Where did my Horror go?

[General Tacticus]

Originally posted by Pocus:
I would have written 'where did my horror went', is it right ?? (genuinely asking the question, without irony, english is not my native language)

No, it's not right.

But not being a native English speaker, I can't explain the rule in English, since I lack the technical vocabulary.

In French it would be :
Lorsque l'on pose une question (en Anglais), on utilise l'auxiliaire to do suivi de l'infinitif sans to (sauf pour les verbes qui sont deja des auxiliaires, to have, to be, et les formes du passé ou on utilise deja un auxiliaire, comme le passé composé). C'est donc l'auxiliaire qui se conjugue (ici, au passé, do devient did) et le verbe lui-même reste invariable (ici, go). Exemples :
Where do I go ?
Where does he go ?
Where did he go ?
Where has he gone ?
On notera que dans le dernier cas, on utilise deja l'auxiliaire to have du passé composé, on ne va donc pas rajouter un second auxiliaire
...

P.S. Murphy's law guarantees that the one time I try to explain proper grammar, I'll make a mistake somewhere, so let me apologize in advance

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Pocus:
I would have written 'where did my horror went', is it right ?? (genuinely asking the question, without irony, english is not my native language)

Correct would be "Where has my horror gone?", or "My horror went where?"

'Gone' is an adjective. 'Went' is a verb. You do not end a sentence with a verb in English, though it is the common way to do things in many non-English Languages.

[Arryn]

Originally posted by General Tacticus:
Gone is a past participle, not an adjective. As for your second sentence, it is not grammatically correct... I guess English is your native language

This is why English is such a hard language for non-natives to learn. Gone is an adjective. Look it up in the MW Online dictionary. The context makes it a past participle (of the word 'go'). It is 'inconsistencies' such as this that drive people nuts.

And yes, the second sentence I gave is, indeed, poor grammar. But it is very common usage. How many times have you heard a phrase like "My son did what?" or "She went where?" Bad grammar to an English teacher, but normal speech in everyday life.

OTOH, a statement like "Where my horror at?" is only to be heard by children not yet old enough to have gone to school and been taught the rudiments of grammar -- which they tend to forget just a few short years later in their teen years And by those same older kids, and adults, who wish to sound 'cool' by rejecting the manners of society, in this case language, and using a slang dialect that attempts to exclude those that wouldn't be caught sounding that stupid. {yes, I hate rap-crap music, too}

[General Tacticus]

Originally posted by Arryn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by General Tacticus:
Gone is a past participle, not an adjective. As for your second sentence, it is not grammatically correct... I guess English is your native language

This is why English is such a hard language for non-natives to learn. Gone is an adjective. Look it up in the MW Online dictionary. The context makes it a past participle (of the word 'go'). It is 'inconsistencies' such as this that drive people nuts.

And yes, the second sentence I gave is, indeed, poor grammar. But it is very common usage. How many times have you heard a phrase like "My son did what?" or "She went where?" Bad grammar to an English teacher, but normal speech in everyday life.

OTOH, a statement like "Where my horror at?" is only to be heard by children not yet old enough to have gone to school and been taught the rudiments of grammar -- which they tend to forget just a few short years later in their teen years And by those same older kids, and adults, who wish to sound 'cool' by rejecting the manners of society, in this case language, and using a slang dialect that attempts to exclude those that wouldn't be caught sounding that stupid. {yes, I hate rap-crap music, too}

---

All right, I can accept that gone is also an adjective. My own language, French, also has some words who are both part participles and adjectives. But in this context it was clearly a past participle
And I found English rather pleasant and easy to learn, compared to my native French, or my first foreign language German. When it comes to inconsistencies and exceptions, French really shines. One short example : adjectives are usually placed after the noun they qualify. Except, of course, those exceptions that are placed before. And those that can be placed before or after, whichever you choose. And then, you have a few rare adjectives that actually change meaning, depending whether they are placed before or after.

[Arryn]

Originally posted by General Tacticus:
And I found English rather pleasant and easy to learn, compared to my native French, or my first foreign language German. When it comes to inconsistencies and exceptions, French really shines.

I have friends who are native Spanish speakers who say about English what you say about French. Guess it's all a matter of perspective. I found learning French in secondary school to be rather easy. But I had the advantage of already being fluent in Spanish, a very similar language, by then. German (which I studied in college), OTOH, wasn't all that hard for me either. Nor was learning snippets of Turkish, and an African tongue, when I was age twenty. I suppose I just have a natural affinity for Languages.

BTW, I've enjoyed your AAR. Aren't you due to post another installment? Soon, we hope?

[ February 10, 2004, 14:03: Message edited by: Arryn ]

[E. Albright]

Originally posted by General Tacticus:
In French it would be :
Lorsque l'on pose une question (en Anglais), on utilise l'auxiliaire to do suivi de l'infinitif sans to (sauf pour les verbes qui sont deja des auxiliaires, to have, to be, et les formes du passé ou on utilise deja un auxiliaire, comme le passé composé). C'est donc l'auxiliaire qui se conjugue (ici, au passé, do devient did) et le verbe lui-même reste invariable (ici, go). Exemples :
Where do I go ?
Where does he go ?
Where did he go ?
Where has he gone ?
On notera que dans le dernier cas, on utilise deja l'auxiliaire to have du passé composé, on ne va donc pas rajouter un second auxiliaire
...

En anglais elle serait:
When one poses a question (in English), one uses the auxiliary "to do" followed by an infinitive without "to" (excepting those verbs that already auxiliaries, "to have", "to be", and the tenses where one already uses an auxiliary, such as the present perfect). The auxiliary is thus conjugated (here, in the past tense, "do" becomes "did") and the verb itself is invariable (here, "go"). Examples:
Where do I go ?
Where does he go ?
Where did he go ?
Where has he gone ?
One should note that in the Last case, one already is using an auxiliary "to have" present perfect, so one will not add a second auxiliary...

A few points:

• The grammar you describe is correct. The terms are not. You're actually refering to two different tenses: emphatic past ("to do") and present perfect ("to have"). Et les deux sont comparable au passé composé...
• C'est pas grave. Vous écrivez très bien l'anglais, et vous avez bien expliqué les principes, même si vous ne savez pas la vocabulaire technique. La plupart des Américains ne la savent pas non plus. (Désolé pour vous avoir comparé aux Américains...)
• J'ai pensé toujours qu'on n'utilise jamais des majuscules pour commencé les noms des langues en français. Est-ce que je me suis trompé ?

[Edit: I should perhaps note that my translation is what the explanation would be in corrupted English. Normally, one uses "you" rather than "one" in discourse of this sort...]

[ February 10, 2004, 15:42: Message edited by: E. Albright ]

[E. Albright]

Originally posted by Arryn:
I have friends who are native Spanish speakers who say about English what you say about French. Guess it's all a matter of perspective.

I've run into plenty of francophones expressing comparable sentiments. Frankly, I think the difficulty of English grammar is overrated. Stateside, said reputation smacks a bit of Yankee arrogance, IMNPHO. I for one found it none too daunting (compared to French, for example). But then, I was raised in a household where complex language was spoken on a regular basis, and started reading excessively at a young age. I also grew up without the benifit of Ye Olde Electronic Babysitter. Not that this is necessarily relevant, but one's always tempted to draw corrolations...

[E. Albright]

Originally posted by Arryn:
You do not end a sentence with a verb in English, though it is the common way to do things in many non-English Languages.

Weeell... That depends on whom you ask. A linguist would say that you do in fact end sentences in English. [S]->[VP]->[NP VP]->[N V]. E.g., "He left." Those individuals trying to impose linguistic homogeny, eliminate regional variation, and otherwise quash langauge evolution are more likely to assert that, no, it's like this. Of course, langauge evolution is a Bad Thing in terms of mutual intercomprehensibility. But it's also inevitable, and the standardization of language tends to become political. As do most things. 'Cept if ya reckon that they'uns what ain't in power're the folk who make up all-a these rules. So one ought to be wary, and seek some semblence of balance.

Wow. I've drifted rather far afield, haven't I? Geez. I guess I really don't want to be working on my program, as I should be...

H'm. My Last sentence seems to parse under standard English despite ending its with a verb. Mayhaps the sociolinguistic rant was irrelevant, at that. Or maybe I'm drifting into colloquial English. Arrgh!

[ February 10, 2004, 15:40: Message edited by: E. Albright ]

[Argitoth]

Dang... one little comment about language and this thread has completely gone off subject.

[Arryn]

Originally posted by E. Albright:
intercomprehensibility

This must be an example of that "language evolution" you alluded to.

Another common example of this is "irregardless".

(For those who care, the former should have said "mutual comprehension", and the latter "regardless". The extra prefixes are redundant. Unless one is making a joke by knowingly butchering the language.)