![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of Nominative case be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
I've just shifted you from the list of archaic usages, and put it in its correct case (you is the nominative, ye the accusative). thefamouseccles 01:42 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Singular | Plural | |
---|---|---|
Nom. | you | you |
Acc. | you | you |
Gen. | your/yours | your/yours |
Singular | Plural | |
---|---|---|
Nom. | thou | ye |
Acc. | thee | you |
Gen. | thy/thine | your/yours |
67.42.149.139 ( talk) 21:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC).
Actually, no. There was no distinction between you and ye for number. Thou and ye corresponded to I, thee and you corresponded to me. Today, of course, thou, thee, and ye are rendered in Standard English as you. The distinction that I believe you are looking for is that long ago, forms of thou were always singular, and forms of ye usually plural, that is, always plural except when used as a term of respect. 96.248.235.84 ( talk) 06:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Question: Does this exist? Is 'mine' in 'The book is mine' in the predicative nominative case? If it were possesive, shouldn't it be: This is 'my' book. -- Confused
This article did nothing to help ease my confusion on the subject. It starts off by saying it's the "grammatical case" (while linking to declension) and goes downhil from there. Can someone add an example or something? I was reading in Thou that "you" is both the nominative and objective case in modern English, but in days of old it was "tha" and "thee". I understand the "thee" but "tha"? I had no idea. And I still don't, because I don't know what the nominative case is. -- Cyde 04:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
An example would be just perfect to make the meaning understandable. How about a simple example in english?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.247.231.133 ( talk) 06:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree. The article is impenetrable, and is more suited to a specialist textbook than an Encyclopaedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.133.0.13 ( talk) 15:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I also agree. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to explain esoteric terms in everyday language: this article explains a basic grammatical term in esoteric language that virtually no reader could understand. Another wikipedia disaster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.122.14 ( talk) 19:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Don't predicate nominatives just confuse things? For example: "A square is a rectangle," and "A rectangle is a square," are two sentences with totally different meanings (and one of them is always true, while the other is not always true), but if we treat both "rectangle" and "square" as nominatives, then there is no difference between the two. Treating one as the subject and one as the object of "to be" clears things up nicely. Linguofreak 22:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I dont really get it either but i found a great explanation at [1] im still confused though —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.8.199.62 ( talk) 14:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Obviously there isn't a huge amount of change on many of the grammar and language articles, but I thought might throw out a suggestion to those who are interested in language. I have been trying to learn a few languages recently and have found the French Wikipedia/Wiktionary much more useful than the English version because many of the pages give the translation into several languages. I would love to see this sort of thing on the English Wikipedia as well. For general pages like this, I would love to see tables of the relevant translations in many languages. I'm new to the Wikipedia thing, so I'll try to put an example of what I'm talking about below. Let me know what you think. If I don't see any responses to this in a couple weeks, I'll probably move my tables onto the main article.
Number | Person | Gender | English | French | Spanish | Russian |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Singular | 1st | I | je | yo | я | |
2nd | you | tu | tú | ты | ||
3rd | Masculine | he | il | él | он | |
Feminine | she | elle | ella | она | ||
Neutral | (archaic) one | on | оно | |||
Plural | 1st | Masculine | we | nous | nosotros | мы |
Feminine | nosotras | |||||
2nd | Masculine | you | vous | vosotros | вы | |
Feminine | vosotras | |||||
3rd | Masculine | they | ils | ellos | они | |
Feminine | elles | ellas |
.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.60.209.73 ( talk) 05:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I can't find an additive case anywhere. It does not really exist in English (It is used when you are directly addressing someone. Examples are "O God!" and "Matthew, get over here!".). But regardless it does not exist in English, really. Why is there not an article on it? I figured that it may not actually be a case, just a part of the nominative. Anyway I'm confused. Someone help me? ... -Panther ( talk) 20:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any mention of the appositive. In Latin, appostives take the nominative case. e.g. Socrates, the philosopher, is a wise man. Socrates philosophus homo sapiens est. Gx872op ( talk) 16:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if this is seen as misuse, but this is a bit of a reminder to myself. Reason being: The article reads as if all languages have a nominative. This, however, is not the case. Thus the intro paragraph (in my view) needs to either refer clearly to - "in English language", or else make the point that it is a "case" that only occurs in some language systems. 37.209.42.230 ( talk) 12:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
The current text attributes the concept of the subjective case in English to, "some writers on English grammar." Do any thoughtful, knowledgeable grammarians insist otherwise, or is it only reflexive prescriptivists who haven't really thought deeply about the matter? If the latter, should the text of that section be changed? Or I'd love to see a scholarly discussion of the other viewpoint. Jbening ( talk) 13:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of Nominative case be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
I've just shifted you from the list of archaic usages, and put it in its correct case (you is the nominative, ye the accusative). thefamouseccles 01:42 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Singular | Plural | |
---|---|---|
Nom. | you | you |
Acc. | you | you |
Gen. | your/yours | your/yours |
Singular | Plural | |
---|---|---|
Nom. | thou | ye |
Acc. | thee | you |
Gen. | thy/thine | your/yours |
67.42.149.139 ( talk) 21:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC).
Actually, no. There was no distinction between you and ye for number. Thou and ye corresponded to I, thee and you corresponded to me. Today, of course, thou, thee, and ye are rendered in Standard English as you. The distinction that I believe you are looking for is that long ago, forms of thou were always singular, and forms of ye usually plural, that is, always plural except when used as a term of respect. 96.248.235.84 ( talk) 06:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Question: Does this exist? Is 'mine' in 'The book is mine' in the predicative nominative case? If it were possesive, shouldn't it be: This is 'my' book. -- Confused
This article did nothing to help ease my confusion on the subject. It starts off by saying it's the "grammatical case" (while linking to declension) and goes downhil from there. Can someone add an example or something? I was reading in Thou that "you" is both the nominative and objective case in modern English, but in days of old it was "tha" and "thee". I understand the "thee" but "tha"? I had no idea. And I still don't, because I don't know what the nominative case is. -- Cyde 04:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
An example would be just perfect to make the meaning understandable. How about a simple example in english?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.247.231.133 ( talk) 06:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree. The article is impenetrable, and is more suited to a specialist textbook than an Encyclopaedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.133.0.13 ( talk) 15:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I also agree. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to explain esoteric terms in everyday language: this article explains a basic grammatical term in esoteric language that virtually no reader could understand. Another wikipedia disaster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.122.14 ( talk) 19:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Don't predicate nominatives just confuse things? For example: "A square is a rectangle," and "A rectangle is a square," are two sentences with totally different meanings (and one of them is always true, while the other is not always true), but if we treat both "rectangle" and "square" as nominatives, then there is no difference between the two. Treating one as the subject and one as the object of "to be" clears things up nicely. Linguofreak 22:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I dont really get it either but i found a great explanation at [1] im still confused though —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.8.199.62 ( talk) 14:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Obviously there isn't a huge amount of change on many of the grammar and language articles, but I thought might throw out a suggestion to those who are interested in language. I have been trying to learn a few languages recently and have found the French Wikipedia/Wiktionary much more useful than the English version because many of the pages give the translation into several languages. I would love to see this sort of thing on the English Wikipedia as well. For general pages like this, I would love to see tables of the relevant translations in many languages. I'm new to the Wikipedia thing, so I'll try to put an example of what I'm talking about below. Let me know what you think. If I don't see any responses to this in a couple weeks, I'll probably move my tables onto the main article.
Number | Person | Gender | English | French | Spanish | Russian |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Singular | 1st | I | je | yo | я | |
2nd | you | tu | tú | ты | ||
3rd | Masculine | he | il | él | он | |
Feminine | she | elle | ella | она | ||
Neutral | (archaic) one | on | оно | |||
Plural | 1st | Masculine | we | nous | nosotros | мы |
Feminine | nosotras | |||||
2nd | Masculine | you | vous | vosotros | вы | |
Feminine | vosotras | |||||
3rd | Masculine | they | ils | ellos | они | |
Feminine | elles | ellas |
.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.60.209.73 ( talk) 05:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I can't find an additive case anywhere. It does not really exist in English (It is used when you are directly addressing someone. Examples are "O God!" and "Matthew, get over here!".). But regardless it does not exist in English, really. Why is there not an article on it? I figured that it may not actually be a case, just a part of the nominative. Anyway I'm confused. Someone help me? ... -Panther ( talk) 20:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any mention of the appositive. In Latin, appostives take the nominative case. e.g. Socrates, the philosopher, is a wise man. Socrates philosophus homo sapiens est. Gx872op ( talk) 16:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if this is seen as misuse, but this is a bit of a reminder to myself. Reason being: The article reads as if all languages have a nominative. This, however, is not the case. Thus the intro paragraph (in my view) needs to either refer clearly to - "in English language", or else make the point that it is a "case" that only occurs in some language systems. 37.209.42.230 ( talk) 12:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
The current text attributes the concept of the subjective case in English to, "some writers on English grammar." Do any thoughtful, knowledgeable grammarians insist otherwise, or is it only reflexive prescriptivists who haven't really thought deeply about the matter? If the latter, should the text of that section be changed? Or I'd love to see a scholarly discussion of the other viewpoint. Jbening ( talk) 13:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)