English has nominative and genitive. "More inflected" languages like Spanish have only nominative.
Why do people say English has not declensions?
I think the genitive is nowadays analyzed as an "enclitic possessive", rather than a real noun case. A real case should have lots of irregularities, and there should be at a least a few irregular genitive plural forms.
Also, a whole phrase can be put in to the "genitive" with just one 's:
"The King of England's crown", for example.
Similarly, there's no subjunctive left in modern English. There is just the "normal" inflected verb, and the "uninflected" verb form sometimes used where the subjunctive used to be used, and looking like the old subjunctive:
"We insist that all students be seated before the class starts."
Here, "be", is something like an elliptic form of "should be", "must be", etc.
In addition, there's no plural form in English anymore. The "s" often seen at the end of nouns, sort of implying the plural, is really just an "alternate form" or "conventional form", left over from ages past. You can get by just fine without the "s", in many cases.
Note: I don't know what I'm talking about, so take this all with a grain of salt.
Also, a whole phrase can be put in to the "genitive" with just one 's:
"The King of England's crown", for example.
Similarly, there's no subjunctive left in modern English. There is just the "normal" inflected verb, and the "uninflected" verb form sometimes used where the subjunctive used to be used, and looking like the old subjunctive:
"We insist that all students be seated before the class starts."
Here, "be", is something like an elliptic form of "should be", "must be", etc.
In addition, there's no plural form in English anymore. The "s" often seen at the end of nouns, sort of implying the plural, is really just an "alternate form" or "conventional form", left over from ages past. You can get by just fine without the "s", in many cases.
Note: I don't know what I'm talking about, so take this all with a grain of salt.
I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that. Infact, I don't believe I've ever heard the word "declension" in my life. I'll have to look it up after I figure out what "genitive" and "nominative" are supposed to mean.
God.
God.
English DOES still maintain a pure Genitive case, which is inclusive of the enclitic possessive. The E.P. does not negate the fact that when used thusly "the man's hat", "his book", etc that it is not genitive.
"The King of England's crown" is really "The King-of-England's crown" and is genitive.
So, OP you are correct: English has 2 declensions--Nominative/Object and Genitive/Possessive
btw, I am not one of the people who gainsay that fact
"The King of England's crown" is really "The King-of-England's crown" and is genitive.
So, OP you are correct: English has 2 declensions--Nominative/Object and Genitive/Possessive
btw, I am not one of the people who gainsay that fact
<<The King of England's crown" is really "The King-of-England's crown" and is genitive.>>
OK, how about something like
"John and Mary's car"
-or-
"John, Joe, Fred, Sam, and Pete's business"
Here a single "'s" seems to be enough to cover all 2 or 5 nouns.
Is "John" in the genitive case here?
In "We gave John the book.", is "John" caseless, or in the dative (or whatever) case?
OK, how about something like
"John and Mary's car"
-or-
"John, Joe, Fred, Sam, and Pete's business"
Here a single "'s" seems to be enough to cover all 2 or 5 nouns.
Is "John" in the genitive case here?
In "We gave John the book.", is "John" caseless, or in the dative (or whatever) case?
<<I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that. Infact, I don't believe I've ever heard the word "declension" in my life. I'll have to look it up after I figure out what "genitive" and "nominative" are supposed to mean.
God. >>
You can't be God then. God knows everything.
God. >>
You can't be God then. God knows everything.
<<"John and Mary's car" >>
I usually say John's and Mary's car to mean that the car belongs to both John and Mary.
Otherwise, John and Mary's car would mean ''John, and the car of Mary''
<<"John, Joe, Fred, Sam, and Pete's business" >>
Same here
I usually say John's and Mary's car to mean that the car belongs to both John and Mary.
Otherwise, John and Mary's car would mean ''John, and the car of Mary''
<<"John, Joe, Fred, Sam, and Pete's business" >>
Same here
Why is the 's' used to create plurals, along with other plural forms such as 'mice', not really a plural?
And by the OP's logic, English would have three declensions, wouldn't it? Nominitive, object and genitive.
And by the OP's logic, English would have three declensions, wouldn't it? Nominitive, object and genitive.
<<Why is the 's' used to create plurals, along with other plural forms such as 'mice', not really a plural? >>
For this, you would need to go all the way back to Old English and Proto-Germanic to realise all the different noun classes and declensions and how they formed their plurals. The short short version is that by the Middle English Period, all had coalesced into just 3 basic types: plurals in '-s', '-es'; plurals in '-n', '-en'; and mutated plurals like "mice". (There were also several words which combined a number of these and former ones together, like "children").
Anyway, today there is only plural 's', '-es'. Almost all new English nouns will receive this form of the plural. All the others are hangovers from the former tide, which have not fully standarised to the new plural sequence.
<<And by the OP's logic, English would have three declensions, wouldn't it? Nominitive, object and genitive. >>
Only pronouns have a distinct object form, but not all (cf "you")
For this, you would need to go all the way back to Old English and Proto-Germanic to realise all the different noun classes and declensions and how they formed their plurals. The short short version is that by the Middle English Period, all had coalesced into just 3 basic types: plurals in '-s', '-es'; plurals in '-n', '-en'; and mutated plurals like "mice". (There were also several words which combined a number of these and former ones together, like "children").
Anyway, today there is only plural 's', '-es'. Almost all new English nouns will receive this form of the plural. All the others are hangovers from the former tide, which have not fully standarised to the new plural sequence.
<<And by the OP's logic, English would have three declensions, wouldn't it? Nominitive, object and genitive. >>
Only pronouns have a distinct object form, but not all (cf "you")
Yes, but how does that mean English should no longer be considered to have a plural?
I realise only some pronouns (and 'who') have a distinct object form, but that doesn't take away from the fact that a subject/object system operates in English. It just isn't very extensive.
I realise only some pronouns (and 'who') have a distinct object form, but that doesn't take away from the fact that a subject/object system operates in English. It just isn't very extensive.
<<Yes, but how does that mean English should no longer be considered to have a plural?>>
The original statement about no plural in English was meant as a joke. There have been serious and scholarly arguments about English having no possessive case for nouns, and also about having no real subjunctive.
I was trying to extend these arguments to eliminate the concept of plural. Maybe someone can extend all this to prove that English has no verb tenses either, and no inflection of adjectives ("large" "larger" "largest", "largely", for example). Perhaps we could eventually prove that English has no grammar at all, no syntax, no phonology, no writing system, etc.
The original statement about no plural in English was meant as a joke. There have been serious and scholarly arguments about English having no possessive case for nouns, and also about having no real subjunctive.
I was trying to extend these arguments to eliminate the concept of plural. Maybe someone can extend all this to prove that English has no verb tenses either, and no inflection of adjectives ("large" "larger" "largest", "largely", for example). Perhaps we could eventually prove that English has no grammar at all, no syntax, no phonology, no writing system, etc.
Antimorphologist
OK, I get the joke, I have myself started threads that insinuated English totally lacks grammar as a laugh.
Of course it doesn't.
English retains most morphological concepts, even if at a simple level.
Verb morphology - third person changes and past forms are irregular
Cases - Pronouns change plus the who/whom distinction
A plural form, which while mostly a simple 's', shows other irregular forms
i.e mice
While all very simple, the idea is certainly still there. Native English speakers should really be able to put these principles into practice with other languages, if they sit down and think about what is happening with their own language.
OK, I get the joke, I have myself started threads that insinuated English totally lacks grammar as a laugh.
Of course it doesn't.
English retains most morphological concepts, even if at a simple level.
Verb morphology - third person changes and past forms are irregular
Cases - Pronouns change plus the who/whom distinction
A plural form, which while mostly a simple 's', shows other irregular forms
i.e mice
While all very simple, the idea is certainly still there. Native English speakers should really be able to put these principles into practice with other languages, if they sit down and think about what is happening with their own language.