Hi, Anton! Recently you wrote in a message to Ardith Hinton:

I should fear to hear it -- what if the inheritance
turns out to have another magickal item?

Nah. Just a few ordinary household items made of xxx,
yyy, and zzz... none with magic(k)al powers, but all
of which we are still using. :-)

Then I won't pursue this quotidian matter any futher.
But may I make so bold as to question the grammar in
the quoted sentence?

Of course. You may be sure that whatever I say in the E_T echo has been edited & proofread thoroughly; however, I do miss things sometimes. :-)

1. Is it correct to use "but.. which" without a prior
occurence of "which" in the sentence?

If I hadn't thought so, I wouldn't have done it. Perhaps it is an error... or perhaps it's one of those stunts one shouldn't try at home. :-))

I could have written "... none of which has [blah blah] but all of which we are still using." Although it would have made a nicer parallelism I felt it might be unnecessarily wordy.

IIRC I've seen a few constructions like "... most, but by no means all, of which [i.e. covid-related deaths in this country] are associated with long term care facilities". In such cases the logic is more obvious.... :-)

2. Is it correct to express the continued use of these
items in the present progressive tense?

As a native speaker I depend heavily on my Russian modem buddies & foreign language textbooks to identify the names of verb tenses. It seems to me, however, that this tense is appropriate in situations where the action is ongoing. I could have typed, in a separate sentence, "None of them has [blah blah]... but all of them are still in use." IMHO the original sounds better.

This distinction causes me serious doubts in my own
writing, but in your case I should without
vaccilation say: "and we still use all of them."

In general the present tense would work too, but in this example I figure it would change the emphasis as well as the rhythm I had in mind. :-)

In a moment, his wife looked up at him and said, "I'm
sorry. I'd not thought she was capable of a thing like
that."

Mark the last sentece, which, again, is uttered by an
apparently educted person.

It strikes me as unusual, but not incorrect. If the person you're referring to lives in the Southern States I'd cut her a bit of slack.... :-)

How about this:

a. I forgot he was vegetarian. (he still is)

That's what I'd probably say.

b. I forgot he had been vegetarian. (he has reverted)

If I knew he'd reverted but my brain slipped a cog, I might say "I forgot he'd been vegetarian as an impecunious student but modified his stance after he began doing hard physical work in the construction industry.... :-)




--- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+
* Origin: Wits' End, Vancouver CANADA (1:153/716)

Ardith Hinton to Anton Shepelev:

Nah. Just a few ordinary household items made of xxx,
yyy, and zzz... none with magic(k)al powers, but all
of which we are still using. :-)

Then I won't pursue this quotidian matter any futher.
But may I make so bold as to question the grammar in
the quoted sentence?

Of course. You may be sure that whatever I say in the
E_T echo has been edited & proofread thoroughly; however, I do
miss things sometimes. :-)

Thank you for this most commendable commission to quality in the
echo.

1. Is it correct to use "but.. which" without a prior
occurence of "which" in the sentence?

If I hadn't thought so, I wouldn't have done it.
Perhaps it is an error... or perhaps it's one of those stunts one
shouldn't try at home. :-))

It may be that...

I could have written "... none of which has [blah
blah] but all of which we are still using." Although it would
have made a nicer parallelism I felt it might be unnecessarily
wordy.

Indeed. The amendment I had in mind (but withheld) was the
following: "none with magic(k)al powers, but all of them still in
use".

My other misdoublt about it (withheld, too) was that "but" does not
seem to introduce any kind of contradtion! On the other hand,
magical items, being rarer, are likely to be used longer.

IIRC I've seen a few constructions like "... most, but
by no means all, of which [i.e. covid-related deaths in this
country] are associated with long term care facilities". In such
cases the logic is more obvious.... :-)

A perfectly reasonable construction to me, too.

2. Is it correct to express the continued use of these
items in the present progressive tense?

As a native speaker I depend heavily on my Russian
modem buddies & foreign language textbooks to identify the names
of verb tenses.

I think the terminology is largely the same in English Grammars
written in English, by the English, and for the English.

(English \Eng"lish\, n. Collectively, the people of England;
English people or persons.)

In general the present tense would work too, but in
this example I figure it would change the emphasis as well as the
rhythm I had in mind. :-)

If I grasp this distinction corretly, then I should say that a busy
and professional photographer may say: "I am using a Horizon
camera," whereas a time-to-time amateur like me who shoots several
film rolls a season may say: "I use a Horizon camera"?

That the sound of your original version is better is "fixed with the
golden nails to the walls of inevitable necessity".

In a moment, his wife looked up at him and said, "I'm
sorry. I'd not thought she was capable of a thing like
that."

Mark the last sentece, which, again, is uttered by an
apparently educted person.

It strikes me as unusual, but not incorrect. If the
person you're referring to lives in the Southern States I'd cut
her a bit of slack.... :-)

And she sure does.

How about this:

a. I forgot he was vegetarian. (he still is)

That's what I'd probably say.

b. I forgot he had been vegetarian. (he has reverted)

If I knew he'd reverted but my brain slipped a cog, I
might say "I forgot he'd been vegetarian as an impecunious
student but modified his stance after he began doing hard
physical work in the construction industry.... :-)

Your extrapolation has given new life to my example, but I see no
cogs slipping...

---
* Origin: nntps://news.fidonet.fi (2:221/6.0)

Hi again, Anton! This is a continuation of my previous message to you:

Addison in a psalm of his addresses God:

I knew thou wert not slow to hear,
Nor impotent to save.

I don't think that substituting `art' for `wert' would
harm the sound and rythm so much as to justify `wert',
were it ungrammatical...

No. But I think you're referring to Joseph Addison, who lived from 1672-1719 & who wrote at least two hymns based on a rewording of Old Testament psalms. Bishop R. Heber said "... which wert, and art, and evermore shalt be" WRT God in 1827. I'm not sure how much to attribute to liturgical anachronism ... as Fowler puts it... or how much weight to assign to the idea that when we speak of an immutable truth the verb tenses should still be in agreement. :-)

We've often had people say to us, in casual conversation,
"I didn't know you're a teacher." I doubt they are the
only people who do this.... :-)

Hardly so, but such is the nature of causual conversation
that one has little time, and even less desire, to ensure
grammatical accuracy.

Agreed. When folks are speaking extemporaneously they tend to make grammatical errors they probably wouldn't have made if they'd had more time to think about the wording. In an otherwise fruitless search of my own reference books, however, I found this description of something else: "well established but controversial". I think the same might also be said of the above.... ;-)




--- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+
* Origin: Wits' End, Vancouver CANADA (1:153/716)

I wrote Ardith Hinton:

Thank you for this most commendable commission to quality in the
echo.

commitment.

---
* Origin: nntps://news.fidonet.fi (2:221/6.0)

Ardith Hinton to Anton Shepelev:

Addison in a psalm of his addresses God:

I knew thou wert not slow to hear,
Nor impotent to save.

I don't think that substituting `art' for `wert' would
harm the sound and rythm so much as to justify `wert',
were it ungrammatical...

No. But I think you're referring to Joseph Addison,
who lived from 1672-1719 & who wrote at least two hymns based on
a rewording of Old Testament psalms.

Yes.

Bishop R. Heber said "...which wert, and art, and evermore shalt
be" WRT God in 1827. I'm not sure how much to attribute to
liturgical anachronism ..

I see no fault with bishop Heber's usage, for with these words he
addresses God (rather than saying it WRT Him), and therefore uses
the second-person verbs. Why he wrote "which" instead of `who' is
another question. It is probably permissible because `which' is
more general than "who", and, together with `that', used be employed
to personal and impersonal objects alike, but Cf. another address:
"Our Father, Who art in Heaven...", where the verb is in the second
person too, but the prounoun is personal.

as Fowler puts it... or how much weight to assign to the idea
that when we speak of an immutable truth the verb tenses should
still be in agreement. :-)

Well, even these days the prevailing tendency is to have them
agree, as a quick search for "knew the Earth was round" in
Boogle Gooks shows .

We've often had people say to us, in casual conversation,
"I didn't know you're a teacher." I doubt they are the
only people who do this.... :-)

Hardly so, but such is the nature of causual conversation
that one has little time, and even less desire, to ensure
grammatical accuracy.

Agreed. When folks are speaking extemporaneously they
tend to make grammatical errors they probably wouldn't have made
if they'd had more time to think about the wording. In an
otherwise fruitless search of my own reference books, however, I
found this description of something else: "well established but controversial". I think the same might also be said of the
above.... ;-)

If the alternative is uncontrovesional yet unestablished, then I
prefer the former :-) I have failed to what the esteemed Goold
Brown has to say upon the matter on account of the sheer volume of
his magnum opus.

---
* Origin: nntps://news.fidonet.fi (2:221/6.0)

Hi, Anton! Recently you wrote in a message to Ardith Hinton:

I could have written "... none of which has [blah blah]
but all of which we are still using." Although it would
have made a nicer parallelism I felt it might be
unnecessarily wordy.

Indeed. The amendment I had in mind (but withheld) was
the following: "none with magic(k)al powers, but all
of them still in use".

I consider it a reasonable alternative.... :-)

My other misdoublt about it (withheld, too) was that "but"
does not seem to introduce any kind of contradtion! On the
other hand, magical items, being rarer, are likely to be
used longer.

The latter is +/- what I had in mind. Once I am dead & gone my heirs
& executors may not see any further need to keep various household items. If I
owned a magic ring they might feel differently about it. But if I'd never told
them this ring had magical powers, or if they preferred to believe the old lady
was delusional, you might see it offerred for sale as "antique jewellery". ;-)

As a native speaker I depend heavily on my Russian modem
buddies & foreign language textbooks to identify the names
of verb tenses.

I think the terminology is largely the same in English
Grammars written in English, by the English, and for the
English.

Exactly. One of the reasons I like traditional grammar is that I can
communicate with people of all ages... from all over the world... knowing their
dictionaries & grammar books will employ +/- the same terminology mine do. :-)

In general the present tense would work too, but in this
example I figure it would change the emphasis as well as
the rhythm I had in mind. :-)

If I grasp this distinction corretly, then I should say
that a busy and professional photographer may say: "I am
using a Horizon camera,"

Such a person might say "I am using [blah blah], as we speak... but I
use different equipment under different conditions." :-)

whereas a time-to-time amateur like me who shoots several
film rolls a season may say: "I use a Horizon camera"?

If that is the only camera you have, yes. Although I continue to use
the cutlery I inherited from various people I have other cutlery as well... and
I won't bore you by explaining in detail which item I use for which purpose(s).

That the sound of your original version is better is "fixed
with the golden nails to the walls of inevitable necessity".

"Necessity is the mother of invention", or so I am told. While I can
hardly compare myself to Mozart I can see now why I understood intuitively what
he meant when I did sight reading. It simply wouldn't work any other way. Yet
my writing area, like Beethoven's manuscripts, is littered with revisions. :-Q

If I knew he'd reverted but my brain slipped a cog, I
might say "I forgot he'd been vegetarian as an impecunious
student but modified his stance after he began doing hard
physical work in the construction industry.... :-)

Your extrapolation has given new life to my example, but I
see no cogs slipping...

Upon reading your reply I see I forgot the end quotation marks there.
Even English teachers make misteaks, but I appreciate the compliment... [grin].




--- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+
* Origin: Wits' End, Vancouver CANADA (1:153/716)

Hi, Anton! Recently you wrote in a message to Ardith Hinton:

Bishop R. Heber said "... which wert, and art, and
evermore shalt be" WRT God in 1827. I'm not sure
how much to attribute to liturgical anachronism...

I see no fault with bishop Heber's usage,

Nor do I.

for with these words he addresses God (rather than
saying it WRT Him), and therefore uses the second-
person verbs.

Yes. But these days we'd say "(you) were, and are, and forever will/
shall be" in ordinary speech. While I have seen some attempts to modernize the
language in old hymns & whatnot I tend to prefer the original version.... :-))

Why he wrote "which" instead of `who' is another
question.

IMHO the most likely explanation is that... as you commented below...
usage has changed over the years. But "thee" and "thou", "thy" and "thine" may
be retained in certain circumstances.... :-)

It is probably permissible because `which' is more
general than "who", and, together with `that', used be
employed to personal and impersonal objects alike,

Hmm... I think you've made another important point there. I like the
idea that "God the Father" could be a metaphor, BTW.... :-)

but Cf. another address: "Our Father, Who art in
Heaven...", where the verb is in the second
person too, but the prounoun is personal.

Except when it's not. The Lord's Prayer is a translation & there are
many different versions. The KJV says "which".... :-)

... or how much weight to assign to the idea that when
we speak of an immutable truth the verb tenses should
still be in agreement. :-)

Well, even these days the prevailing tendency is to have
them agree, as a quick search for "knew the Earth was
round" in Boogle Gooks shows .

That's what I'd expect of an historian... [chuckle].

If the alternative is uncontrovesional yet unestablished,
then I prefer the former :-)

I think it's probably the safest, in formal English at least.... :-)

I have failed to what the esteemed Goold Brown has to
say upon the matter on account of the sheer volume of
his magnum opus.

Uh-huh. When I try looking up some issues, if I can find anything at
all, I get one of two answers: "there are so many possible uses of [blah blah]
I won't attempt an exhaustive list" or "my favourite dictionary includes thirty
pages of xxx in detail, but I feel overwhelmed with too much information". I'm
reminded here of my adventures with French & Latin... where the examples in the
textbook make sense until question #4, when added wrinkles are introduced. :-Q




--- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+
* Origin: Wits' End, Vancouver CANADA (1:153/716)

Ardith Hinton - Anton Shepelev:

It is probably permissible because `which' is more
general than "who", and, together with `that', used be
employed to personal and impersonal objects alike,

Hmm... I think you've made another important point there.

Note to self: "employed with" or "applied to".

I like the idea that "God the Father" could be a metaphor,
BTW.... :-)

I did not have that idea in mind while commenting on the hymn. Nor
do Christians think of God that way.

but Cf. another address: "Our Father, Who art in
Heaven...", where the verb is in the second
person too, but the prounoun is personal.

Except when it's not. The Lord's Prayer is a
translation & there are many different versions. The KJV says
"which".... :-)

Well spotted! That explains Heber's "which"--it is truer to
Jacobian English.

I have failed to what the esteemed Goold Brown has to
say upon the matter on account of the sheer volume of
his magnum opus.

Uh-huh. When I try looking up some issues, if I can
find anything at all, I get one of two answers: "there are so
many possible uses of [blah blah] I won't attempt an exhaustive
list" or "my favourite dictionary includes thirty pages of xxx in
detail, but I feel overwhelmed with too much information". I'm
reminded here of my adventures with French & Latin... where the
examples in the textbook make sense until question #4, when added
wrinkles are introduced. :-Q

That has happened to me, too, but not in case of Brown. It took me
three attemts to understand Fowler's exposition on Will and Shall
in a chapter of "King's English":

https://www.bartleby.com/116/213.html

But in the end I did it and now can read Agatha Christie, Anthony
Hope, and Bram Stoker without stumbling at every second `should'.

---
* Origin: nntps://news.fidonet.fi (2:221/6.0)

Hi, Anton! Recently you wrote in a message to Ardith Hinton:

It is probably permissible because `which' is more
general than "who", and, together with `that', used be
employed to personal and impersonal objects alike,

Hmm... I think you've made another important point there.

Note to self: "employed with" or "applied to".

Yes, that's better.... :-)

I like the idea that "God the Father" could be a metaphor,
BTW.... :-)

I did not have that idea in mind while commenting on the
hymn.

I didn't think you would. That's why I said "BTW"... [grin].

Nor do Christians think of God that way.

In this part of the world there are many differences of opinion, even
among Christians, as to the exact nature of God. YMMV. :-)

but Cf. another address: "Our Father, Who art in
Heaven...", where the verb is in the second
person too, but the prounoun is personal.

Except when it's not. The Lord's Prayer is a
translation & there are many different versions.
The KJV says "which".... :-)

Well spotted! That explains Heber's "which"--it
is truer to Jacobian English.

That's my take on it. The "King James" version of the Bible... first
published in the early 17th century... is beloved by many people because of the
beauty of the language. I can well understand why it's still widely read today
& why authors like Bishop Heber might follow suit if they were writing hymns or
poetry. I'm not sure, however, when popular usage changed WRT "which".... :-)

It took me three attemts to understand Fowler's
exposition on Will and Shall in a chapter of
"King's English":

https://www.bartleby.com/116/213.html

I imagine it will take me as many. I was quite amused by his comment
that while this stuff comes naturally to folks from southern England it remains
a mystery to almost everyone else. I recall some fragments from my school days
& I found some brief usage notes in my GAGE CANADIAN DICTIONARY, but both leave
out a lot. This is the most detailed explanation I've seen.... :-)

But in the end I did it

I would say you deserve a box of gold stars... [chuckle].

and now can read Agatha Christie, Anthony Hope, and
Bram Stoker without stumbling at every second `should'.

Great! I am reminded here of the adventures Dallas & I had trying to
explain an Agatha Christie novel to Canadian kids in grade nine. :-Q

Although many shall/will distinctions are no longer in common use, it
is important to understand that even nowadays a legal document saying "teachers
shall do xxx" carries about the same weight as the Ten Commandments in the eyes
of the school board. And it's important to understand that when I say I should
like to meet you & other folks here in person, I'm not speaking of a duty or an
obligation as in "I really should tidy up the kitchen one of these days". :-))




--- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+
* Origin: Wits' End, Vancouver CANADA (1:153/716)