A small garmmar question

[NotWise]

Would the answer still be "we" if the example were written with "like" in the place of "such as"? I think in this case that "like" has exactly the same meaning as "such as".

"Such things are not necessary for women like ____."

Even if it's right, "like we" sounds ridiculous; "like us" sounds like English. In order to make it sound right I'd have to fill out "for women like ____" to "for women [who are] like we [are.]"

 

[KeithD]

Post #11 notes that, in dialogue, usage can be controlled by the knowledge/education level of the character speaking. That gives license for which way you write it.

Post #23 provides a key for figuring out what is proper English. If you apply it,

"Such things are not necessary for women like me am."

or

"Such things are not necessary for women like I am."

It's fairly obvious which one is proper English.

 

[NotWise]

In post #5 and post #6 KeithD and SimonDoom both added "are" to the end of

"Such things are not necessary for women such as ____."

I think that was supposed to clarify the sentence. I don't think it's necessary, and adding "are" to the end changes the sentence.

In the original sentence "Such things" provides the subject, "are" is the verb, "not necessary" modifies the verb, "for" is a conjunction, and "women such as ____." is the object of the modified verb.

In that context, "us" is the correct pronoun because it's the object of the verb. The object is "women such as us."

If I modify Shakespeare by adding "are" to the end of "women such as ___", then I turn what was written as a simple object phrase into a mess -- a dependent clause? I don't know. It doesn't make sense to me. Maybe that's why Bill didn't write it that way.

 

[KeithD]

OK, I'm done.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Post #11 notes that, in dialogue, usage can be controlled by the knowledge/education level of the character speaking. That gives license for which way you write it.

Post #23 provides a key for figuring out what is proper English. If you apply it,

"Such things are not necessary for women like me am."

or

"Such things are not necessary for women like I am."

It's fairly obvious which one is proper English.

Hmm. I would have expanded this as "Such things are not necessary for women who are like ___", but I'm not sure if that changes the answer.

 

[jaF0]

"Such things are not necessary for women such as ____."

Which is correct, please? Us or we or something else?

I would use 'ourselves'.

 

[jaF0]

Post #11 notes that, in dialogue, usage can be controlled by the knowledge/education level of the character speaking. That gives license for which way you write it.

Post #23 provides a key for figuring out what is proper English. If you apply it,

"Such things are not necessary for women like me am."

or

"Such things are not necessary for women like I am."

It's fairly obvious which one is proper English.

"Such things are not necessary for women like me."

"Such things are not necessary for women like myself."

"Such things are not necessary for women such as I." (Though I don't like using the same word twice in a short phrase.)

 

[jaF0]

Scanned a few more posts, saw one other mention of 'ourselves' which was unsuprisingly ignored. Saw some other stuff, non-relevant. Dunno a verb from an herb or a noun from an ounce, I just know what reads right to me and which words seems to flow together better.

 

[SimonDoom]

In post #5 and post #6 KeithD and SimonDoom both added "are" to the end of

"Such things are not necessary for women such as ____."

I think that was supposed to clarify the sentence. I don't think it's necessary, and adding "are" to the end changes the sentence.

In the original sentence "Such things" provides the subject, "are" is the verb, "not necessary" modifies the verb, "for" is a conjunction, and "women such as ____." is the object of the modified verb.

In that context, "us" is the correct pronoun because it's the object of the verb. The object is "women such as us."

If I modify Shakespeare by adding "are" to the end of "women such as ___", then I turn what was written as a simple object phrase into a mess -- a dependent clause? I don't know. It doesn't make sense to me. Maybe that's why Bill didn't write it that way.

Bill was writing for poetic effect, and his judgment on that subject trumps mere grammar concerns, I think.

I don't quite agree with your analysis of the syntax of the sentence.

"Such things are not necessary" is an independent clause (sentence) with a linking verb "are". So "not necessary" cannot be an object because linking verbs don't have objects. Instead, "not necessary" is a predicate adjective phrase that modifies "Such things."

"For women such as ___" is a prepositional phrase, where "for" is the preposition and "women such as ____" is the object of the preposition. The prepositional phrase modifies the adjective "necessary."

The tricky thing is figuring out what "such as ____" is, and then trying to figure that out in a way that's consistent with how people actually talk and write as opposed to how prescriptivists insist they talk and write.

You're right that trying to make sense of this by substituting "like" for "such as" just messes up the analysis completely. Nobody would say "like I." That sounds ridiculous even if, on the surface, the logic we apply to "such as" seems to apply to "like." I think the answer to that is that we just accept "like me" as a prepositional phrase as a matter of custom. We don't do that with "as." Why? I dunno.

For instance:

He is as tall as I.

He is tall, like me.

I think both of these are correct. But that's based as much as or more than my understanding of common usage as on my understanding of the logic of it.

 

[NotWise]

I thought it would be good to let this dog lie, but I came back to agree. Sort of.

"Are" is used as a linking verb. What follows "are" is the subject complement, which you can break down as you see fit. The rule is that you would use the subjective form ("we" in this case) in the subject complement, but there are a lot of problems with that.

I found this at grammar-monster.com. There are probably other sources.

A common question related to linking verbs is whether to say "It was me" or "It was I". Here's the quick answer. You can say either because the "It was me" version is what everyone says (and so acceptable), and the "It was I" version fits the ruling that subject complements are in the subjective case.

However, to most, the so-called correct "It was I" version sounds pretentious or wrong. Here's the final advice: If you're speaking, do whatever comes naturally to you. If you're writing, restructure your sentence to avoid both versions.

"It was her/she" could become "She was the one."

So by that, as others have said, it's better to avoid the problem and write

"Such things are not necessary for women such as ourselves."

 

[Handley_Page]

'We' is an subject pronoun, 'us' is an object pronoun. I get that. It's how to interpret that which has me slightly confused.

Two women talking, both of the same age, class, profession, etc. One remarks about a matter of etiquette, much as Henry does in Shakespeare's Henry V: "Such things are not necessary for women such as ____."

Which is correct, please? Us or we or something else?

Please forgive the intrusion, but I rather suspect it depends upon where the speaker resides. (local dialect, etc..).
I suspect it is also a good way of indicating some characteristics or education of the speaker.

 

[SimonDoom]

I suspect it is also a good way of indicating some characteristics or education of the speaker.

This is a very good point.

For example, TP's original sample involves a quotation, rather than narration. The dialogue is spoken by King Henry. We would expect King Henry to use whatever grammatical form seems most correct and most elevated. So "women such as we" would be more appropriate in this case. But in common dialogue people often use the objective case, so it might fit better:

"Women such as us"

"Hey, it's me"

"Guys like us"

 

[Athalia]

You say "It is I" not "It is me."

But who says that, really, except people with literary degrees? All I've ever heard is "It's me." Even when I lived in England, that was the usual way of announcing oneself.

And for that, we can blame the French. "It is me" is a direct translation of "C'est moi."

 

[ElectricBlue]

But who says that, really, except people with literary degrees? All I've ever heard is "It's me." Even when I lived in England, that was the usual way of announcing oneself.

And for that, we can blame the French. "It is me" is a direct translation of "C'est moi."

You're not the first to comment that grammatically correct prose can, at times, come across as pedantic and prissy, and you won't be the last.

I wonder how this famous movie line fares, grammar wise (from Full Metal Jacket) - I don't know, by the way, if it's "correct" or not.

"Is that you, John Wayne? Is this me?"

 

[SimonDoom]

Y

"Is that you, John Wayne? Is this me?"

That line makes no sense whatsoever in that movie. Apparently Kubrik lifted it from the book, The Short Timers, on which his movie was based, but in the book the line was spoken by Cowboy, in a different context. In the movie Joker says it, and it doesn't make any sense unless you assume he's a literary smart ass quoting the book on which the movie is based, in which case it's a weird meta-reference.

But it sounds good, and I assume that's why Kubrik chose to keep the line and to have Joker say it. And you can't fault him for doing so.

Grammar can be like that, too. Sometimes the logic of grammar can't overcome the sound of the words.
I nearly always say "It's me" rather than "It's I." But if I were reading a novel or a Shakespeare play with a character of elevated stature and good education, I'd expect that character to say "It is I." Context is important.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

Jeepers, when I asked the question originally, I figured it would make life simpler! Instead of two options, I am now (I think, it’s confusing) up to six alternatives, with the moderator involved, no less.

Well, God bless all for trying so valiantly to edjumacate me - and a sincere Merry Christmas, folks. There’s a deep Bermuda rum in my future.

 

[KeithD]

Jeepers, when I asked the question originally, I figured it would make life simpler! Instead of two options, I am now (I think, it’s confusing) up to six alternatives, with the moderator involved, no less.

Well, God bless all for trying so valiantly to edjumacate me - and a sincere Merry Christmas, folks. There’s a deep Bermuda rum in my future.

What moderator? _Lynn_ is the moderator of the Editor's Forum.

I'm not sure it's been fully covered here that usage by a character in the story can be much different from what the usage of an omniscient (but noncharacter) narrator should normally be.

And "proper" English isn't pompous just because a poster doesn't use it.

 

[_Lynn_]

Jeepers, when I asked the question originally, I figured it would make life simpler! Instead of two options, I am now (I think, it’s confusing) up to six alternatives, with the moderator involved, no less.

What moderator? _Lynn_ is the moderator of the Editor's Forum.

The discussion involved personal attacks which many of you here know aren't allowed in the EF. They were reported by an author who realized one of the posters wasn't following that guideline.

 

[RubyRedLips]

'We' is an subject pronoun, 'us' is an object pronoun. I get that. It's how to interpret that which has me slightly confused.

Two women talking, both of the same age, class, profession, etc. One remarks about a matter of etiquette, much as Henry does in Shakespeare's Henry V: "Such things are not necessary for women such as ____."

Which is correct, please? Us or we or something else?

The Shakespeare line that you give as an example points out the fact that the genre and style in which you are writing can compound uncertainty simply because of anachronistic usages, and frequent employment of conversation in the vernacular. I've always found that one of the most interesting and challenging genres to write in is fantasy/sci fi, simply because you can literally make up new forms of changed language structure as you go along.