question. HiLo48 (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nor does a bleep censor have anything to do with it, or the cartoon producers' choice not to have Yosemite Sam speak like the characters in Deadwood. They're all just different forms of self-censorship, for whatever reason, and none of this is answering Jan's question. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's often spelled "rassa frassa" or "rassum frassum" or "razza frazza" or ... I haven't found a definite spelling, but you find all sorts of cartoon references. From Looney Tunes' Yosemite Sam to Hanna-Barbera's Muttley, and beyond. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our Muttley article quotes him saying; "Rashin' fashin' Rick Rastardly!". Alansplodge (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The classic WB cartoons occasionally had the characters mouthing genuine profanities, silently of course, or drowned out by other sounds. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds similar to one of my mother's exclamations of frustration, razzlefats, but in her case it's actually part of a language game where you insert the syllable [zl̩f] into each vowel, so that rats becomes razzlefats. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that game, but I like it. It would turn me into Sluzzefuzzezzefelizzefin. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as Medeis points out, that verse has nothing to do with swearing (cussing). But that isn't the verse most Christians point to when explaining why they don't cuss. Those verses are found in Ephesians; usually 4:29, "Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen." and 5:4 "Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking...". Some also will quote Colossians 3:8 "But now you must also rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips.".--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 09:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. μηδείς (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]