Zagwozdki jezykowe

[uhuhana]

Czasem trafia czlowiek na zdanie, ktore, mimo, ze jest proste i zrozumiale, budzi watpliwosci: "dlaczego tak, a nie inaczej?" Smieszne, ze czesto sa to "zagwozdki" rodem z nizszego poziomu - a jednak. Postanowilam zalozyc watek z takimi watpliwosciami w nadziei, ze zawsze znajda sie osoby chetne do ich rozwiania. Jesli ktos ma podobne dylematy, piszcie, pozastanawiamy sie razem :) Ja mam juz kilka takich kwiatkow, ze rynce opadaja ;):
1. Z wiedzy szkolnej: uczono, ze: this is Ian's home. Albo: This is a home of Ian. Jak wersja z of, to bez s, taka to roznica. A mowia czesto: this is a friend of John's. Why God, why?
2. Napis na tabliczce: beware of dog. Dlaczego bez "a" lub "the"?
3. Podobne zdanie: he was policeman. Bez "a"
4. W jednym odcinku reality show lady stwierdza, ze "I feel a sadness". Tym razem z article, bez wiekszego powodu jak na moj gust.

Mam taki nawyk ze jak wylapie cos "dziwnego" z tv, zapisuje i inwigiluje :]

[olivkah]

Bardzo dobry nawyk. This is a home of Ian's znaczy, że Ian ma kilka domów i to jest jeden z nich.

[uhuhana]

Na pewno? Ostatnio w tescie zaznaczylam: Hubert is an uncle of: Kim. Poprawna odp to Kim's. Przeciez moze miec jednego wujka, plus tylko 1 odp jest poprawna. Czy w szkole uczyli mnie bredni? heheh. Bo kiedys dalabym reke sobie uciac, ze: He is Kim's uncle. Ale: He is an uncle of Kim. Wiec? Moze kwestia jest w article - an wskazuje na kilku, z the byloby of Kim?

[bfthumbelina]

chodzi o double genitive?


that hard heart of thine ("Venus and Adonis", line 500)
this extreme exactness of his (Sterne, "Tristram Shandy", chapter 1.IV)
that poor mother of mine (Thackery, "Barry Lyndon", chapter I)
Any Friend of Nicholas Nickleby’s is a Friend of Mine, and frequent uses of the title Friend of Mine
a picture of the king’s (that is, a picture owned by the king, as distinct from a picture of the king – a picture in which the king is portrayed)[9]

Some writers regard it as questionable usage,[10] although it has a history in careful English. "Moreover, in some sentences the double genitive offers the only way to express what is meant. There is no substitute for it in a sentence such as That’s the only friend of yours that I’ve ever met, since sentences such as That’s your only friend that I’ve ever met and That’s your only friend, whom I’ve ever met are not grammatical."[11] "[T]he construction is confined to human referents: compare a friend of the Gallery / no fault of the Gallery."[12] Some object to the name, as the "of" clause is not a genitive. Alternative names are "post-genitive",[13] "cumulative genitive", "pleonastic genitive",[14][15] "double possessive" and "oblique genitive".[16] The Oxford English Dictionary says that this usage was "Originally partitive, but subseq[uently became a] ... simple possessive ... or as equivalent to an appositive phrase ...".[17]

i jeszcze wyjaśnienia:

"To say you're a friend of Greg's means that Greg looks upon you as a friend. To say you're a friend of Greg means that you look upon Greg as a friend. A subtle difference. It seems that the addition of -s to . . . Greg is a way of focusing attention on [this person] as having a more active role in the relationship being expressed. Double possession has given us a way to express quite fine distinctions that we couldn't convey before. The extra marking is not overkill in this case."
(Kate Burridge, Weeds in the Garden of Words: Further Observations on the Tangled History of the English Language. Cambridge University Press, 2005)

[uhuhana]

heheh dzieki, co za wyjasnienie, ciezko sie czytalo :D kwestia jak dla mnie nadal pozostaje otwarta, ale moze ja srednio lotna jestem ;p