T Nation

Grammatical Question

hey guys,

I have a grammatical question :slight_smile:

“Do not swing your upper body to create momentum.”

“Do not swing WITH your upper body to create momentum.”

Is it right with a “with” or without a “with”, or are both version right?

and if the grammatic is right: does the content make sence?

I really want to work at my English skills, and I i think it is really easy for you as native speakers to answer that.

thanks in advance and keep strong!

yours tommy :wink:

Unless you’re using the sentence for something academic or formal, both versions would get your point across and a native speaker would not find it that strange.

As a native speaker, I’d find it more natural to say the first version, “Do not swing your upper body to create momentum”

It depends on what you mean to say. The first sounds like the upper body itself is moving. The second implies that the upper body is not moving, but generating the force.

[quote]Bungalow wrote:
It depends on what you mean to say. The first sounds like the upper body itself is moving. The second implies that the upper body is not moving, but generating the force.[/quote]

If its not moving, how is it generating force?

[quote]Eric 2.0 wrote:

[quote]Bungalow wrote:
It depends on what you mean to say. The first sounds like the upper body itself is moving. The second implies that the upper body is not moving, but generating the force.[/quote]

If its not moving, how is it generating force?

[/quote]

I’ll jump in here. We’re talking grammar, so:

in the first sentence the object of the verb ‘swing’ is ‘upper body,’ which implies that the upper body is moving.

the second sentence, with the addition of ‘with’ changes this. ‘Upper body’ is no longer the object of the verb. In this case, there is no object directly stated, which is why (to me, upon first reading) the second sentence sounds somewhat awkward. We can assume an object from context (whether situational context e.g. demonstrating a barbell curl in a gym, or implied context e.g. this was posted on a bodybuilding/weightlifting website so we can assume a barbell, dumbbell, kettlebell, etc.) and thus make the sentence a little less awkward sounding. At any rate, the second sentence does imply that the verb ‘swing’ is not referring to the ‘upper body’ but to some unnamed object, and that the ‘upper body’ is the originator of the action ‘swing.’

That may not be very clear, so I apologize.

I do agree with your statement that either one will get the point across, and I, too, would use the first sentence over the second.

While we’re talking grammar, does anyone know which is correct? Saying:

Those are them.

or

Those are they.

For example:

(Rando) Are those the scissors I lent you?
(Me) Yep, those are they.

I swear this is what I was taught to say, but its sounds ridiculous. (my parents are immigrants btw, so anythings possible)

[quote]Mascherano wrote:
While we’re talking grammar, does anyone know which is correct? Saying:

Those are them.

or

Those are they.

For example:

(Rando) Are those the scissors I lent you?
(Me) Yep, those are they.

I swear this is what I was taught to say, but its sounds ridiculous. (my parents are immigrants btw, so anythings possible)[/quote]

I don’t think I’d ever say either. My answer would be either: Yes, or Yes they are.

As for the original question, I feel like the second one implies a disassociation between upper body and yourself. You are committing the act of swinging in concert with your upper body. You are swinging WITH your upper body much like you would swing with a woman willing to cheat on her husband. Your upper body has become an accomplice in the act of swinging.

Anyone else read it thatta way?

[quote]Mascherano wrote:
While we’re talking grammar, does anyone know which is correct? Saying:

Those are them.

or

Those are they.

For example:

(Rando) Are those the scissors I lent you?
(Me) Yep, those are they.

I swear this is what I was taught to say, but its sounds ridiculous. (my parents are immigrants btw, so anythings possible)[/quote]

“those are they”.

and this also goes for “is”, as in “it is I” (instead of “it is me”)

but “between you and me” is also proper.

tricky.

most americans don’t care, but if you are talking to a brit, they’ll call you on it :slight_smile:

[quote]MementoMori wrote:

[quote]Mascherano wrote:
While we’re talking grammar, does anyone know which is correct? Saying:

Those are them.

or

Those are they.

For example:

(Rando) Are those the scissors I lent you?
(Me) Yep, those are they.

I swear this is what I was taught to say, but its sounds ridiculous. (my parents are immigrants btw, so anythings possible)[/quote]

I don’t think I’d ever say either. My answer would be either: Yes, or Yes they are.

As for the original question, I feel like the second one implies a disassociation between upper body and yourself. You are committing the act of swinging in concert with your upper body. You are swinging WITH your upper body much like you would swing with a woman willing to cheat on her husband. Your upper body has become an accomplice in the act of swinging.

Anyone else read it thatta way?
[/quote]

But if anything…“Those are them”

But to the OP, i agree w/ everyone else. Each sentence implies a different meaning.

[quote]MementoMori wrote:

[quote]Mascherano wrote:
While we’re talking grammar, does anyone know which is correct? Saying:

Those are them.

or

Those are they.

For example:

(Rando) Are those the scissors I lent you?
(Me) Yep, those are they.

I swear this is what I was taught to say, but its sounds ridiculous. (my parents are immigrants btw, so anythings possible)[/quote]

I don’t think I’d ever say either. My answer would be either: Yes, or Yes they are.[/quote]

As a North American, I agree with this, and it’s what I would teach to a student here in Japan.

(Rando) Are those the scissors I lent you?
(Me) Yes, (they are).

However, I do believe that, grammatically speaking, ‘Those are they’ is correct. But I don’t know why, so now I’m going to have to research it because you’ve piqued my interest. :slight_smile:

[quote]MementoMori wrote:
As for the original question, I feel like the second one implies a disassociation between upper body and yourself. You are committing the act of swinging in concert with your upper body. You are swinging WITH your upper body much like you would swing with a woman willing to cheat on her husband. Your upper body has become an accomplice in the act of swinging.

Anyone else read it thatta way?[/quote]

Yes, this is what I was trying to say in my first post when I wrote:

[quote]metal.head wrote:

[quote]Mascherano wrote:
While we’re talking grammar, does anyone know which is correct? Saying:

Those are them.

or

Those are they.

For example:

(Rando) Are those the scissors I lent you?
(Me) Yep, those are they.

I swear this is what I was taught to say, but its sounds ridiculous. (my parents are immigrants btw, so anythings possible)[/quote]

“those are they”.

and this also goes for “is”, as in “it is I” (instead of “it is me”)

but “between you and me” is also proper.

tricky.

most americans don’t care, but if you are talking to a brit, they’ll call you on it :)[/quote]

Actually, every single person except one of my history professors uses “it is me” or “you and me.” I think the “proper” way is becoming as outmoded here in england as it seems to be over your end (in casual, spoken terms anyhow)

This said, every once in a while people do call me out on shit like this and it is irritating.

For example, at my university they hated split infinitives. Which tecnically made “to boldly go where no man has gone before” incorrect. Fuck that, it sounds a whole lot better than “to go boldly, where no man has gone before”

Don’t do either one.

Its bad form.

[quote]Tommy_91 wrote:
hey guys,

I have a grammatical question :slight_smile:

“Do not swing your upper body to create momentum.”

“Do not swing WITH your upper body to create momentum.”

Is it right with a “with” or without a “with”, or are both version right?

and if the grammatic is right: does the content make sence?

I really want to work at my English skills, and I i think it is really easy for you as native speakers to answer that.

thanks in advance and keep strong!

yours tommy :wink:
[/quote]

I think your actual question was answered but since you’re looking to improve your English:

“and if the GRAMMAR is right, does the content make SENSE?”
“I really want to work ON my English…”

[quote]Mascherano wrote:
While we’re talking grammar, does anyone know which is correct? Saying:

Those are them.

or

Those are they.

For example:

(Rando) Are those the scissors I lent you?
(Me) Yep, those are they.

I swear this is what I was taught to say, but its sounds ridiculous. (my parents are immigrants btw, so anythings possible)[/quote]

Masch - could you pick any more of a confusing noun? Scissors is one of those words that confuses me. It’s one of those that can be plural or singular. “Pass me the scissor” or “Pass me the scissors”. Both can mean one pair of scissors. My head just exploded.

And no, I don’t know the correct answer.

[quote]ChronosOceanus wrote:

[quote]Mascherano wrote:
While we’re talking grammar, does anyone know which is correct? Saying:

Those are them.

or

Those are they.

For example:

(Rando) Are those the scissors I lent you?
(Me) Yep, those are they.

I swear this is what I was taught to say, but its sounds ridiculous. (my parents are immigrants btw, so anythings possible)[/quote]

Masch - could you pick any more of a confusing noun? Scissors is one of those words that confuses me. It’s one of those that can be plural or singular. “Pass me the scissor” or “Pass me the scissors”. Both can mean one pair of scissors. My head just exploded.

And no, I don’t know the correct answer.[/quote]

I’ve never heard of scissor being singular. That’s like wearing pant.

[quote]Mascherano wrote:
While we’re talking grammar, does anyone know which is correct? Saying:

Those are them.

or

Those are they.

For example:

(Rando) Are those the scissors I lent you?
(Me) Yep, those are they.

I swear this is what I was taught to say, but its sounds ridiculous. (my parents are immigrants btw, so anythings possible)[/quote]

You can’t go wrong with"

“They is those” or “Dem is da ones”

DB

[quote]OsakaNate wrote:

[quote]Eric 2.0 wrote:

[quote]Bungalow wrote:
It depends on what you mean to say. The first sounds like the upper body itself is moving. The second implies that the upper body is not moving, but generating the force.[/quote]

If its not moving, how is it generating force?

[/quote]

I’ll jump in here. We’re talking grammar, so:

in the first sentence the object of the verb ‘swing’ is ‘upper body,’ which implies that the upper body is moving.

the second sentence, with the addition of ‘with’ changes this. ‘Upper body’ is no longer the object of the verb. In this case, there is no object directly stated, which is why (to me, upon first reading) the second sentence sounds somewhat awkward. We can assume an object from context (whether situational context e.g. demonstrating a barbell curl in a gym, or implied context e.g. this was posted on a bodybuilding/weightlifting website so we can assume a barbell, dumbbell, kettlebell, etc.) and thus make the sentence a little less awkward sounding. At any rate, the second sentence does imply that the verb ‘swing’ is not referring to the ‘upper body’ but to some unnamed object, and that the ‘upper body’ is the originator of the action ‘swing.’

That may not be very clear, so I apologize.

I do agree with your statement that either one will get the point across, and I, too, would use the first sentence over the second.[/quote]

Thanks professor :slight_smile:

I considered posting something like this, but I’m not sure OP will be able to follow it, since he is apparently still in the process of learning the language. And as you said, the sentences vary only slightly in their meaning, and contextual clues (in this case, the fact that he’s posting on a site about weight training) fill in the blanks, so we can reasonably assume what point he’s trying to get across.

[quote]Mascherano wrote:
For example:

(Rando) Are those the scissors I lent you?
(Me) Yep, those are they.
[/quote]

What ever happened to simplicity? Why not answer with a simple:

(Me) Yes they are.

???

[quote]Magicpunch wrote:

[quote]metal.head wrote:

[quote]Mascherano wrote:
While we’re talking grammar, does anyone know which is correct? Saying:

Those are them.

or

Those are they.

For example:

(Rando) Are those the scissors I lent you?
(Me) Yep, those are they.

I swear this is what I was taught to say, but its sounds ridiculous. (my parents are immigrants btw, so anythings possible)[/quote]

“those are they”.

and this also goes for “is”, as in “it is I” (instead of “it is me”)

but “between you and me” is also proper.

tricky.

most americans don’t care, but if you are talking to a brit, they’ll call you on it :)[/quote]

Actually, every single person except one of my history professors uses “it is me” or “you and me.” I think the “proper” way is becoming as outmoded here in england as it seems to be over your end (in casual, spoken terms anyhow)

This said, every once in a while people do call me out on shit like this and it is irritating.

For example, at my university they hated split infinitives. Which tecnically made “to boldly go where no man has gone before” incorrect. Fuck that, it sounds a whole lot better than “to go boldly, where no man has gone before”[/quote]

tru dat :slight_smile:

living in ca, i know quite a few brits (and even dated one -nice rack), and they seem to be grammar perfectionists, even though they are nice about it. so thats when i break out da hip-hop, haha

churchill was so supposedly opposed to ending sentences with a preposition that he has this quote:

“This is the sort of English up with which I will not put.” (i didnt research to see if he really said it)

^ Sounds like Master Yoda, who was also a very wise being. So it’s gotta be right!