the winners [parenthetical phrase]
[note: written last night; held on request for e-mail kink to clear] Wow. I never thought alt photographers knew so much grammar, about half of which I don't understand (either because it's over my head or a kluge, or both). But, unless someone can prove me wrong, I'm going to say none of the above. "Poetic license" is T.S, as Diana, and I think two others, mentioned. But I do have a relatively simple answer that doesn't require it. (I was going to check with my brother, but I forgot, besides which, I think he's off camping somewhere.) First, permit me to declare two winners anyway: Don Sweet and Bob Kiss. Don because his reply was essentially over my head, making it sound plausible, tho I no longer (after two crashes) have strength to parse it. And Bob for his phrase "poetic, emphatic, redundancy," poetic in itself, and both because they arrived so promptly. BUT Bob said:... "T.S. uses 'you and I' to refer back to the subject pronoun 'us', all of which take the nominative case so you and "I" would be correct." Unh, unh. If "'you and I' refers back to the subject pronoun 'us,'" which it does, that's no help, because it's not true that "all take the nominative": "us" is the *objective* (aka "accusative") case; "we" would have been the nominative. And "Let we go now" wouldn't have worked, even for T.S. (Phew, thanks for an easy one.) ============================================================================== So OK (Judy speaking again): IMO, line 3 is awful. But our issue is line one. Now try the following:Let us go then, you and I, When the evening is spread out against the sky Like a patient etherised upon a table... I take "Let" for the imperative form of the verb, and "us" as its direct object (properly in the objective case). I don't see any way "You and I" could be the actual subject of the imperative "let," as was suggested (tho it is *understood* as subject). I see it as a parenthetical phrase. The parenthetical phrase must be set off by commas, as indeed "you and I" is set off by commas.... I add here that several so-called grammar books were found lurking in and around this house, but none had an entry for "parenthetical phrase." Which goes to show how useless grammar books are when you need them. ("Parenthetical phrase" is not an obscure term.) Here's another example: "I looked through several grammar books, and, if you could believe, not a one of them had an entry for 'parenthetical phrase.'" Here "if you could believe" is a parenthetical phrase. You could think of it as a "weak parenthesis" (commas instead of parentheses). "Vocative" case? Again, wow. I hadn't heard that word since high school Latin (I think it was). Again not found in the grammar books. So I checked Webster's. Seems from what I could tell without new eyeglasses to be a form of direct address. In which case "you and I" would be wrong, just like a recent case I will not mention, you wouldn't say "tell I." And, as noted, I don't think it's necessary to reach so far. Of course it would be simpler if it were names instead of pronouns: "Let us go now, Franny & Zoey," but I daresay T.S. didn't know them. Had enough? I'm not sending this now because of the pause for repairs. It's 2:11 AM Thursday. See you tomorrow. love and vowels, Judy On Wed, 10 Jan 2007, Don Sweet wrote: Hi Judy It is correct grammar if it is understood as an ellipsis, i.e. "...you and I [go]." It would be incorrect if "you and I" were the object complement of "us". Regards Don Sweet ========================================================================= Read My T-Shirt for President: A True History of the Political Front _ and Back >www.frontandbackpress.com< ........................................................................ A reader writes: "I'd recommend it for a Pulitzer Prize, except I lack the credentials."
|