Newsgroup: it.cultura.linguistica.inglese
Titolo: hello everybody and help

Ciao a tutti!
Ho pensato di scrivere il mio primo post in Italiano per spiegarmi un
po' meglio! :-)
Intanto complimenti a chi frequenta assiduamente questo newsgroup, sto
lurkando da qualche tempo e i vostri post sono davvero utilissimi,
grazie!!
C'č una cosa che non riesco molto a "digerire" ed č l'utilizzo di
'whom' e 'whose' in luogo di 'who' e 'which' (ammesso che si possano
usare anche in luogo di 'which', non ne sono sicura!)
Qualcuno puň chiarirmi le idee?
Grazie!
Claudia

 Qualcuno puň chiarirmi le idee?
"Whom" č la forma oggettiva di "who", che viene usata, perciň, quando non č
soggetto. 
"The person to whom I've told it is perfectly reliable" ==> il soggetto
della relativa č "I".
"The person who's just been here is perfectly reliable" ==> il soggetto
della relativa č sempre "the person"
-----
"Whose" č il genitivo di "who".
"Whose is this book?/"Whose book is this?" ==> "Di chi č questo libro?"
"The person whose book I've just found must be a student" ==> "La persona
il cui libro (il libro della quale) ho appena trovato dev'essere uno
studente"
"Which" viene usato, come pronome relativo, solo per le cose (per tutti i
casi), e "that", sempre come pronome relativo, per cose e persone, ma solo
se č all'accusativo o al nominativo, diciamo, cioč senza preposizioni.
"The person (that) has just been here is very kind"
"The person (that) I've just met is very kind"
"The person to that (NO) I've just talked is very kind"
Spero di non aver detto corbellerie.
Ciao, FB

 Qualcuno può chiarirmi le idee?
Dacci degli esempi e probabilmente vedrai che l'utilizzo di "whom" e "whose"
da te notato è, infatti, correto. Io, invece, deploro il fatto che "whom"
spesso non viene utilizzato là dove sarebbe corretto e che oggi "who" nel
posto di "whom" è considerato corretto in molte scuole.
-- 
Xakero

"The person to that (NO) I've just talked is very kind"
Probabilente sbaglio completamente... ma questa mi "suona male".
Mi sembra meglio "The person to whom I've just talked is very kind"
IMHO ovviamente :)
'bye

se č all'accusativo o al nominativo, diciamo, cioč senza preposizioni.
"The person (that) has just been here is very kind"
"The person (who) has just been here is very kind"
Qui potrei usare indistintamente 'that' e 'who'...allora come faccio a
capire quando usare l'uno o l'altro, esiste una regola oppure sono
libera di scegliere l'uno piuttosto che l'altro?
Grazie per l'aiuto.
Claudia

 "The person to that (NO) I've just talked is very kind"
Spero che intendevi questo come esempio di una frase sbagliata.
Corretto: "The person I've just talked to ..." o, magari un po' ampolloso ma
tempo fa l'unica versione corretta: "The person to whom I've just talked
..."
-- 
Xakero

 ..."
Secondo me č corretta anche la prima, non foss'altro che č comunissima.
Penso sia piů una questione di stile che di grammatica.
Ciao, FB

 "The person to that (NO) I've just talked is very kind"
AmEng J.. Ketzl here.
[I see most of this has been answered, but here are my two cents.]
Although FB is entirely correct in these three examples, to my ear it
sounds awkward to use "that" in most cases where a person is indicated.
Even though most people I know would use "that", I would say:
"The person (who) has just been here (or "was just here") is very kind."
"The person (whom) I've just met is very kind." (Most people wouldn't
bother with "whom" here, and would use "who", but I agree with Xakero that
"whom" is correct.)
Also for the correct version of the third example, which FB points out is
incorrect, I would say "The person to whom (not "to which") I've just
talked is very kind." The everyday, street-talk version of this would be
"The person I've just talked to is very kind."
"Which" and "that", as relative pronouns, have slightly different
applications, too, but it's more complicated than most people here (USA)
know, and I believe this difference doesn't hold in BrEng.
I will elucidate a bit later, as I have to run and catch some mice now.
-- 
I am Joey's cat.
Un-not my address, too, if you wanna reply.

Ho scritto NO. Non si capiva?
Non in modo univoco :-) 
Poteva essere interpretato (per come avevi scritto le frasi
precedenti) che in quel caso "that" non poteva essere omesso :-)
Era meglio un "(NO) The person..." al posto di avere (NO) vicino a
"that".
'bye

 "that".
Vabbuó.
Ciao, FB

 Ho scritto NO. Non si capiva?
Qualcuno non ha capito, pare. Io ho capito. :)
Di norma, per indicare che un enunciato non è grammaticalmente accettabile viene
anteposto un asterisco.
Max

 know, and I believe this difference doesn't hold in BrEng.
Tell us, tell us.
Bye, FB

studente"
"whose" si usa normalmente per le persone, ma ho anche sentito "The
house whose roof is red" perche' "The house, the roof of which is red"
e' assurdo. Forse in teoria si dovrebbe dire "The house with the red
roof" o "the red-roofed house".
-- 
Adam Atkinson (
gh...@mistral.co.uk
)

 "the red-roofed house"
"La casa rossotettata"?
Ciao, FB

"La casa rossotettata"?
Per mantenere il doppio senso si deve cambiare parte della casa
ritraducendo in Inglese: "the red-knockered house" :-)
'bye

, Agostino De 
Matteis wrote...

LOL
-- 
I am Joey's Cat
(with apologies to Reader's Digest)


 libera di scegliere l'uno piuttosto che l'altro?
La seconda. (faccina sorridente)
Ciao, FB

 Tell us, tell us.
A "rule" that is not frequently observed is that "which" always introduces
a relative clause that is *not essential* to the sentence, whereas "that"
usually (but not always) introduces a relative clause that *is* essential.
"The report on the progress of our project, which I gave you last week, is
due back on Monday." (the clause introduced by "which" is not essential to
the meaning of the sentence. Also, note that "which" is preceded -- and, as
a relative pronoun, should always be preceded -- by a comma.)
"The report that I gave you last week is due back on Monday." ("that I gave
you" is essential in defining the report. Note, no comma before "that".)
Many people say things like:
"The report which I gave you last week is due back on Monday."
"The book which I just read was wonderful."
They should be saying "The report that I just got.." and "The book that I
just read..." (and "that" is optional, as you know.)
"All the songs they sang at the concert, which was the best one ever, were
oldies but goodies."
"All the songs that they sang at the concert were oldies but goodies."
<pause>
I kind of feel like an anorak (!) in saying this, because not a lot of
people care about the difference (but I obviously do) and they make no
distinction (but I obviously do), which is one reason I love the power of
language.
I think that, to some ears, "which" may sound more "proper", but in my
opinion, when it's used incorrectly it makes the phrasing less fluid, less
elegant.
That's the "rule", in its most simplified form, and yes, as usual, there
are exceptions.
-- 
I am Joey's cat, which you all know by now.


 elegant.
They sound awful to my ear. Mine is a non native ear, though :-)
-- 
(T)EFL online communities
http://groups.msn.com/TEFL

 usually (but not always) introduces a relative clause that *is* essential.
In brief, "that" introduces a defining relative clause, whereas "which"
introduces a non-defining (or "parenthetical") relative clause.
Is it true for persons as well? 
"The person whom I've just met is my aunt"
"The person that I've just met is my aunt"
Ignoring the fact that I would normally leave out either "whom" or "that",
don't you think that "whom" doesn't sound worse than "that"?
As for non-defining relative clauses, I think
"John, whom I met yesterday, is actually my cousin"
is the only correct choice, even if "that" in parenthetical relative
clauses, I understand, is ever more used.
Bye, FB
-- 
L'importante è che risplenda tu, sola primadonna e immarcescibile leggenda
del tuo pianerottolo.
Lucangel

 clauses, I understand, is ever more used.
Right-o.
-- 
I am Joey's Cat



 Ok, sei stato chiarissimo, ti ringrazio!
:-)
--Claudia

 :-)
Quando si tratta di aiutare un'avvenente donzella in pericolo...
Ciao, FB


 They sound awful to my ear. Mine is a non native ear, though :-)
Not only that, but if one gave a report, why is it due back.
Shouldn't the teacher be 'asking' for a report that is due?
-- 
              O      __
      ___   /\     / / O  
     /__ \   | \   /  |
    O  /  \ /   \./   |       Loki
        |________ |
 

, Loki 
wrote...

aHA! You assumed it was a teacher speaking, [and you know what happens 
when you assume... you make an ASS out of U and ME] when in fact it was 
the CEO of a very large Fortune 500 firm, for whom I work, and who is 
very powerful. She has given me this report and requested that I examine 
it and correct it wherever necessary, (she relies on me very heavily 
for everything) and return it to her on Monday.*
;-p~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-- 
I am Joey's Cat
*and none of the aforementioned is true.


 ;-p~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Drat. But I can see you are *already" being punished for your sins
.... heheh
So she's asking for a report on a report. And you have to report by
Monday....



Too brief - it's not true in BrEng. unless you restore the 'not always' . As
explained  , a descriptive clause is always separated from the rest of the
sentence by commas , whereas a definitive one isn't ; but both 'which' and
'that' are both available to introduce a definitive relative clause , tho' I
suppose it's highly unprofitable to argue about the frequency of 'usually'
(omission of the relative pronoun is probably the most common case of all) .
I would choose between them on indefinable grounds of how the sentence
sounds . I wonder what Joey's cat thinks of the following two American
sentences - would they really be more correct or sound better if  'that'
replaced 'which' ?
'She had a certain way of looking at life which he took as  a personal
offence.'
'She had felt at the same time that he was helpless and ineffectual , but
the feeling had taken the form of a tenderness which was the very flower of
respect.'
(Yes , both James again - happens to be the nearest American book I can
reach without getting up ; first two examples of definitive relative clause
found on randomly opening PoaL at Ch. 42) .
Mike

 'that' are both available to introduce a definitive relative clause
I quite agree.


 
I would use "that" here *unless* I wanted to mean "the very flower of 
respect was *that the feeling had taken the form of a tenderness*". (But 
again, I see a comma there.)
If I did change it to "that" it would mean "the form of tenderness was 
the very flower of respect."
Maybe I'm begging the issue, but in my head there is a clear distinction 
between clauses begun with "which" and those begun with "that." I'm 
significantly accustomed to seeing "which" where I would use "that" that 
it doesn't really *bother* me, but I feel a slight "hiccup" when I come 
across it, and I'm usually careful to make the distinction, for the sake 
of clarity.
Ain't language great?  :)
-- 
I am Joey's Cat
(We have it much easier: miao, meow, mao... not much beyond that.)


 It depends on the original intent.
I forgot to add, it should be "offense" if it's American.
-- 
I am Joey's Cat
Un-not my address, too, if you wanna reply.


 I was just posting 'Sorry!' when something made me check my source (must be
an arrogant reflex to the admission of error!) , and I found that it was
indeed 'offence' ; the source was the paperback edition of 'The Portrait of
a Lady' published in 1962 by Collier Books of - New York ! (for some reason
I've got another edition by a British publisher , and that also gives
'offence' ). So did Henry James actually write in BrEng rather than AmEng ?
Incidentally , after my last post , I re-read a few chapters of PoaL (always
a pleasure) , keeping an eye open for the 'which - that' business , and
James actually seems to use both with no discernible reason for his choice
apart from the sound ; apart from when the relative pronoun's omitted , the
split was about two-thirds 'which' to one-third 'that' , but in one place ,
using two descriptive relative clauses joined by 'and' , he actually changes
horses in mid-stream : 'something which ... and that ...'.
Mike

 
It's poetic license [sic] I suppose. And I feel compelled to repeat that 
I am probably the most observant of this of anyone else I know (save one 
woman who shares my feelings) so with the objective of making a sentence 
sound the best possible, I understand where someone may want to use 
"which" instead of "that." In my own writing, though, I always take care 
to observe my position on it, because to me, when one does observe this 
usage, the meaning is clearer.
And don't forget, I am dealing with people who think it's correct to say 
things like "between you and I" and even "my boss called John and I into 
his office for a meeting." Ugh!
