In this sentence, "he kill them", when I say this sentence with every words pronounced, it sounds strange, so I need to connect "kill" with "them", I mean to skip the "th" sound? Give me another examples, please, if u can.
"th" sound?
<<*"He kill them" doesn't work. Either "He kills them" or "He killed them". >>
well, actually it does work if the form used is the subjunctive:
1)."If he kill them,..." (somewhat rare or antiquated)
2)."I demand that he kill them." (standard)
3)."Should he kill them, I think that would be...(also standard)
I'm not saying that this is how nick meant it, he probably did intend it to read "He kills/killed them", but lest he find himself in one of the circumstances above, he will know that the proper form can be without the -s/-ed.
well, actually it does work if the form used is the subjunctive:
1)."If he kill them,..." (somewhat rare or antiquated)
2)."I demand that he kill them." (standard)
3)."Should he kill them, I think that would be...(also standard)
I'm not saying that this is how nick meant it, he probably did intend it to read "He kills/killed them", but lest he find himself in one of the circumstances above, he will know that the proper form can be without the -s/-ed.
I think "If he kill them" is extremely rare or antiquated, not merely "somewhat", if indeed it was ever correct grammar at all.
I myself would not realize [D] in "I kill them" in normal speech, saying just ["ae_^"k_hI:M\@~:m] or ["ae_^"k_hI:M\m=:]. Similarly, in "he kills them" I would normally say just ["hi"k_hI:M_^z@~:m] or ["hi"k_hI:M_^zm=:].
<<I think "If he kill them" is extremely rare or antiquated, not merely "somewhat", if indeed it was ever correct grammar at all. >>
You haven't read the King James version of the Bible lately then lol
"If it *be* Thy will..."; "If the salt *have* lost his savour..."
This form is still in use, in the present, in set phrases like:
'albeit' (as opp. to al*is*it, i.e. "all is it")
Long live the King/Queen (not "Long *lives* the King/Queen")
etc.
also used with the word 'though'
'Though it/he be...' (not 'though he *is*)
'Though it rain every day, I still wouldn't buy myself an umbrella.'
And in the past:
'If I were you,...' (incorrect: if I *was* you)
--It Actually is the correct way to indicate the subjunctive mood in grammar.--
The subjunctive mood is still alive and kickin', however, in late modern English it is becoming more and more identical with the indicative. This is mostly due to the fact that in Modern English, the subjunctive forms in most cases lack differentiation: for instance:
'I come' (indicative) vs. 'I come' (subjunctive), etc.
'We ate' (ind.) vs. 'We ate' (subj.)
it only differs in the third person indicative of verbs (except the verb 'be')
and in the third and first preterite of 'be' (was vs were)
but also because most English speakers are not even aware of it...
so in essence, the Pirates spoke English that was more grammatically correct than we do!
You haven't read the King James version of the Bible lately then lol
"If it *be* Thy will..."; "If the salt *have* lost his savour..."
This form is still in use, in the present, in set phrases like:
'albeit' (as opp. to al*is*it, i.e. "all is it")
Long live the King/Queen (not "Long *lives* the King/Queen")
etc.
also used with the word 'though'
'Though it/he be...' (not 'though he *is*)
'Though it rain every day, I still wouldn't buy myself an umbrella.'
And in the past:
'If I were you,...' (incorrect: if I *was* you)
--It Actually is the correct way to indicate the subjunctive mood in grammar.--
The subjunctive mood is still alive and kickin', however, in late modern English it is becoming more and more identical with the indicative. This is mostly due to the fact that in Modern English, the subjunctive forms in most cases lack differentiation: for instance:
'I come' (indicative) vs. 'I come' (subjunctive), etc.
'We ate' (ind.) vs. 'We ate' (subj.)
it only differs in the third person indicative of verbs (except the verb 'be')
and in the third and first preterite of 'be' (was vs were)
but also because most English speakers are not even aware of it...
so in essence, the Pirates spoke English that was more grammatically correct than we do!
<<I would definitely say "He kills 'em" and "He killed 'em." >>
Just a side note that's interesting, " 'em " actually is not a corruption or shortened form of "them", but rather a totally unrelated pronoun altogether. It is an abreviated form of Middle English 'em'/'hem' which means "them" [cf. Nom. 'hi'/'he(y)'; Gen. 'here'/'he(e)r'/'hir'].
M.E. 'hem' itself comes from Old English 'hem'/'heom', the dative/instrumental form of the plural pronoun 'hie' - "they".
"Them" is scandinavian and comes from Old Norse 'theim', the dative of Nom. 'their'; Gen. 'theira', related to O.E. tha/thaem/thara - "those"
Just a side note that's interesting, " 'em " actually is not a corruption or shortened form of "them", but rather a totally unrelated pronoun altogether. It is an abreviated form of Middle English 'em'/'hem' which means "them" [cf. Nom. 'hi'/'he(y)'; Gen. 'here'/'he(e)r'/'hir'].
M.E. 'hem' itself comes from Old English 'hem'/'heom', the dative/instrumental form of the plural pronoun 'hie' - "they".
"Them" is scandinavian and comes from Old Norse 'theim', the dative of Nom. 'their'; Gen. 'theira', related to O.E. tha/thaem/thara - "those"
Yes, I'm familiar with the subjunctive mood. You don't need to tell me what it is. ;)
<< You haven't read the King James version of the Bible lately then lol
"If it *be* Thy will..."; "If the salt *have* lost his savour..." >>
I'm familiar with the first of those constructions, particularly through Patrick Henry's statement, "If this be treason, make the most of it." The second sounds more odd to me, but it's still one of the "core" verbs of the language, and in this case used as an auxiliary. What I was wondering about was if this use of the subjunctive after "if" could extend to *all* verbs, or if it was only used with a few verbs like "be".
- Kef
<< You haven't read the King James version of the Bible lately then lol
"If it *be* Thy will..."; "If the salt *have* lost his savour..." >>
I'm familiar with the first of those constructions, particularly through Patrick Henry's statement, "If this be treason, make the most of it." The second sounds more odd to me, but it's still one of the "core" verbs of the language, and in this case used as an auxiliary. What I was wondering about was if this use of the subjunctive after "if" could extend to *all* verbs, or if it was only used with a few verbs like "be".
- Kef
<<What I was wondering about was if this use of the subjunctive after "if" could extend to *all* verbs, or if it was only used with a few verbs like "be".
>>
Of course it can, and it would not be grammatically incorrect according to Modern English standards. It might sound a little strange or old fashioned, but it's current usage.
"If he need money, give it to him." -beside- "If he needS money, give it to him."
"If he come next Wednesday, I won't be here." -beside- "If he comeS next Wednesday, I won't be here."
>>
Of course it can, and it would not be grammatically incorrect according to Modern English standards. It might sound a little strange or old fashioned, but it's current usage.
"If he need money, give it to him." -beside- "If he needS money, give it to him."
"If he come next Wednesday, I won't be here." -beside- "If he comeS next Wednesday, I won't be here."
<<"If he need money, give it to him." -beside- "If he needS money, give it to him."
"If he come next Wednesday, I won't be here." -beside- "If he comeS next Wednesday, I won't be here.">>
The first sentences of each actually sound wrong to me. I certainly only ever use the second.
"If he come next Wednesday, I won't be here." -beside- "If he comeS next Wednesday, I won't be here.">>
The first sentences of each actually sound wrong to me. I certainly only ever use the second.
<<The first sentences of each actually sound wrong to me. I certainly only ever use the second.>>
Well, I understand that. But they are actually the more correct grammatically. We're definitely at a stage in our history where the language is changing. This is one such change.
Well, I understand that. But they are actually the more correct grammatically. We're definitely at a stage in our history where the language is changing. This is one such change.
Gee, THANKS A LOT JOSH (for making me feel like S**t! : )
I didn't say it was cool to talk like that, and no, I don't say things that way, but it *is* correct English nevertheless.
And KJV is still "Modern English"
I'm gonna go home and cry now...
:))
I didn't say it was cool to talk like that, and no, I don't say things that way, but it *is* correct English nevertheless.
And KJV is still "Modern English"
I'm gonna go home and cry now...
:))