Re: OT: Latin subject-verb agreement

René Uittenbogaard wrote:
(snip nice Dutch text)

>This is apparently in the King James Version:
>
>9a. Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou,
>being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria?
>
>But my guess is that this translation was primarily intended to
>give as accurate a translation as possible. It probably didn't
>reflect actual usage in the time the translation was written.
>
Very hard to say, since as you note, it's "translationese". What do Chaucer,
Shakespeare, Wilde et al do?

Currently, I'd guess most speakers make every effort to find other
strategies :-))) in order to avoid the "...who am..." business entirely.
IMNSHO, both "it (is/was etc) I" and "am" in a relative clause sound very
pedantic (even to me, who...// and I'm a certified pedant), albeit utterly
correct according to prescriptive grammar. (It's odd that we have no trouble
with "he, who is..." or majority "you/we/they who are...")

All those years of schoolmarms trying to drum into our heads that "it's me",
"you and me" as subject, or "you and I" as obj. of preposition are wrong,
wrong, wrong!!!-- all for nought.

AFMNCL-- Prevli, currently under construction, avoids the issue: el kan
(there.is 1sg.) "it's me/I", elda kan 'it was me/I" ~ elda kan ya, zizer ko
(.... TOPIC, eat-past I-it) 'it was I who ate it, I was the one who ate it'
(or again, zizer hen gile ya, elda kan (ate he-it person TOPIC, it was I/me)
= The one/person who ate it was me. And so it is that Prevli sentence
structure is so far up to ~40 pages, and no end in sight :-((((((