Zompist Bboard Again

hwhatting wrote: ↑Tue Nov 09, 2021 5:48 am

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Tue Nov 09, 2021 3:46 am Zompist: I'm not so convinced that "excuse me" was originally imperative. For one, it's just as likely that the original phrase used the subjunctive. Also, an overt imperative would not get away with avoiding the reflexive like this (e.g. "Excuse yourself from gym class"), so even if it was historically an imperative, it hasn't been parsed that way for some time.

In European lanuages, subjunctives and imperatives are close in function; subjunctives often serve as "polite" imperatives or as imperatives where the (polite) 2nd person pronoun is formally a 3rd person pronoun (e.g. German polite Entschuldigen Sie bitte vs. informal Entschuldige bitte, Italian scusi (3rd sg. subj. referring polite pronoun Lei) vs.2nd sg. imperative scusa referring to informal tu. Like these constructions, "excuse me" is historically a request (whether in the imperative or a polite subjunctive) to excuse / pardon / forgive the requesters actions. So a reflexive pronoun is not even to be expected here. That this is not parsed as an imperative any more is what makes a construction like "excuse you" possible.

zompist wrote: ↑Tue Nov 09, 2021 2:19 pm

hwhatting wrote: ↑Tue Nov 09, 2021 5:48 am

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Tue Nov 09, 2021 3:46 am Zompist: I'm not so convinced that "excuse me" was originally imperative. For one, it's just as likely that the original phrase used the subjunctive. Also, an overt imperative would not get away with avoiding the reflexive like this (e.g. "Excuse yourself from gym class"), so even if it was historically an imperative, it hasn't been parsed that way for some time.

In European lanuages, subjunctives and imperatives are close in function; subjunctives often serve as "polite" imperatives or as imperatives where the (polite) 2nd person pronoun is formally a 3rd person pronoun (e.g. German polite Entschuldigen Sie bitte vs. informal Entschuldige bitte, Italian scusi (3rd sg. subj. referring polite pronoun Lei) vs.2nd sg. imperative scusa referring to informal tu. Like these constructions, "excuse me" is historically a request (whether in the imperative or a polite subjunctive) to excuse / pardon / forgive the requesters actions. So a reflexive pronoun is not even to be expected here. That this is not parsed as an imperative any more is what makes a construction like "excuse you" possible.

We all agree that "excuse me" is not interpreted as an imperative today. The bit of logic I don't get is that subjunctives would not use the reflexive. You certainly use the reflexive with subjunctives in French and Spanish (Je veux que tu te laves; quiero que te bañes). And to the extent that we have it, in English:

I demand that he excuse himself.

hwhatting wrote: ↑Wed Nov 10, 2021 2:32 am

zompist wrote: ↑Tue Nov 09, 2021 2:19 pm We all agree that "excuse me" is not interpreted as an imperative today. The bit of logic I don't get is that subjunctives would not use the reflexive. You certainly use the reflexive with subjunctives in French and Spanish (Je veux que tu te laves; quiero que te bañes). And to the extent that we have it, in English:

I demand that he excuse himself.

I don't know whether that question is adressed to me or to Moose. I didn't claim that a subjunctive cannot be used with a reflexive. My understanding is that Moose implied that "excuse me" is a replacement for something like "(I) excuse myself", and was puzzled by the seeming dropping of the reflexive pronoun and by the role of "me". My response was to the point that "excuse me" is historically a transitive, non-reflexive request (imperative or subjunctive) to the addressee ("(please / may you) excuse me (for my offending action)", so a reflexive is not required or even to be expected in this construction.

zompist wrote: ↑Wed Nov 10, 2021 3:57 am Well, there's nothing surprising about "excuse me"; it's not reflexive because it's 2s>1s. The question is what happens when it's turned into 2s>2s.

If it really were a request to the addressee to forgive themselves, I think it'd be reflexive. After all you could advise someone, "Don't tear yourself up over this; please forgive yourself."

I'm wondering now if it's a sort of use/mention thing. It's like a meta-statement: "'Excuse me' is wrong-- 'me' should be 'you'!" It might be the same thing that produces sentences like "That's a you problem."

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Mon Nov 08, 2021 8:56 am
I've been thinking a lot lately about the English colloquialism "excuse you." In some dialects of American English you might say "excuse you" to someone who has performed some faux pas for which they should be ashamed. The formula is clear: excuse me indicates that the speaker has made a social error, so excuse you indicates the same about the listener. But the grammar is doing my head in.

hwhatting wrote: ↑Wed Nov 10, 2021 4:57 am I'm not sure anymore that I understand what "excuse you" is supposed to mean.

I took it as meaning "you (not me) did something wrong and you ought to offer an apology". You seem to say that it means "you did something wrong, but it's fine with me". What of the both is it? Or maybe both, or something else entirely?

zompist wrote: ↑Wed Nov 10, 2021 5:35 amThe meta explanation is that it's saying "'Excuse me' is what you should say."

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Thu Nov 11, 2021 5:21 am

zompist wrote: ↑Wed Nov 10, 2021 5:35 amThe meta explanation is that it's saying "'Excuse me' is what you should say."

I like this angle. Deliberately breaking grammar rules in English to make a meta-textual point is a common thing ("The pandemic is going poorly because freedom"), so it could certainly be at work here.

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 11, 2021 1:52 pm

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Thu Nov 11, 2021 5:21 am

zompist wrote: ↑Wed Nov 10, 2021 5:35 amThe meta explanation is that it's saying "'Excuse me' is what you should say."

I like this angle. Deliberately breaking grammar rules in English to make a meta-textual point is a common thing ("The pandemic is going poorly because freedom"), so it could certainly be at work here.

As per forum rules, I have to quibble with your particular example. "because FREEDOM" is attested from at least 2008 and there were enough examples of the general "because NOUN" construction by 2012 for it to acquire that name as it made the rounds of the linguistic blogosphere. So while it may once have been a deliberate breaking of English grammar rules to make a meta-textual point, that point has passed and now it's just a somewhat colloquial preposition.

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Thu Nov 11, 2021 3:57 pmI was once raked over the coals on this website for daring to suggest that metaphorical uses of a word can ever become part of its default definition with repeated use, so I must quibble with your quibble.

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Sat Nov 13, 2021 7:35 am “girl” replacing “maid”?

I think it's a pretty cool place, I really like extra and huge art pieces