I think the man honest

Question

Is it grammatically correct to say "I think the man honest" to mean "I think that the man is honest"?

Mister Micawber · Accepted Answer

AnonymousIs it grammatically correct to say "I think the man honest" to mean "I think that the man is honest"?

It is grammatically correct. It is not used.

Anonymous · Answer

What do you mean "It is grammatically correct. It is not used"?

Mister Micawber · Answer

AnonymousWhat do you mean "It is grammatically correct. It is not used"?

Precisely that. EF questions are heavy with the burden of sentences that are grammatically correct but rarely or never used by native speakers.

Anonymous · Answer

If no native speakers have ever used it or heard of it, how come it can be grammatically correct?
By what criteria is it grammatically correct?

AlpheccaStars · Answer

AnonymousBy what criteria is it grammatically correct?

It is correct because it violates no rule of grammar.
It is just a phrasing that is not used very much anymore. But you will find this in very old texts, especially religious ones.
Here are two examples:
Must I hold the man honest who measures with false scales and a bag of faked weights? (Jerusalem Bible)
I should believe the man honest, and that I had been deceived in appearances. (c. 1860)

Anonymous · Answer

AlpheccaStarsIt is correct because it violates no rule of grammar.It is just a phrasing that is not used very much anymore. But you will find this in very old texts, especially religious ones.Here are two examples:Must I hold the man honest who measures with false scales and a bag of faked weights? (Jerusalem Bible) I should believe the man honest, and that I had been deceived in appearances. (c. 1860)

So, it used to be in use at least more than a hundred years ago, and it's not in current use anymore.
Then, I think that it used to be grammatically correct but is not grammatically correct anymore.
Fair enough?

AlpheccaStars · Answer

AnonymousThen, I think that it used to be grammatically correct but is not grammatically correct anymore.

It is still grammatically correct. No rule has changed over the last 100+ years that would have changed the situation.

Anonymous · Answer

AlpheccaStarsIt is still grammatically correct. No rule has changed over the last 100+ years that would have changed the situation.

Really?
Then, when does the rule change? In 200 years? 300 years? 400 years? 1,000 years?
How long do you have to wait before the rule changes?
And where is the rule written?

Besides, what's the point in calling it grammatical when no one really uses it anymore?
Certainly, no EFL students would benefit from calling it grammatical, not to mention native speakers.

AlpheccaStars · Answer

When we read old texts from Early Modern English, the grammar follows the same rules as contemporary English. We can read these texts with little difficulty. The rules of English grammar were first documented in the 16th century. The grammar had changed dramatically from Old English and Middle English. Modern English readers understand these texts only if translated (Old English) or annotated (Middle English). We don't call texts such as Beowulf or the Peterborough Chronicle ungrammatical.

There are many details in English syntax and vocabulary which have changed or gone out of style since Shakespeare but we don't call them ungrammatical. Ungrammatical is derogatory; it means badly or poorly written (as by an uneducated person). If we designated all these older forms as ungrammatical, then a lot of the sentences in the most popular English Bible (The King James Bible) would be called "ungrammatical," and so would a lot of the text in Shakespeare's plays and poems.

Anonymous · Answer

AlpheccaStarsThere are many details in English syntax and vocabulary which have changed or gone out of style since Shakespeare but we don't call them ungrammatical. Ungrammatical is derogatory; it means badly or poorly written (as by an uneducated person). If we designated all these older forms as ungrammatical, then a lot of the sentences in the most popular English Bible (The King James Bible) would be called "ungrammatical," and so would a lot of the text in Shakespeare's plays and poems.

Maybe I should have provided more context to this question.
Better late than never. So I'm going to now.
The sentence in question was presented by an EFL teaching class, where an English teacher, a non-native speaker of English himself, presented the sentence to illustrate the usage of the verb "think". Now, he wasn't talking about The King James Bible or a Shakespeare's work or anything in that era. He was talking about the current English usage.

No, you can't argue that any of the text in a Shakespeare's work is ungrammatical. I agree.
But what if an EFL student -- unbeknownst to him -- took a sentence out of a Shakespeare's work and put it in his resume or his writing assignment? Now, that sentence would sound archaic at best and have no place in the resume or the writing assignment, and no one in their right mind would think that the sentence is grammatical simply because it's possible -- again, unbeknownst to the writer -- that the sentence is similar to the construction once popular in the Shakespeare's era.

Now you know the context of the sentence in question, would you still call it grammatical?

I think the man honest

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions