Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2017 December 9

= December 9 =

"This is not something [what / which / that] I would say [about] I am proud of" (once more...)
I'm very sorry for bothering but I still can't stop thinking about that one: The version without the bracketed elements is, of course, totally clear to me, but the other one, unfortunately, still is not... As both prepositions, "about" and "of", refer to different (!) antecedents ("say about what", "proud of something"), I don't see how, in grammatical (!) terms, you could possibly leave out "of" in this case when using "about", as "of" belongs to "proud" ("proud of sth") and "about" to "say" ("to say sth about sth") – even though this has been advocated by several users before. I didn't manage to link the section as such because of the square brackets in the heading... If anybody knows a trick to link more properly, please feel free to do so! Now, I know my sentence is only idiomatic without the bracketed words, but I wanted to settle this issue only with regard to grammar. Best regards--Herfrid (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * To "say" and "say about" are two different verbs!
 * Q1 What did he say? A1 (He said,) "I hated dinner."
 * Q2 What did he say about dinner? A2 (He said) that he hated it.
 * You are equivocating by not distinguishing between these senses of direct speech and indirect speech and trying to cram both into one sentence, when the two senses govern different responses. The confusion arises because in many cases words that are understood by natives in context like those in parentheses above are left out.  But He said, "that he hated it." is simply impossible in English grammar.


 * Forget the "about". It makes no sense in any of the combos, either in colloquial or formal English. "This is not something [what / which / that] I would say about I am proud of" is completely wrong, so drop it. "what" is also wrong. "which" is somewhat archaic, but is often found only among British English speakers, not elsewhere. So we're left with "This is not something that I would say I am proud of". That's a colloquial construction, and would be found in typical informal speech anywhere in the English speaking world, and you wouldn't get pulled up by the grammar police for saying it. It is not a proper formal construction. That would be "This is not something of which I would say that I'm proud.", but it sounds clunky in spoken English. Your choice of the two, depending on the context. Akld guy (talk) 02:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually, to my (British) ears "which" does not sound the least bit archaic; and some British varieties would use "what" there. Conversely, I would regard "something of which I would say that I'm proud" as very formal and stilted, and would not be at all surprised to hear "something [that] I am proud of" in a moderately formal speech. But I agree that the "about" cannot accompany the "of": it's one or the other. --ColinFine (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * To follow up on Akld guy's comment, if you insist on having both prepositions in the sentence, you could write "This is not something about which I would say: I am proud of it." But that involves introducing explicit direct speech (and is arguably two sentences rather than one). Tevildo (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Tevildo, that sentence as written is improper. To avoid ambiguity I will use italics rather than imbedded single and double quotes.  It should read: This is not something about which I would say, "I am proud of it." μηδείς (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * See Colon (punctuation). I agree that quotation marks are generally preferable, but it is a legitimate usage. Tevildo (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You do, of course, need quotation marks to embed the direct speech. "This is not something I would say 'I am proud of it' about." Tevildo (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree with the constructions of μηδείς and Tevildo, although both go beyond the question as posed. Akld guy (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Tevildo's first punctuation is not analogous with the example given at the segmental link: "Benjamin Franklin proclaimed the virtue of frugality: A penny saved is a penny earned."


 * It is analogous with "Benjamin Franklin proclaimed: A penny saved is a penny earned."


 * The quote marks are displaced in his example given that the aphorism is in apposition to the virtue of frugality in the first version, and the object of a verb, proclaimed (i.e., said) in the second.


 * The proper usage after a declaratory verb is "Benjamin Franklin proclaimed, "A penny saved is a penny earned." Perhaps the usage of the colon after a verb is acceptable, I might use it, but the example at the link is the invention of the author of The King's English. μηδείς (talk) 02:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Medeis, we solve all these problems by observing the rule of nesting single quotes in double quotes (or vice versa).  Thus

"Benjamin Franklin proclaimed, 'A penny saved is a penny earned.'"

(if those were his actual words). The Wiki mark-up handles it without difficulty. 82.13.208.70 (talk) 11:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Apparently when I wrote "To avoid ambiguity I will use italics rather than imbedded single and double quotes" above, you read it in Portuguese instead of the original Spanish? :) Your exemplar is perfect and a good reinforcement; but the 'correction' was unneeded. μηδείς (talk) 17:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)