5 ms·

Is that really an accepted standard? I have to go out on a limb here and ask if that's even a proper sentence? Who/what is the subject? It certainly helps to kn

by yogo 14y ago

Is that really an accepted standard? I have to go out on a limb here and ask if that's even a proper sentence? Who/what is the subject? It certainly helps to know who you would be having coffee with.

harshreality 14y ago
The subject is implied and purposely left out to avoid emphasis. It's not an ultra-formal construction, but it would be a stretch to call it incorrect grammar. You know who you'd be having coffee with. The sender of the email. :)
- pyrocrasty 14y ago
  Just as much of a stretch to call it proper grammar, though ;-) (Yes, that sentence was even less proper.)
  - brian_cloutier 14y ago
    It will always be a stretch, because there is no such thing as proper grammar.
fratis 14y ago
The subject is an implied first person. (i.e., "I" or "we.") I see this kind of omission as a way for cowards to avoid explicitly standing behind their request, both to diminish their own disappointment if the recipient says no or ignores them and to mitigate the chance that the recipient perceives their note as 'needy.' Just my 2¢.
- rumcajz 14y ago
  I was wondering about this construct several times in the past. AFAIK English is not a pro-drop language, which means that the construct should be ungrammatical. My impression was that it was introduced to American English be immigrants with pro-drop native languages (Italians? Slavs?) Am I completely off track?
  - bmuon 14y ago
    Spanish is pro-drop and much more present in the US.
    - rubyrescue 14y ago
      the more spanish i speak the more i want to drop english words, and the more confortable i am moving the subject of the adjective to the end of the sentence.
  - StavrosK 14y ago
    "Pro-drop" languages usually incorporate the person in the verb. So "grab" in "we grab" is different than "I grab". In Greek, it's "πίνουμε" vs "πίνω". You omit the subject because you lose no information. In fact, it's redundant to include it, so you only do it if you want to emphasize it.
  - cwp 14y ago
    Right, technically English doesn't let you drop pronouns. On the other hand there is a pretty long tradition of dropping first person pronouns in writing. You see it in informal correspondence and journals from before electronic media were omnipresent. Stuff like, "Went to the store today. Got stuck in a snow bank and had to call a tow truck." I don't think it comes from immigrants that speak other languages, so much as economizing long passages of text that's all in the first person. The "I" at the beginning of every sentence just gets dropped.
  - jholman 14y ago
    It depends on whether you think "ungrammatical" means "not approved of by prescriptivists", or you mean "not used and/or not understood by fluent speakers". Given that you know the word "pro-drop", I assume you know this, and I'm not sure if I should bother continuing in this vein. Maybe you're asking for a descriptive grammaticality judgement from fluent English speakers? I agree that from a prescriptivist perspective, this is improper formal writing. From a descriptivist perspective, I try to avoid biz guys, but I suspect the GP post nailed it, with respect to common usage in the appropriate sociolect (the same sociolect that has "proof points", "value-add", "circling back", etc). Although maybe not for the last sentence of an email that already had that much circumlocution.
- resu_nimda 14y ago
  Nailed it. It's a way to extend an invitation with minimal vulnerability. I wouldn't agree that it's necessarily "for cowards," probably because I tend to employ similar strategies. When I recognize it in communication from someone else, I understand where that person is coming from and consider the message delivered. It's kind of a fun game, striking that balance between nonchalance and making your intentions clear.
- guptaneil 14y ago
  Interesting. I always thought this form of writing was to cut down on the number of words in an email, so that the reader can more easily skim for the overall message, while also reducing formality and increasing familiarity. I've even recently tried to start emulating this style for those reasons.
  - yogo 14y ago
    If you said text messaging then I would agree. That's the first thing that came to mind because traditionally everyone wants to save characters when texting resulting in ur, b, etc.
    - guptaneil 14y ago
      Actually, with texting, I find it harder to shorten words into misspellings like ur or b, because I end up fighting against my phone's autocorrect. Sure, once you use it a few times, your phone will learn to stop autocorrecting, but why bother? I don't understand why people still use "ur" when "your" is just as easy to type these days. SMS length isn't really an issue anymore either, with most smartphones automatically concatenating longer messages for the recipient.
      - yogo 14y ago
        That is true, with smartphones this has changed (or should have go away). The issue isn't really about concatenating--I had nokia phones with just a keypad that did that years ago--it's the fact that often you can keep a message short and only use 1 message with the shorter "words". This won't make a difference if you have an unlimited text plan but it still matters for some people.
- mikegioia 14y ago
  THANK you. I've said this for so long and I'm always scoffed at.
xianshou 14y ago
It's not grammatical English, but nor are a variety of other constructs that we see as normal, such as "ain't no," or even "they" as a gender-neutral singular pronoun (this one matters only to sticklers). Convenience need not obey the rules. Would love to expand further if you are interested. Also: http://www.amazon.com/Eats-Shoots-Leaves-Tolerance-Punctuation/dp/1592402038 http://www.amazon.com/Eats-Shoots-Leaves-Tolerance-Punctuati...
- Evbn 14y ago
  The rules describe how people speak in large numbers. So these examples are grammatical.

by yogo 14y ago

Is that really an accepted standard? I have to go out on a limb here and ask if that's even a proper sentence? Who/what is the subject? It certainly helps to know who you would be having coffee with.

harshreality 14y ago

The subject is implied and purposely left out to avoid emphasis. It's not an ultra-formal construction, but it would be a stretch to call it incorrect grammar. You know who you'd be having coffee with. The sender of the email. :)

pyrocrasty 14y ago
Just as much of a stretch to call it proper grammar, though ;-) (Yes, that sentence was even less proper.)
- brian_cloutier 14y ago
  It will always be a stretch, because there is no such thing as proper grammar.

fratis 14y ago

The subject is an implied first person. (i.e., "I" or "we.") I see this kind of omission as a way for cowards to avoid explicitly standing behind their request, both to diminish their own disappointment if the recipient says no or ignores them and to mitigate the chance that the recipient perceives their note as 'needy.' Just my 2¢.

rumcajz 14y ago
I was wondering about this construct several times in the past. AFAIK English is not a pro-drop language, which means that the construct should be ungrammatical. My impression was that it was introduced to American English be immigrants with pro-drop native languages (Italians? Slavs?) Am I completely off track?
- bmuon 14y ago
  Spanish is pro-drop and much more present in the US.
  - rubyrescue 14y ago
    the more spanish i speak the more i want to drop english words, and the more confortable i am moving the subject of the adjective to the end of the sentence.
- StavrosK 14y ago
  "Pro-drop" languages usually incorporate the person in the verb. So "grab" in "we grab" is different than "I grab". In Greek, it's "πίνουμε" vs "πίνω". You omit the subject because you lose no information. In fact, it's redundant to include it, so you only do it if you want to emphasize it.
- cwp 14y ago
  Right, technically English doesn't let you drop pronouns. On the other hand there is a pretty long tradition of dropping first person pronouns in writing. You see it in informal correspondence and journals from before electronic media were omnipresent. Stuff like, "Went to the store today. Got stuck in a snow bank and had to call a tow truck." I don't think it comes from immigrants that speak other languages, so much as economizing long passages of text that's all in the first person. The "I" at the beginning of every sentence just gets dropped.
- jholman 14y ago
  It depends on whether you think "ungrammatical" means "not approved of by prescriptivists", or you mean "not used and/or not understood by fluent speakers". Given that you know the word "pro-drop", I assume you know this, and I'm not sure if I should bother continuing in this vein. Maybe you're asking for a descriptive grammaticality judgement from fluent English speakers? I agree that from a prescriptivist perspective, this is improper formal writing. From a descriptivist perspective, I try to avoid biz guys, but I suspect the GP post nailed it, with respect to common usage in the appropriate sociolect (the same sociolect that has "proof points", "value-add", "circling back", etc). Although maybe not for the last sentence of an email that already had that much circumlocution.
resu_nimda 14y ago
Nailed it. It's a way to extend an invitation with minimal vulnerability. I wouldn't agree that it's necessarily "for cowards," probably because I tend to employ similar strategies. When I recognize it in communication from someone else, I understand where that person is coming from and consider the message delivered. It's kind of a fun game, striking that balance between nonchalance and making your intentions clear.
guptaneil 14y ago
Interesting. I always thought this form of writing was to cut down on the number of words in an email, so that the reader can more easily skim for the overall message, while also reducing formality and increasing familiarity. I've even recently tried to start emulating this style for those reasons.
- yogo 14y ago
  If you said text messaging then I would agree. That's the first thing that came to mind because traditionally everyone wants to save characters when texting resulting in ur, b, etc.
  - guptaneil 14y ago
    Actually, with texting, I find it harder to shorten words into misspellings like ur or b, because I end up fighting against my phone's autocorrect. Sure, once you use it a few times, your phone will learn to stop autocorrecting, but why bother? I don't understand why people still use "ur" when "your" is just as easy to type these days. SMS length isn't really an issue anymore either, with most smartphones automatically concatenating longer messages for the recipient.
    - yogo 14y ago
      That is true, with smartphones this has changed (or should have go away). The issue isn't really about concatenating--I had nokia phones with just a keypad that did that years ago--it's the fact that often you can keep a message short and only use 1 message with the shorter "words". This won't make a difference if you have an unlimited text plan but it still matters for some people.
mikegioia 14y ago
THANK you. I've said this for so long and I'm always scoffed at.

xianshou 14y ago

It's not grammatical English, but nor are a variety of other constructs that we see as normal, such as "ain't no," or even "they" as a gender-neutral singular pronoun (this one matters only to sticklers). Convenience need not obey the rules. Would love to expand further if you are interested. Also: http://www.amazon.com/Eats-Shoots-Leaves-Tolerance-Punctuation/dp/1592402038 http://www.amazon.com/Eats-Shoots-Leaves-Tolerance-Punctuati...

Evbn 14y ago
The rules describe how people speak in large numbers. So these examples are grammatical.