# Look ! It's the guy I was with ?



## claude23

Good evening,

Look ! It's the guy I was with ?

Is it correct?

Thanks,

Claude.


----------



## Aupick

Yes, except for punctuation:

Look! It's the guy I was with! (statement)
Look! Is that the guy I was with? (question)


----------



## judkinsc

Accurate enough, but more information is needed for clarity.  With whom were you?

...

...

Fine.  Whom were you with?


----------



## M56

Aupick said:
			
		

> Yes, except for punctuation:
> 
> Look! It's the guy I was with! (statement)
> Look! Is that the guy I was with? (question)


 
In some sense, and in casual conversational English, this is a question:


Look! It's the guy I was with?


Some people prefer to add the question mark, while others do not.


Quite common:

In the maternity ward:

"What? No? Tell me! It's a boy? ... And you so wanted a girl."


----------



## elroy

M56 said:
			
		

> In some sense, and in casual conversational English, this is a question:
> 
> 
> Look! It's the guy I was with?
> 
> 
> Some people prefer to add the question mark, while others do not.
> 
> 
> Quite common:
> 
> In the maternity ward:
> 
> "What? No? Tell me! It's a boy? ... And you so wanted a girl."


 
I can't imagine ever _*asking*_ "it's the guy I was with?"  It would almost certainly be "_*was it*_ the guy I was with?"  Don't know about you, but that first version doesn't sound too idiomatic to me.


----------



## M56

elroy said:
			
		

> I can't imagine ever _*asking*_ "it's the guy I was with?" It would almost certainly be "_*was it*_ the guy I was with?" Don't know about you, but that first version doesn't sound too idiomatic to me.


 
Very idiomatic and common in conversational English.

Would you use these?

look! It's the guy I was with, isn't it?

You went and spoke to him, didn't you?

She turned you down, didn't she?

What! Oh, Cinders, you're not going to the ball?


----------



## elroy

M56 said:
			
		

> Very idiomatic and common in conversational English.
> 
> Would you use these?
> 
> look! It's the guy I was with, isn't it?
> 
> You went and spoke to him, didn't you?
> 
> She turned you down, didn't she?


 
I would use those but not that other one.


----------



## M56

elroy said:
			
		

> I would use those but not that other one.


 
The other one has omitted the "question tag". It's sometimes done - in conversational registers. The "with" part would rise in intonation, which replaces the rising intonation of the elipted tag.


----------



## elroy

M56 said:
			
		

> The other one has omitted the "question tag". It's sometimes done - in conversational registers. The "with" part would rise in intonation, which replaces the rising intonation of the elipted tag.


 
Hm...I could imagine that, maybe, if the reaction were one of surprise.  As in, "No!  You don't say!  It's the guy I was _with_?"  

But to me, that's not synonymous with "It's the guy I was with, wasn't it?" which seems to be more of a request for confirmation.

In either case, I would not expect that construction, no matter what the intended meaning, after "Look!"


----------



## cuchuflete

Elroy,
I tend to agree with you, but there is a region of the US where this sort of thing is painfully common. In southern California I've often heard people take what appears to be a simple declarative sentence and turn it into a question through some exaggerated intonation gymnastics almost worthy of a Romanian Olympic performance on the parallel bars.

It sounds very strange to me, but not, it seems, to them.

I'm sure you agree?
Cuchu


----------



## elroy

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Elroy,
> I tend to agree with you, but there is a region of the US where this sort of thing is painfully common. In southern California I've often heard people take what appears to be a simple declarative sentence and turn it into a question through some exaggerated intonation gymnastics almost worthy of a Romanian Olympic performance on the parallel bars.
> 
> It sounds very strange to me, but not, it seems, to them.
> 
> I'm sure you agree?
> Cuchu


 
Fair enough, but would you expect such a construction after "Look!"?  That, to me, would sound even stranger.

You do agree?


----------



## cuchuflete

elroy said:
			
		

> Fair enough, but would you expect such a construction after "Look!"?  That, to me, would sound even stranger.
> 
> You do agree?



Spend some time in San Diego and around L.A.

That sounds good to you?

I'm not saying it's correct, or wrong for that matter, only that those on the lower left coast do such things.

My b-school roommate was from that strange part of the universe, and he delighted in reminding me (in a special Cuban/SoCal accent) that one of these fine days, the San Andreas fault was going to open up, and the entire decrepit Eastern US would fall into the Atlantic.


----------



## You little ripper!

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Spend some time in San Diego and around L.A.
> 
> That sounds good to you?
> 
> I'm not saying it's correct, or wrong for that matter, only that those on the lower left coast do such things.
> 
> My b-school roommate was from that strange part of the universe, and he delighted in reminding me (in a special Cuban/SoCal accent) that one of these fine days, the San Andreas fault was going to open up, and the entire decrepit Eastern US would fall into the Atlantic.


"That sounds good to you?" sounds O.K. because you could be asking for confirmation, but I think that "It's the guy I was with" as a question sounds strange! But then, who am I to argue with the cognoscenti of the southern Californian dialect?


----------



## M56

elroy said:
			
		

> Hm...I could imagine that, maybe, if the reaction were one of surprise. As in, "No! You don't say! It's the guy I was _with_?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But to me, that's not synonymous with "It's the guy I was with, wasn't it?" which seems to be more of a request for confirmation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In either case, I would not expect that construction, no matter what the intended meaning, after "Look!"
Click to expand...

 
The tag is "isn't it" and not "wasn't it". 


Sue: Look, over there. Do you recognise that guy in blue?


Sal: It's the guy I was *with <last month>*? (rising intonation on "with" or on "month" if included)/ "It's the guy I was with <last month>,* isn't it?* (rising intonation on the tag)


Sue: I think so.


----------



## M56

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Elroy,
> 
> 
> It sounds very strange to me, but not, it seems, to them.
> 
> 
> Cuchu


 
And not to a few million other native speakers around the world.

Would the people who find "Look! It's the guy I was with?" strange also find "Look! Steve and Jan with their bags! They're coming with us?" strange?


----------



## You little ripper!

M56 said:
			
		

> And not to a few million other native speakers around the world.
> 
> Would the people who find "Look! It's the guy I was with?" strange also find "Look! Steve and Jan with their bags! They're coming with us?" strange?


I am one of those persons and No, I wouldn't find the third sentence strange. I still find the first one very strange indeed!


----------



## ElenaofTroy

M56 said:
			
		

> In some sense, and in casual conversational English, this is a question:
> 
> 
> Look! It's the guy I was with?
> "





			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> I'm not saying it's correct, or wrong for that matter, only that those on the lower left coast do such things.
> 
> "



Cuchu, I don´t know if I´m missing the point here or if I´m asking a silly question but I´ll ask it anyway.

To me, a non native speaker, the sentence "It's the guy I was with?" is grammatically incorrect because it does not respect the correct form of any question. I would say: "Is that the guy I was with?"

Is this what you all are referring to? What I don´t get is... Why is it so strange to hear it after the "Look!" statement? 

Thanks in advance!

Iliana


----------



## You little ripper!

I've looked at that sentence again and have decided that it's the "Look!" that makes the following sentence strange as a question.  I feel more comfortable with, "It's the guy I was with?" just by itself.  The "Look!", in my opinion, requires a statement after it, not a question.


----------



## MarcB

it is found in various parts of theEnglish speaking world, but I do not think it is standard.


----------



## elroy

Charles Costante said:
			
		

> I've looked at that sentence again and have decided that it's the "Look!" that makes the following sentence strange as a question. I feel more comfortable with, "It's the guy I was with?" just by itself. The "Look!", in my opinion, requires a statement after it, not a question.


 
Precisely the reason for my own misgivings.  I agree with you 100%.


----------



## M56

Charles Costante said:
			
		

> I am one of those persons and No, I wouldn't find the third sentence strange. I still find the first one very strange indeed!


 
Strange that you do so.


----------



## cuchuflete

ElenaofTroy said:
			
		

> Cuchu, I don´t know if I´m missing the point here or if I´m asking a silly question but I´ll ask it anyway.
> 
> To me, a non native speaker, the sentence "It's the guy I was with?" is grammatically incorrect because it does not respect the correct form of any question. I would say: "Is that the guy I was with?"
> 
> Is this what you all are referring to? What I don´t get is... Why is it so strange to hear it after the "Look!" statement?
> 
> Thanks in advance!
> 
> Iliana


Help!  I wish you had addressed your question to the grammarians, rather than to me.

I think that you are correct as far as the written form goes, but speech is another matter entirely. In speaking, whatever communicates clearly is ok, whether or not it adheres to someone's notion of grammar. 

Here's a little personal opinion, not founded in grammatical study or expertise.

"Look!"  This is an exclamation.  There is no ambiguity.

I and some others in this thread would expect that to be followed either by a question or by a statement. For a question, I like your suggested substitution.

"It's the guy I was with" would, for us, normally be a statement. Claude offered it to us with "?" at the end. In writting, that is wrong, I think, though it could be fine if it is intended to be a transcription of spoken English.

Clear as mud?

Un saludo,
Cuchu


----------



## elroy

I'll try to help you out - hope I don't make things worse. 



			
				ElenaofTroy said:
			
		

> Cuchu, I don´t know if I´m missing the point here or if I´m asking a silly question but I´ll ask it anyway.
> 
> To me, a non native speaker, the sentence "It's the guy I was with?" is grammatically incorrect because it does not respect the correct form of any question. I would say: "Is that the guy I was with?"
> You are right; in formal, standard, written English - as Cuchu also said - that would not be correct.  Yes/no questions in English require inversion.
> 
> Is this what you all are referring to? What I don´t get is... Why is it so strange to hear it after the "Look!" statement?
> Ok - because to me, "it's the guy I was with?" (in spoken English) suggests that the person is surprised, shocked, awed, fascinated, etc. at the fact/possibility that it may have been the guy he was with.  For example,
> 
> Person A: I heard your sister has a new boyfriend.
> Person B: Oh?  Well, this is news to me.
> Person A: Well, it's very recent.  I heard he was a journalist named Daniel who lives in Manhattan and has a dog.
> Person B: Hm - now why does that sound familiar?
> Person C: Well, didn't you go to the movies with the same guy last week?
> Person B: Wait a minute - _*it's the guy I was with?*_
> 
> In other ways, I would replace that construction with "are you telling me it's the guy I was with?"  That, to me, does not work after "Look!"
> 
> I can think of three possibilities after "Look!".  (There may be others.)
> 
> *pointing the guy out:
> *Look!  It's the guy I was with!*
> *Look!  That's the guy I was with! *
> *request for information/clarification/confirmation:
> *Look (over there)!  Is that the guy I was with?*
> *Look (over there)!  That's the guy I was with, isn't it?*
> *skepticism/request for assurance:
> *Look (over there)!  That's not the guy I was with, is it?*
> 
> What I would not expect would be the abovementioned expression of surprise.  Using the replacement shows why it does not work:
> 
> *Look!  Are you telling me that's the guy I was with?*
> 
> does not work in my opinion.
> 
> I hope that helps.
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance!
> 
> Iliana


----------



## ElenaofTroy

elroy said:
			
		

> I'll try to help you out - hope I don't make things worse.



Thank you elroy! Now I got it!! 

Have a splendid day!

Iliana


----------



## M56

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> .
> 
> I think that you are correct as far as the written form goes, but speech is another matter entirely. In speaking, whatever communicates clearly is ok, whether or not it adheres to someone's notion of grammar.
> 
> 
> Cuchu


 
Not exactly true. Speech also has grammar and rules. They sometimes differ from those of written english, but they are still rules.


----------



## M56

elroy said:
			
		

> You are right; in formal, standard, written English - as Cuchu also said - that would not be correct. Yes/no questions in English require inversion.


 
Not those that are accompanied by questions tags (present or elipted), or that imply the question through intonation. It's quite common to ellipt in spoken English


----------



## elroy

M56 said:
			
		

> Not those that are followed by questions tags (present or elipted), or that imply the question through intonation. It's quite common to elipt in spoken English


 
You are right, although those - strictly speaking - are not questions in and of themselves.  They are declarative sentences followed by short interrogative sentences (what you call "question tags") that do follow the inversion rules.  But I'm splitting hairs. 

Also, I believe the word is "elide" and not "elipt."


----------



## M56

elroy said:
			
		

> You are right, although those - strictly speaking - are not questions in and of themselves. They are declarative sentences followed by short interrogative sentences (what you call "question tags") that do follow the inversion rules. But I'm splitting hairs.
> 
> Also, I believe the word is "elide" and not "elipt."


 
The ones with rising intonation are questions.

The word is ellipt.


----------



## elroy

M56 said:
			
		

> The ones with rising intonation are questions.
> 
> The word is ellipt.


 
So why is it nowhere to be found?


----------



## cuchuflete

M56 said:
			
		

> Not exactly true. Speech also has grammar and rules. They sometimes differ from those of written english, but they are still rules.



Speech has grammar and rules.  OK, if they are codified somewhere, please give us the source.  Are the grammar and rules for speech the same as those for written language, or distinct?

You have proclaimed that a grammatically odd (I won't waste your time or mine arguing about whether it's correct in somebody's variant.) use of "ironing" is ok, just because lots of people use that construction.  

You are welcome to have it both ways...when you are accustomed to something in speech, you say it's correct because you have heard it a lot.
And then you may also declare that there are rules and grammar for speech, which the identical usage agrees with and/or violates...we will never know because you don't offer us the benefit of knowing what standard you are applying.

When the rules of speech differ from those of written English, what specific difference is there other than popular usage?


----------



## M56

elroy said:
			
		

> So why is nowhere to be found?


 
Why is what nowhere to be found?


----------



## elroy

M56 said:
			
		

> Why is what nowhere to be found?


 
Sorry - forgot the "it" the first time (just edited my post).

It = your neologism, "ellipt."


----------



## M56

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Speech has grammar and rules. OK, if they are codified somewhere, please give us the source. Are the grammar and rules for speech the same as those for written language, or distinct?


 
I'm not sure that is is the place for a lengthy discussion on the existence of spoken grammar, but if you want to do a bit of reading about it you could begin with these links:

http://www.longman.com/dictionaries/which_dict/lgswe.html
http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/49/3/207
http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/Pubs/carter.html

As for codification, no, spoken grammar, in its entirety, has not yet been codified in written form. 



> You have proclaimed that a grammatically odd (I won't waste your time or mine arguing about whether it's correct in somebody's variant.) use of "ironing" is ok, just because lots of people use that construction.


 
I don't remember proclaiming as much, but the use is wide enough to justify discussion about it. One may discover that there is a consistent enough use of it to warrant naming the rule that helps one construct it time after time.



> When the rules of speech differ from those of written English, what specific difference is there other than popular usage?


 
To answer that, you may have to read lots of articles about research done over the past 80 years into spoken forms. 

This is an extract from an article by _Robet-Jan Beun_:

"Questions in spoken dialogues are often uttered in a declarative form. In more than 50% the question function of these utterances cannot be recognized without contextual features. Therefore, a speaker must, at the risk of misunderstanding, have special reasons for using a declarative form instead of an interrogative one."

You could also look up links to "rising declarative questions", which you may find useful.

Examples of the same.

You hungry?
The film starts at 10?
That's your book?
You're a boy scout? I didn't know that.
She's coming with us?
It's raining again?

Cheers


----------



## M56

elroy said:
			
		

> Sorry - forgot the "it" the first time (just edited my post).
> 
> It = your neologism, "ellipt."


 
el•lipt

_Pronunciation: _(i-lipt'), [key] 
—_v.t._ _Gram._ 
to delete by ellipsis.

_Random House Unabridged Dictionary,_ Copyright © 1997, by Random House, Inc., on Infoplease.
------
NOUN:Inflected forms: pl. *el·lip·ses*
*1**a.* The omission of a word or phrase necessary for a complete syntactical construction but not necessary for understanding. *b.* An example of such omission. *2.* A mark or series of marks ( . . . or * * * , for example) used in writing or printing to indicate an omission, especially of letters or words.

http://www.bartleby.com/61/30/E0093000.html


----------



## M56

claude23 said:
			
		

> Good evening,
> 
> Look ! It's the guy I was with ?
> 
> Is it correct?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Claude.


 
Looking deeper into how such _rising declarative questions_ are used, I'd like to offer this advice:

Don't use such questions when the questioner is supposed to be neutral or ignorant. 

E.G.

This is correct use:

A: Look ! It's the guy I was *WITH?*

B: Yes, it is.

A: I thought so.

As I said earlier, the "with" would be in rising intonation in declarative questions. On the other hand, the (true) declarative form would have falling intonation on "with":


A: Look ! *It's the guy I was* with*.*

B: Is it?

A: Yes, it is.

........

Again, incorrect use would be to use the _rising declarative_ in a context where the questioner had no previous information (i.e. was neutral or ignorant of a fact.).

Example:

*Correct use*: A is in a room with no windows. B walks is wearing a raincoat, A says "It's raining?".

*Incorrect use*: A is in a room with no windows. B walks in not wearing a raincoat or giving any indication of rain. A says "It's raining?". 

--------------------------------------


----------



## M56

For anyone who has a few hours to spend:

http://www.ling.rochester.edu/faculty/gunlogson/true_to_form_1.pdf


----------



## elroy

M56 said:
			
		

> el•lipt
> 
> _Pronunciation: _(i-lipt'), [key]
> —_v.t._ _Gram._
> to delete by ellipsis.
> 
> _Random House Unabridged Dictionary,_ Copyright © 1997, by Random House, Inc., on Infoplease.
> ------
> NOUN:Inflected forms: pl. *el·lip·ses*
> *1**a.* The omission of a word or phrase necessary for a complete syntactical construction but not necessary for understanding. *b.* An example of such omission. *2.* A mark or series of marks ( . . . or * * * , for example) used in writing or printing to indicate an omission, especially of letters or words.
> 
> http://www.bartleby.com/61/30/E0093000.html


 
Thanks for the info.  It's funny that it's not found in many of the other dictionaries.


----------



## M56

elroy said:
			
		

> Thanks for the info. It's funny that it's not found in many of the other dictionaries.


 
Yes, not yet common as a verb among those outside linguistics' circles.


----------



## M56

elroy said:
			
		

> I'll try to help you out - hope I don't make things worse.


 



> What I would not expect would be the abovementioned expression of surprise. Using the replacement shows why it does not work:
> 
> *Look! Are you telling me that's the guy I was with?*
> 
> does not work in my opinion.
> 
> I hope that helps.


 
But what does "Look!" mean in your example? Is it "Look, I'm telling you you are wrong!", "Look at that guy again", or something else?


----------



## cuchuflete

I couldn't find it in the OED, three desk dictionaries, Cambridge Advanced Learner's or even my own copy of the _Random House Unabridged Dictionary, _which is weighing down the chair next to mine...but it's an earlier edition than M56's...so I think it's correct to call it a neologism.  It found its way into the Random House tome a few years after mine was printed.

Thanks for the info M56.


----------



## elroy

M56 said:
			
		

> But what does "Look!" mean in your example? Is it "Look, I'm telling you you are wrong!", "Look at that guy again", or something else?


 
It's "Look!" as in "Look at that guy" (pointing to him).


----------



## M56

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> I couldn't find it in the OED, three desk dictionaries, Cambridge Advanced Learner's or even my own copy of the _Random House Unabridged Dictionary, _which is weighing down the chair next to mine...but it's an earlier edition than M56's...so I think it's correct to call it a neologism. It found its way into the Random House tome a few years after mine was printed.
> 
> Thanks for the info M56.


 
You're welcome. Did you read up on spoken grammar?


----------



## cuchuflete

I did, and it looks like a fascinating topic, at least from the three links you have provided.  I suspect--you can probably tell me--that the spoken grammars are descriptive, rather than prescriptive or proscriptive, as they are addressing a moving target.

I also expect, based on this and other threads, that there is a great deal of regional variation.  I am quite comfortable with the notion of spoken grammar as distinct from written grammar...all three blurbs refer to it, but 
I still believe that the word "rule" is perhaps too strong.  I am more at ease with talking about 'usage', which is a less prescriptive approach.


----------



## M56

elroy said:
			
		

> It's "Look!" as in "Look at that guy" (pointing to him).


 
Then I don't understand why you cannot accept "Look!" followed by "It's the guy I was *with*? (rising declarative).


----------



## ElenaofTroy

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Help!  I wish you had addressed your question to the grammarians, rather than to me.
> 
> I think that you are correct as far as the written form goes, but speech is another matter entirely. In speaking, whatever communicates clearly is ok, whether or not it adheres to someone's notion of grammar.
> 
> Here's a little personal opinion, not founded in grammatical study or expertise.
> 
> "Look!"  This is an exclamation.  There is no ambiguity.
> 
> I and some others in this thread would expect that to be followed either by a question or by a statement. For a question, I like your suggested substitution.
> 
> "It's the guy I was with" would, for us, normally be a statement. Claude offered it to us with "?" at the end. In writting, that is wrong, I think, though it could be fine if it is intended to be a transcription of spoken English.
> 
> Clear as mud?
> 
> Un saludo,
> Cuchu


  Cuchu, I didn´t see your answer before!! Thanks, I got it now and it´s clear as mud!


----------



## M56

> cuchuflete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did, and it looks like a fascinating topic, at least from the three links you have provided. I suspect--you can probably tell me--that the spoken grammars are descriptive, rather than prescriptive or proscriptive, as they are addressing a moving target.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are a few who are trying to create prescriptive spoken grammar books.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I also expect, based on this and other threads, that there is a great deal of regional variation.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

 
Not such a great deal really. One observation/rule that is quite common in spoken English pertains to the structuring of _rising declarative questions,_ for example. Another would be the way we apply the _dislocated topic,_ as in_ "this little café...it's lovely."._ Both those are common to speech and qutie universal across languages and dialects. There are many more examples that are universal in such a way.


----------



## M56

More at:

http://www.tu-chemnitz.de/phil/english/chairs/linguist/real/independent/llc/Conference1998/Papers/Leech/Leech.htm


----------



## elroy

M56 said:
			
		

> Then I don't understand why you cannot accept "Look!" followed by "It's the guy I was *with*? (rising declarative).


 
I have already explained (post #23) why that would not work for me.


----------



## M56

elroy said:
			
		

> I have already explained (post #23) why that would not work for me.


 
You mostly told us that you don't like it, that's all.

And how about:

_Look closer! It's *John*, or *not*?_


----------

