Re: V2 languages

"Raymond A. Brown" wrote:

> >In English I can only put one object before the verb,
> >you should avoid direct or indirect object (acusative or dative) but is not
> >a must: (John I gave the book),
>
> I don't know about American, Indian or Antipodean English, but in Brit
> English if the two objects are dislocated so that one preceeds the subject,
> we must have the prep. 'to', e.g.
> To John I gave the book. [Answering the question: What did you give John?]
> The book I gave to John. [Answering the question: Who did you give the book
> to?]
Hmm, yeah, that's what we might say too.  But I wouldn't be at all surprised
to hear: "John I gave the book to" (assuming, of course, that extra emphasis
if being placed on "John").

> (Yes, I know some pedants will say the last question should begin 'Whom' or
> even 'To whom'.  But we actually say 'who'.   :)
I can't think of a region of the world where English is spoken where
this would *not* be the case.

> >and subject must always be just before verb.
>
> Yep - generally so.  But the older form of verb-subject when actual speech
> is quoted - "I'll do it later", said John - was quite common earlier this
> century and is still heard in colloquial English, more particularly, I
> think, in rural speech than urban speech: "Then," says I, "you should
> see....." etc.
"*says* I"? Not "say I"? I think this used to be fairly common in American
English.  That happens a lot in Edgar Allen Poe's shortstories, and he
was only somewhat conservative for his time (syntactically;  lexically
he sounds... odd... he's too polysyllabic and latinate for it to sound like
spoken speech).   Of course, every (American) literature student should
know one famous example of this:  "Quoth the Raven:  Nevermore!"

===========================================
Tom Wier <artabanos@...>
AIM: Deuterotom ICQ: 4315704
<http://www.angelfire.com/tx/eclectorium/>
"Cogito ergo sum, sed credo ergo ero."
===========================================