“They brought Carruthers’s breakfast in to him.”
“What, this morning? Really? I just saw him yesterday and he was still on a feeding tube.”
“Yes, they say it’s amazing how well he is responding.”
“Was he able to sit up and eat?”
“Yes, they even said he was feeding himself.”
“I must go see him right away.”
I am in no way a grammar major, and will attempt to comment on the grammar. I am a native American English speaker, and " they brought him in his breakfast" sounds odd to me. I am not saying it is incorrect it just sounds odd to me.
I read this and think the poor guy was so tiered he could not go get his own food, so they brought it to him. The in does not tell me anything. I read the comments, and respectfully disagree with in the house rather than in the garden. If the guy was a caretaker for the garden, showed up for work and was such a wreck, they could have brought his breakfast in to him, meaning in the garden.
I think it should be “They brought him his breakfast”. If the wanted to be more specific, more than just in should be added. The brought him his breakfast in bed, they brought him his breakfast in his room, , they brought his breakfast to him in the garden…
The key is they brought him his breakfast. If they want to say in, they also should also say into where.
I’m wondering why you mentioned Humphrey’s age… The expression “poor old boy”, similar to “poor old chap”, is mostly said by British people, or by elderly non-British (but not including American) people TO or ABOUT others, irrespective of the other person’s age or economic status. Humphrey was of course not “old” or elderly. Sometimes it might just happen that the person being spoken to is actually old, but it’s not a requirement. I also regularly hear “Oh, you poor old thing” spoken to people of any age, including children.
With respect, Jim, you do not understand the nuance of this expression, and there is nothing odd or peculiar about it, either. I’ve read and heard and used such expressions my whole life - and I’m in my 50s, too. You simply haven’t been exposed to enough non-American English literature.
Note that English is spoken as a first language in over thirty countries. If you add “officially spoken”, it’s over forty. ‘American’ English isn’t the benchmark for English…
Julz611, I understand there are other types of English. That is why I felt it was necessary to state what type of English I speak. I do not know how you got the implication I was saying American English was the benchmark. I was simply stating this phrase sounds odd to me as a native American English speaker. If this phrase sounds normal to you, so be it.
You say it is not odd or peculiar. To you it probably isn’t. I don’t know how it sounds to you, only you know that. I made it clear, I was not saying it was wrong, it just sounded odd to me. Only I know how it sounds to me.
I don’t understand the nuance of this expression. What nuance?
I haven’t been exposed to enough non-American English literature? How much non-American English literature have I been exposed to?
Sorry if I stereotyped you. I assumed you were another American explaining grammar and nuance for a British piece of literature through American rose-coloured glasses… I assumed you didn’t understand the nuance because of your American English. It was the only reason I could think of, since it’s not an odd expression for the majority (perhaps) outside America. I knew from your mention of caretaker and garden that you didn’t have a clue.
So it could very well be still the case that you simply don’t understand it because you’re American. It sounds odd to you because you didn’t spend your whole life listening to, reading and using this expression.
I’ve been exposed to a lot of American media & literature growing up, but I still don’t get half the Letterman jokes even, though I’m a native English speaker. There are American nuances I don’t get at all.
Let’s just say that if you grew up in England or Australia, you wouldn’t even be querying this expression.
Apologies for the edits: I needed more coffee.
Is the word order unchangeable? For example, is “bring in someone something” possible?
My first inkling is to say: Not normally, no. Not in the same sense to bring (something) in (to someone) — something that is concrete, like breakfast.
Normally, you would say bring in something or bring (someone) in something followed by a description of that concrete thing.
For example, you would want to avoid saying, “They brought in me a cot to sleep on” but rather “They brought me in a cot to sleep on” or “They brought in a cot for me to sleep on.”
Now, bring in someone something is possible — when that something is an internal feeling or characteristic. But this carries an entirely different meaning. It is not bringing something physical, like breakfast, to someone, but rather stirring up an emotional feeling inside of someone or bringing about a certain abstract characteristic in someone. (Usually a feeling or the characteristic.)
It should also be pointed out that in does not form a verbal phrase with bring here. Instead, the prepositional phrase in someone is placed, rather poetically, before the “something” so that the description of the feeling or characteristic is emphasized at the end of the sentence.
So, it is to bring, in someone, something
This can be used to great effect:
She resented them for what they had done. Now hearing their names and seeing their faces brought in her a great fury.
The choices she is forced to encounter every day bring in her a feeling of intense disgust.
A life full of disappointment brought in him a tremendous sadness which settled in his eyes.
Remembering the powerful words of encouragement from his father brings in him the courage and determination he needs to face his adversaries.
Fred_1 recently explained in a writing submission, and I think it applies here: The word order proceeds from the “old” (we already know that you’re talking about the person) to the “new” (the feeling or characteristic of that person). Sentences like this create a nice flow to your writing and put the important, new descriptive material in the place where it has the most impact — at the end of the sentence.
I agree. Otherwise you would have to — rather clumsily — place “in him” or “in her” somewhere in the middle or end of the description, nearly killing the sentence:
She resented them for what they had done. Now hearing their names and seeing their faces brought a great fury in her.
The choices she is forced to encounter every day bring a feeling in her of intense disgust.
A life full of disappointment brought a tremendous sadness in him which settled in his eyes.
Remembering the powerful words of encouragement from his father brings the courage and determination in him that he needs to face his adversaries.
I don’t know how you thought I was explaining grammar. My very first statement, “I am in no way a grammar major, and will not attempt to comment on the grammar.” No mention of grammar anywhere else in the post.
Is this from a British piece of literature, what piece? Title and author please?
Another American,through American rose colored glasses. Very offensive and again a stereotype.
It is not an odd expression from the majority outside of America. Really, how do you know that? Did you send out a survey asking a sample of all English speakers outside of America this phrase was normal? From the other post it does not sound like the majority feels this to be true.
You knew from my mention of caretaker and garden that I did not have a clue. I felt this was rude, and you did not know anything from this. I will accept that you made an assumption, but you did knot know. It takes more fact finding to know.
I simply don’t understand because I am an American. What I know and don’t know is not based on the country I was born. It is based on education and experiences and influences in my life. I am an individual that was born and raised in the United States. You like to learn languages, you are from Australia, should I assume every one in Australia likes to learn languages.
Lets look at what I was trying to say clearly. The phrase “They brought him in his breakfast”, to me, a native American English speaker sounds odd. To me, Jim, not all of America or the English speaking countries, just to me. Does this mean it is right or wrong, absolutely not. Just to me this seems odd.
Unlike you I cannot speak for every one in a country, or everyone that learned a language. It is ridiculous and presumptuous. I can speak for me from my experiences, period.
The difference is that because this sounds normal to you, you assume it sounds normal to everyone. I assume that even though this sounds odd to me, it may be acceptable else where. I don’t know and don’t presume to know how it is perceived by others. I only know how it sounds to me Jim.
If I grew up in England or Australia I may not even be querying this expression. You said I wouldn’t be, rather than may, again, we don’t know that for sure. I agree there is a good possibility I wouldn’t.
When I speak I speak for me and only me, I don’t force my opinions on anyone and can accept that others may feel different. That is what makes this world a wonderful and exciting place. I embrace it rather than attempt to change it. When they are different, I would rather try to understand why. Not change them or feel they are wrong, I would rather know what experiences have they had in there life to perceive this differently.This is how you truly get to know someone. I would rather rather use my energy to know why someone is different rather than try to convince them they are wrong. Different is not wrong, it is just different.
In my attempt to get to know someone I would surely not be rude, make stereotypes and make assumptions. If I say i like blue, I mean I like blue. I feel you would hear that I dislike green.
How close do you live to Brisbane? I travel there for work once or twice a year. If you are close, I will buy you and or your family dinner.
Here are two other phrases:
‘Oh, my dear, you look all in.
‘I don’t know. I think I must have got a touch of the sun.’
Without the context, I would not understand them. With the context:
‘I don’t think I will today. I don’t feel very well.’ She gave him a look.
‘Oh, my dear, you look all in. What’s the matter with you?’
‘I don’t know. I think I must have got a touch of the sun.’
they make perfect sense. I don’t think these are right or wrong. I think these may be slang. Maybe some writing is not common or slang, but an authors style. W. Somerset Maugham, certainly does have a poetic style while displaying common life situations. I have never heard anyone say “you look all in”. I know that in American English, especially with the younger generation, there is often slang I don’t understand, and it is my native language
.
Jim,
I am going to open up a new discussion thread for this subject, titled:
Is “you look all in” meaning “you look tired” in common usage or out-of-date?