Subj : Tenses...  2.
To   : Anton Shepelev
From : Ardith Hinton
Date : Thu Jun 18 2020 22:26:36

Hi, Anton!  Recently you wrote in a message to Ardith Hinton:

AS>  It is probably permissible because `which' is more
AS>  general than "who", and, together with `that', used be
AS>  employed to personal and impersonal objects alike,

AH>  Hmm... I think you've made another important point there.

AS>  Note to self: "employed with" or "applied to".


          Yes, that's better....  :-)



AH>  I like the idea that "God the Father" could be a metaphor,
AH>  BTW....  :-)

AS>  I did not have that idea in mind while commenting on the
AS>  hymn.


          I didn't think you would.  That's why I said "BTW"... [grin].



AS>  Nor do Christians think of God that way.


          In this part of the world there are many differences of opinion, even among Christians, as to the exact nature of God.  YMMV.  :-)



AS>  but Cf. another address: "Our Father, Who art in
AS>  Heaven...", where the verb is in the second
AS>  person too, but the prounoun is personal.

AH>  Except when it's not.  The Lord's Prayer is a
AH>  translation & there are many different versions.
AH>  The KJV says "which"....  :-)

AS>  Well spotted! That explains Heber's "which"--it
AS>  is truer to Jacobian English.


          That's my take on it.  The "King James" version of the Bible... first published in the early 17th century... is beloved by many people because of the beauty of the language.  I can well understand why it's still widely read today & why authors like Bishop Heber might follow suit if they were writing hymns or poetry.  I'm not sure, however, when popular usage changed WRT "which"....  :-)



AS>  It took me three attemts to understand Fowler's
AS>  exposition on Will and Shall in a chapter of
AS>  "King's English":

AS>  https://www.bartleby.com/116/213.html


          I imagine it will take me as many.  I was quite amused by his comment that while this stuff comes naturally to folks from southern England it remains a mystery to almost everyone else.  I recall some fragments from my school days & I found some brief usage notes in my GAGE CANADIAN DICTIONARY, but both leave out a lot.  This is the most detailed explanation I've seen....  :-)



AS>  But in the end I did it


          I would say you deserve a box of gold stars... [chuckle].



AS>  and now can read Agatha Christie, Anthony Hope, and
AS>  Bram Stoker without stumbling at every second `should'.


          Great!  I am reminded here of the adventures Dallas & I had trying to explain an Agatha Christie novel to Canadian kids in grade nine.  :-Q

          Although many shall/will distinctions are no longer in common use, it is important to understand that even nowadays a legal document saying "teachers shall do xxx" carries about the same weight as the Ten Commandments in the eyes of the school board.  And it's important to understand that when I say I should like to meet you & other folks here in person, I'm not speaking of a duty or an obligation as in "I really should tidy up the kitchen one of these days".  :-))




--- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+
 * Origin: Wits' End, Vancouver CANADA (1:153/716)

.