This booklet explains why most of the same people who say I'll do it and She'll do it often say Jane and myself (or me) will do it or Someone, probably me, will do it. (Marilyn Monroe was made to sound silly when she pointed to a picture of herself in a newspaper and said, "That's I!"--just what the grammars teach!) Heard on the BBC: Us humans love our pets (said humorously) and a prime minister's to we Europeans. The mirror image of such problems occurs when those who say Give it to me and Give it to her more often than not say Give it to she and I.

     Avoiding to he who can be obviated by saying or writing to the one that; similarly, problems with both of whom can be avoided by saying or writing who both . . . The uses of relative that vs. who or which in the grammars conflict with cultivated usage; and the cases when the conjunction that is not deletable are unclear in the grammars. (Appositive that is nearly always undeletable.) This descriptive failure is like the situation involved in differentiating that and who. Further, how many grammars are clear on the difference between Which is you? and Which are you? Even the translators of the famous 1611 English Bible had trouble using cases in the Latinate or Germanic way; cf.Whom say ye that I am?

     Even grammars that distinguish mass, collective, and abstract nouns from count nouns--and even those that explain the distinction betweeen fruit and fruits, fish and fishes, acid and acids, and salt and salts--kinds, shipments, packages, orders of salt medicaments--as well as between hunting bear from ten bears and eating crow from ten crows and between fewer people and less salt or less virtue may nonetheless provide little guidance on when we say less of a mess; or when we do (or do not)use of in less of a fish, less (of) a fire, or less (of) a gambler. And so also with too much of a big fish or too much of a gambler. (Indeed, the many uses of "dummy-of" in English are mostly ignored.)

     Why can we say who else's and the man I talked to's books but not the poor's efforts or, not very easily, you boy's books?

     One reason for deficiencies of this sort is that grammar-writers often have list or inventory mentalities rather than system mentalities. Some grammars may explain uter (epicene: neither exclusively masculine nor feminine) they, their, them, and themself in Everyone should do what they think best with their funds and It's everybody for themself. It's only occasionally that the difference between Sofie and Oscar's book and Sofie's and Oscar's books is explained--not to speak of why it's harder to say Linda and my books (than Linda's and my books.

     What can you learn from your grammar about the difference between wove and weaved, flew and flied, mouse and mouses, men-o'-war and man-of-wars, and geese and gooses--or thisses, these, and this's (as in How many this's are there in that paragraph?)? Does your grammar tell you when--and why--lab(e)ling, lab(o)ring, butt(o)ning, and foll(o)wing, are dissyllabic and when they are trissyllabic? Or what the exact details of the distinction between sunk and sunken (cf. melted and molten), rotted and rotten (cf. loaded and laden), burnt and burned, and learnëd and learned are? What of lighted and lit? Why are English That irresponsible guy is the one responsible and The available space is less than the space available not mutually contradictory? Besides many verb explanations (e.g. the Don'tchu-prohibitive, would vs. useta-habituals), developmentalist analysis presents two "pasts" (an unmarked past and a marked or modal anterior, formed on have); an exochronous modality (serving many "subjunctive purposes"); nine posterior modalities; and a surrealis environment that changes the time forms of verbs (as in When/Till she arrives, he'll deal with whoever is on hand). Note that, if arrives in the foregoing and makes in the following were a "present tense," we could not say: This factory makes watches on days when it's closed; and stage directions like Hamlet comes forward or timeless expressions like St. Paul advises against that in his Letter to the Romans would not be good English. Indeed, there is no contradiction in English when we say She speaks English but right now she's speaking Japanese and She comes from Dallas but she's coming from New Orleans. (Spanish can handle the difference between The child is happy and The child is being happy right now.) Expressions like She hears those bells have a believable explanation, as do performatives like I christen this ship Argo; cf. narratives like Now I put this in the oven and The catcher misses.) Contrast the ritualistic Who goes there? with posterior Who's going there? as well as There go the horses (narrative use with non-directional there) and The horses are going there.

     The present treatment explains, inter alia, (1) why we reverse It was being aimed at (processual in unmarked category): He got shot (non-processual in unmarked category) to He was being shot at dawn (non-processual in marked category) : It was getting aimed at for a take-over next month (processual in marked category); and (2) why, although It has been done at midnight is not acceptable English, Whenever I get there at dawn, it has already been done at midnight is (because of the marked category)quite acceptable. Reversals under negation, true interrogation, and comparison (recall the reversals of the forms of she/her and I/me above) are explained here. Reversals include not only unmarked tag-questions (contrast the negation in the clauses of She's not ready, is she? and She's ready, isn't she?--which contrasts in pragmatic force with She's ready, is she?!. Dealt with also are the peculiarities of Never did we get that message and We never got that message. The present approach also accounts for reversals like:

• (1a) If that should go wrong. (should is dubitative)
• (1b) She was upset that they should have said that. (should is factual)
• (2a) We shall return. (shall expresses determination)
• (2b) Shall we leave now? (shall expresses a mild suggestion or hesitant invitation)
• (3a) It arrives tomorrow. (a posterior [marked] scheduled event)
• (3b) As soon it arrives tomorrow (unmarked for this marked category)
• (3c) If its gonna arrive tomorrow (marked be gonna for expectation in ditto)
• (4a) They're gonna try to leave earlier but they'll be prepared to leave later.
• (4b) They're never gonna know the answer but we're not gonna stop trying.
• (5a) They got taken advantage of.
• (5b) They were taken advantage of by Harry.

Examples (4a,b) reverse be gonna and (wi)ll under negation--as occurs also in (non-rhetorical) questions--for which one can make up one's own examples. The grammars are mostly mute over the various contexts where we can grammatically say (the otherwise grammatical) would or would have following if, until, who, etc. Compare If they would only stop whining, Anyone who would do that, If they would (as you predict) agree, Till / When /As soon as it would occur [contrast As soon as it should occur]; these usages are the result of simple generalizations. Why, then, is If he would happen to be on time unacceptable? A decent grammar should tell explain to us the difference between I hoped that they would be on time and They were going to be late for the wedding as well as why will can not be replaced by be gonna in Anyone who'll do that'll do anything, whereas be gonna is not replaced by will in It's gonna rain, as it is in It'll rain if they seed the clouds.

     The time-change in When did you wish to leave tomorrow? is seldom explained in connection with If they hadda been on time (one British playwright writes had have--which one doesn't hear--though one may hear If they'da been on time or even If they'd of been on time).

     A decent grammar should point out that only is treated as a negative word in I only thought that one would be on hand (for I thought that only one would be on hand; cf. I didn't believe that it was dead for I believed that it wasn't dead) and Only then did we realize that (cf. Never did we realize that; and contrast the absence of did in We never realized that).

     Many reversals of word order and intonations (e.g. in questions other than indirect, rhetorical, and echo/reclamatory questions as well as in prohibitives like Don'tchu dare! are accounted for. So are the reversals in space available : available space and irresponsible person: person responsible above. A spectacular intonational reversal is found in the patterns of unmarked green house (two-word phrase) : greenhouse (single compound word) or even Sally's motorcycle : Sally's [place], as compared with a single roll and a single roll (just one, not more; both examples have a quantifier preceding the noun). What of tàke óff : táke òff and combíne : cómbìne? If the order reversal between pet house and housepet may seem obvious, your teacher may not be very clear over which kinds of compound nouns have marked rising stress--names like T. S. or T. S. Eliot and Fort Worth or Forth Worth, Texas, quantitative compounds like fìrst-aíd and dòuble-héader, and phrasal and twofer or copulative compounds like, respectively, man-o'-war, spread-eagle (an adjective), and student-prince). (Exceptions to the foregoing are principled and predictable; e.g. Tenth Street (a name and a quantitative compound with default street; contrast Tenth Avenue. They have reversed stress; and likewise with verbs like détàil formed from nouns.

     Does your grammar tell you why we say He's no teacher only of a person who is a teacher? Or when and why one says She's no better than us instead of not better than us? And what of the use of one(s) following certain quantifiers or the use of of in not much of a scholar, no better of a teacher than the other one, as much of a clown as you, too much of a bore, etc.? If English grammar belongs to the typology assumed by the grammarians, why haven't they been able to describe these everyday usages?

     Why do we say ten dollars/ounces/inches/pounds/miles WAS a lot but the first/longest/slowest ten miles WERE those from the lake to the woods and the hardest ten pounds to lose WERE the last? Why do we differentiate eighteen acres IS being cultivated, two-thirds of a projected eighteen acres WAS plowed under, and a (= one) lot of drugs HAS arrived not only from some of the foregoing but also from a lot of (= lossa, lotsa) milk HAS arrived and two lots of milk HAVE arrived? It should be obvious why we say A lot has/have arrived and Lots has/have arrived, depending on whether lot(s) is a quantifier or a noun; but the usual grammars are hardly clear on why lot is followed by dummy-of when it is a quantifier. Why do we say Two and two IS four?

     Word-order inversion (see above in connection with questions and prohibitives) is only one of seven processual modalities in English; contrast optative-may in May she win with potential She may win or concessive . . . whoever she may be. The other six processual modalities are:

(2) The temporal THROWBACK (as in If each was/were here [with or without a spelling-reversal of was, which is a processual minimodality], It's time you left, I'd rather that they stayed, I wish they had been there).

(3) If-DELETION (as in Were they already here, in which case was has got to be respelled as were; this respelling is a processual minimodality).

(4) Optative-may DELETION (very limited, as in God save the Queen, Be it ever so humble, Come what may--with a difference in the order of the subject depending on whether an object follows).

(5) Should-DELETION (as in It was for the good of the country that she not remain, where deleting should before remain explains why remain is uninflected, and why do or did is not present).

(6) You-DELETION in unmarked imperatives.

(7) Contraponents, i.e. causative verbs used as non-causative actives in a passive sense under certain conditions (as in This book reads well).

(8) CONTRAPONENCE (use of active form as a passive; e.g. The door opened.)

(9) To-DELETION for short infinitives.

CLICK HERE FOR FURTHER ON PROCESSUAL MODALITIES IN ENGLISH and CLICK HERE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON THE SAME IN CONNECTION WITH SO-CALLED "SUBJUNCTIVES" IN ENGLISH.

     Where we reverse the usages of better and more good (as in It's more good than beautiful and in other contexts) are dealt with and much else. Also explained is when we have to put for, at, from, by, etc., at the end of the clause and when we have got to place such particles before who, which, etc. Compare: the one we did it for : the one for whom it was unthinkable, the rate at which it flowed : the rate of pay that he worked at, the instances (or manner) in which that occurred : the abhorrence that I held it in, Nicky is taller by how many inches? : What time does Nick have to be in by?, On what basis are you predicting that? : What'd you base that on? If you used these particles the way the grammars tell you to, you'd sound like a foreigner; native speakers say: He flew into a rage when the ball flew in his window; He didn't fall in the ditch there, but She fell into his trap; and She put her change in her pocket after putting her reserve funds into stocks and bonds--which made her into a wealthy widow. What are we doing differently, if anything, when we put more into a product and when we put more in a product?

     The principle differentiating adverb pairs like real : really, sure : surely, just : justly, pretty : prettily, jolly : jollily, bloody : bloodily, awful : awfully, stark : starkly, clear : clearly, etc., is clarified. Those who say Surely! for Sure! violate the princpiple in question. It is likewise with many other complicated issues of grammar that current grammars only wave their hands at.

      Contrast who vs. that or which in these examples: My doggie, WHO is named Ipo, ran into some mean curs, WHICH scared her very much and The main streets OF some towns are just as well-kept as Atlanta'S, a place that is getting itself ready for the coming Olympics. The traditional abhorrence of dummy-of following all and both, and in many other contexts is based on grammarians' false idea that English comes from Anglo-Saxon (a Germanic language) rather than from Old French. English calqued casesless French qui? as caseless who?, laquelle as Middle English the which, dont as whereof, and eventually de qui as whose--just as Middle English invented adverbial -ly and phrasal prepositions like in front of to calque Romance uses. New approaches explain why one has heard Don and I's baby on the media; and why Shakespeare, like us, could use a singular There's before a plural subject--as well as why no cultivated speaker does this in questions like 'Re there lots of them here?

     If you ask any English teacher about nearly all of the points above, you will be disappointed with the result. Do you know an English teacher that can clarify with specificity the difference between mustn't and need not or the difefrent ways the negative operates in potential-epistemic may (in You may be disappointed) and deontic may (in You may leave now). I doubt that your teacher can adequately clarify the difference between the force of doesn't dare and daren't or between that of need not and needn't or of do they need? : need they?--let alone the restrictions on their occurrence--which are part of the same subsystem that allows or disallows could to be used in place of was/were able. It is the same with the difference between wasn't doing it, so she's not gonna be able to go there : wasn't doing it so she could--or would be able to--go there . . . It's hardly worth mentioning isn't doing that because she likes him : isn't doing that, because she likes him.

     As for punctuation, how many foreigners can find out from our grammars what the difference, with and without a comma, is between Earlier(,) books were less expensive and Each time(,) I got referred to that office, I kept hesitating to go there. Of course, it's now well known (through Chomsky and his students) why (1) hafta, useta, gotta, sposeta, normal in many contexts, cannot be used in others. Contrast What's she supposed to be doin'? : What's she sposeta be doin'? as well as What'd they use to do it with? : What'd they useta do it with?, What'd they have to do? : What'd they hafta do? and What've we got to eat : What've we gotta eat?--where sposeta, useta, hafta, and 've gotta cannot be split up as in foreigners' We have now to do that); why (2) we say the one that I thought I'd seen but cannot put that in the one that I thought did it. (Foreigners typically fail to distinguish had(n't) and did(n't) have; and typical also is was used to for useta in They useta do it all of the time. Foreigners often come across as being authoritative by using deontic must, which is authoritarian, in place of have [got] to).)

     It can easily be shown that "Let's do it" is exclusively hortative (i.e. first-person-plural "imperative"), whereas in normal tempos, unelided "Let us do it" is a true second-person imperative; the former can have an added expression, "--you and me," while the latter cannot: It can only have an emphasized "--You!" Like let us, let me is a true imperative in normal tempos. Foreigners should learn to use the milder let's (a mild suggestion) and lemme (a request lying somewhere between a command and a plea, but perhaps farther from the latter).

     Earlier English had fewer restrictions than we do on some usages; cf. Whom say ye that I am? in the 1611 Bible translation and Malory's use of be to as an infinitive. The latter would be disallowed today--as if one were to try to say: They expect to be to leave early. Today's grammars have hardly moved past the days of calling would've been going to have been talked about a "tense" and of not recognizing modalities like be to (overmarked posterior); get to (opportunitive or accomplishmental, as in "get to attend the rally"; also , like come to, inceptive, as in "come/get to like that"; cf. come loose and go lost); have (got) to (obligational); get VERB-ing (also inceptive); keep V-ing (perseverative); and go VERB-ing--not to speak of chained verbs like go get (grammars now tell where try and and perhaps up and can be used, though go and is less discussed); causative and countercausative get and have; and Southern States be fixinda (inceptive) and liketa (pænaccomplishmental), Irish be after doing (proximal anterior) and a number of African American examples, including belongda and the consuetudinary use of be (with do when other verbs take do).

     Everyday English distinguishes saw them be obnoxious and saw them to be obnoxious; what's the technical difference? Does the difference in the form of That's the one to save and That's the one to be saved correspond to any difference in the (cognitive) sense or (volitional-attitudinal) force? And don't even think about looking in the grammars for details about I just always be myself on such occasions (not limited to African American usage, but restricted to I/we/you in general usage). (Has the till/by contrast ever been understand by foreign teachers of English? It is explained in ch. 5 of Essays on time-based linguistic analysis.)

     The explanation of anteriors is full of holes (i.e. counterexamples); these are not perfects (completed states or acts), as is obvious from It has stood (been standing)here for ten years and It has not been finished yet. I know of no grammar that tells that--let alone explains why--the past is replacing anterior uses (and not just where it is logical, as in the proximal It's just happened) in unmarked situations, while in marked categories (anteriors, exochronous, posterior modalities, infinitives, etc.) the anterior is holding its own, or almost so, in cultivated English and neutralizing the difference between the two pasts. Even so, the past is invading the anterior in colloquial examples like When you open the letter tomorrow, if it began (for has begun) with a threat, don't read it. If the grammars tell us that 'd stands for did or had and that 's elides both is and has, they don't usually (if ever) mention the two environments in which these two elided forms stand respectively for did and does. They don't say exactly where 've (and unstressed of) have an unstressed vowel or none, nor when they lose //v//--they lost both in I('ve) got in normal tempos. If they mention the double past-anterior, they don't explain that If he been would result from the same principle that changes I'd better through I'b better to I better, or that the principle of constructional iconism requires that had in, e.g., If I had or 'd in If I'd be lengthened (to hadda, 'da or to less acceptable woulda) rather than shortened. They don't explain that, in contrast with foreigner's un-English have not the opportunity, native-speakers say haven't got or don't have and indeed prefer a form of do with non-auxiliary uses of have in just the same environments that other non-auxiliary verbs take do. (See above.)

     As for the five uses of will, would, and should, the three of let, and the four of may (not to speak of the reasons for ungrammatically switching may and might by "Evangelicals"), you may well look in vain. The same is also true of which verbs take the short infinitive (without the marker to). What've they got to say that's to the point on these points?

     Much of this work is based on the author's Essays on time-based linguistic analysis (Oxford University Press, 1996); see also the two 1992 publications of Orchid Land Publications above, which contain (or refer to, in other writings by the author) much of the analysis used in dealing with the foregoing data.