Re: OT: Latin subject-verb agreement

>"T. A. McLeay" <conlang@...> wrote:
>Apparently my English has fixed this because "I, who am a
>captain, ...is weird and at least questionable, if not outright
>wrong.
Not in my book.  It is the only grammatically correct choice.  The
others are wrong.

>My explanation for this is that "am" is a particularly restricted
>form of the verb; it pretty much can only be used with "I" before or
>after it...
And this is a problem because?  "Bin" can only be used
with "ich"; "suis" can only be used with "je" (yes, I am aware
of "suivre"); "soy" can only be used with "yo"; etc.  "Pretty
much"??  I can't think of any other pronoun or noun with which to use
it.

>and with no other modifications (consider "I am coming, aren't I?").
IMO, one of the horrors of contemporary English.  I'd sooner
say "ain't I."  At least, it has an accepted history behind it.  But
personally, when the need arises, I say "am I not?"  I don't feel a
burning need to have to use a contraction.

>Just like "I" isn't exactly the nominative first person singular
>pronoun, "am" isn't exactly the first person singular form of "to
>be".
Huh?  An untold number of English teachers has led me astray. Not to
mention the teachers of other languages who have told me that,
e.g., "je suis" means "I am."

Charlie