Wonder the question?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
A writer I work with keeps using the phrase "wonder the question" -- as in, "Scientists have wondered this question for years." It totally rubs me the wrong way, perhaps because it's contrary to the normal use of "wonder" and the phrase "ponder the question", but is it truly an improper use of "wonder"?
verbs
asked May 20 at 17:01
SnowfireSnowfire
232 bronze badges
add a comment |
A writer I work with keeps using the phrase "wonder the question" -- as in, "Scientists have wondered this question for years." It totally rubs me the wrong way, perhaps because it's contrary to the normal use of "wonder" and the phrase "ponder the question", but is it truly an improper use of "wonder"?
verbs
asked May 20 at 17:01
SnowfireSnowfire
232 bronze badges
Whilst you have my sympathy in having constantly to hear this, it does seem as though wonder "ought" to have a transitive form - like ponder. Interestingly (and I hadn't realised this before you asked the question) wonder and ponder are of entirely different etymology. Whilst the former is Old Saxon, the latter is of Latin origin ponderare, reinforced by Middle French - ponderer. It is remarkable to think that the facility of individual words we use every day is determined by the way they entered the language of these islands literally millennia ago.
– WS2
May 20 at 22:32
add a comment |
A writer I work with keeps using the phrase "wonder the question" -- as in, "Scientists have wondered this question for years." It totally rubs me the wrong way, perhaps because it's contrary to the normal use of "wonder" and the phrase "ponder the question", but is it truly an improper use of "wonder"?
verbs
asked May 20 at 17:01
SnowfireSnowfire
232 bronze badges
A writer I work with keeps using the phrase "wonder the question" -- as in, "Scientists have wondered this question for years." It totally rubs me the wrong way, perhaps because it's contrary to the normal use of "wonder" and the phrase "ponder the question", but is it truly an improper use of "wonder"?
verbs
verbs
asked May 20 at 17:01
SnowfireSnowfire
232 bronze badges
asked May 20 at 17:01
SnowfireSnowfire
232 bronze badges
asked May 20 at 17:01
SnowfireSnowfire
232 bronze badges
asked May 20 at 17:01
SnowfireSnowfire
232 bronze badges
asked May 20 at 17:01
SnowfireSnowfire
232 bronze badges
232 bronze badges
Whilst you have my sympathy in having constantly to hear this, it does seem as though wonder "ought" to have a transitive form - like ponder. Interestingly (and I hadn't realised this before you asked the question) wonder and ponder are of entirely different etymology. Whilst the former is Old Saxon, the latter is of Latin origin ponderare, reinforced by Middle French - ponderer. It is remarkable to think that the facility of individual words we use every day is determined by the way they entered the language of these islands literally millennia ago.
– WS2
May 20 at 22:32
add a comment |
Whilst you have my sympathy in having constantly to hear this, it does seem as though wonder "ought" to have a transitive form - like ponder. Interestingly (and I hadn't realised this before you asked the question) wonder and ponder are of entirely different etymology. Whilst the former is Old Saxon, the latter is of Latin origin ponderare, reinforced by Middle French - ponderer. It is remarkable to think that the facility of individual words we use every day is determined by the way they entered the language of these islands literally millennia ago.
– WS2
May 20 at 22:32
Whilst you have my sympathy in having constantly to hear this, it does seem as though wonder "ought" to have a transitive form - like ponder. Interestingly (and I hadn't realised this before you asked the question) wonder and ponder are of entirely different etymology. Whilst the former is Old Saxon, the latter is of Latin origin ponderare, reinforced by Middle French - ponderer. It is remarkable to think that the facility of individual words we use every day is determined by the way they entered the language of these islands literally millennia ago.
– WS2
May 20 at 22:32
Whilst you have my sympathy in having constantly to hear this, it does seem as though wonder "ought" to have a transitive form - like ponder. Interestingly (and I hadn't realised this before you asked the question) wonder and ponder are of entirely different etymology. Whilst the former is Old Saxon, the latter is of Latin origin ponderare, reinforced by Middle French - ponderer. It is remarkable to think that the facility of individual words we use every day is determined by the way they entered the language of these islands literally millennia ago.
– WS2
May 20 at 22:32
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
This is not a proper use of "wonder."
When used as a transitive verb, "wonder" takes an interrogative clause ("if," "whether," or the "wh-" words) as a direct object, but not a noun phrase such as "the/this question."
Relevant excerpts from the Oxford Manual of English Grammar:
7.3.1.2.2 The pattern ‘WONDER [ clause whether/if/wh -phrase …]’
This pattern involves subordinate interrogative and exclamative clauses
functioning as Direct Object. As we have seen, closed interrogative clauses
are introduced by whether or if , whereas open interrogative clauses are
introduced by a wh -phrase which is headed by a wh -word…
Subordinate interrogative clauses differ from main interrogative clauses in
lacking Subject–auxiliary inversion.
Also, as a contrasting example:
7.3.3.5 Free relative clauses
…
100 I wondered [interrogative clause what he said].
101 I rejected [free relative clause what he said].
Because WONDER does not normally take an NP as Complement, and
because free relative clauses resemble noun phrases in their distribution, the
bracketed string in (100) must be an interrogative clause. Conversely,
because REJECT cannot take a regular clause as Complement, but does take
an NP as Complement (e.g. he rejected the proposal ), the bracketed string
in (101) must be a free relative clause.
One exception would be the use of a pronoun to represent the clause (e.g. "I myself wondered this"), but that is also not the same construction as your colleague is using.
answered May 20 at 17:20
geekahedrongeekahedron
1,8062 silver badges13 bronze badges
Normally, wonder takes a direct object with a transitivizing preposition like about, similarly to other mental predicates like worry, think, etc. For example, these are grammatical: Scientists have wondered/worried/thought about this problem for years.
– John Lawler
May 20 at 17:47
1
Naturally, that's common usage, but I would parse that as an intransitive verb modified by a prepositional phrase, rather than an object. Or as you put it, I suppose, the PP does the "transitivizing" rather than the usage of the verb itself.
– geekahedron
May 20 at 18:05
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f499106%2fwonder-the-question%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
This is not a proper use of "wonder."
When used as a transitive verb, "wonder" takes an interrogative clause ("if," "whether," or the "wh-" words) as a direct object, but not a noun phrase such as "the/this question."
Relevant excerpts from the Oxford Manual of English Grammar:
7.3.1.2.2 The pattern ‘WONDER [ clause whether/if/wh -phrase …]’
This pattern involves subordinate interrogative and exclamative clauses
functioning as Direct Object. As we have seen, closed interrogative clauses
are introduced by whether or if , whereas open interrogative clauses are
introduced by a wh -phrase which is headed by a wh -word…
Subordinate interrogative clauses differ from main interrogative clauses in
lacking Subject–auxiliary inversion.
Also, as a contrasting example:
7.3.3.5 Free relative clauses
…
100 I wondered [interrogative clause what he said].
101 I rejected [free relative clause what he said].
Because WONDER does not normally take an NP as Complement, and
because free relative clauses resemble noun phrases in their distribution, the
bracketed string in (100) must be an interrogative clause. Conversely,
because REJECT cannot take a regular clause as Complement, but does take
an NP as Complement (e.g. he rejected the proposal ), the bracketed string
in (101) must be a free relative clause.
One exception would be the use of a pronoun to represent the clause (e.g. "I myself wondered this"), but that is also not the same construction as your colleague is using.
answered May 20 at 17:20
geekahedrongeekahedron
1,8062 silver badges13 bronze badges
Normally, wonder takes a direct object with a transitivizing preposition like about, similarly to other mental predicates like worry, think, etc. For example, these are grammatical: Scientists have wondered/worried/thought about this problem for years.
– John Lawler
May 20 at 17:47
1
Naturally, that's common usage, but I would parse that as an intransitive verb modified by a prepositional phrase, rather than an object. Or as you put it, I suppose, the PP does the "transitivizing" rather than the usage of the verb itself.
– geekahedron
May 20 at 18:05
add a comment |
This is not a proper use of "wonder."
When used as a transitive verb, "wonder" takes an interrogative clause ("if," "whether," or the "wh-" words) as a direct object, but not a noun phrase such as "the/this question."
Relevant excerpts from the Oxford Manual of English Grammar:
7.3.1.2.2 The pattern ‘WONDER [ clause whether/if/wh -phrase …]’
This pattern involves subordinate interrogative and exclamative clauses
functioning as Direct Object. As we have seen, closed interrogative clauses
are introduced by whether or if , whereas open interrogative clauses are
introduced by a wh -phrase which is headed by a wh -word…
Subordinate interrogative clauses differ from main interrogative clauses in
lacking Subject–auxiliary inversion.
Also, as a contrasting example:
7.3.3.5 Free relative clauses
…
100 I wondered [interrogative clause what he said].
101 I rejected [free relative clause what he said].
Because WONDER does not normally take an NP as Complement, and
because free relative clauses resemble noun phrases in their distribution, the
bracketed string in (100) must be an interrogative clause. Conversely,
because REJECT cannot take a regular clause as Complement, but does take
an NP as Complement (e.g. he rejected the proposal ), the bracketed string
in (101) must be a free relative clause.
One exception would be the use of a pronoun to represent the clause (e.g. "I myself wondered this"), but that is also not the same construction as your colleague is using.
answered May 20 at 17:20
geekahedrongeekahedron
1,8062 silver badges13 bronze badges
Normally, wonder takes a direct object with a transitivizing preposition like about, similarly to other mental predicates like worry, think, etc. For example, these are grammatical: Scientists have wondered/worried/thought about this problem for years.
– John Lawler
May 20 at 17:47
1
Naturally, that's common usage, but I would parse that as an intransitive verb modified by a prepositional phrase, rather than an object. Or as you put it, I suppose, the PP does the "transitivizing" rather than the usage of the verb itself.
– geekahedron
May 20 at 18:05
add a comment |
This is not a proper use of "wonder."
When used as a transitive verb, "wonder" takes an interrogative clause ("if," "whether," or the "wh-" words) as a direct object, but not a noun phrase such as "the/this question."
Relevant excerpts from the Oxford Manual of English Grammar:
7.3.1.2.2 The pattern ‘WONDER [ clause whether/if/wh -phrase …]’
This pattern involves subordinate interrogative and exclamative clauses
functioning as Direct Object. As we have seen, closed interrogative clauses
are introduced by whether or if , whereas open interrogative clauses are
introduced by a wh -phrase which is headed by a wh -word…
Subordinate interrogative clauses differ from main interrogative clauses in
lacking Subject–auxiliary inversion.
Also, as a contrasting example:
7.3.3.5 Free relative clauses
…
100 I wondered [interrogative clause what he said].
101 I rejected [free relative clause what he said].
Because WONDER does not normally take an NP as Complement, and
because free relative clauses resemble noun phrases in their distribution, the
bracketed string in (100) must be an interrogative clause. Conversely,
because REJECT cannot take a regular clause as Complement, but does take
an NP as Complement (e.g. he rejected the proposal ), the bracketed string
in (101) must be a free relative clause.
One exception would be the use of a pronoun to represent the clause (e.g. "I myself wondered this"), but that is also not the same construction as your colleague is using.
answered May 20 at 17:20
geekahedrongeekahedron
1,8062 silver badges13 bronze badges
This is not a proper use of "wonder."
When used as a transitive verb, "wonder" takes an interrogative clause ("if," "whether," or the "wh-" words) as a direct object, but not a noun phrase such as "the/this question."
Relevant excerpts from the Oxford Manual of English Grammar:
7.3.1.2.2 The pattern ‘WONDER [ clause whether/if/wh -phrase …]’
This pattern involves subordinate interrogative and exclamative clauses
functioning as Direct Object. As we have seen, closed interrogative clauses
are introduced by whether or if , whereas open interrogative clauses are
introduced by a wh -phrase which is headed by a wh -word…
Subordinate interrogative clauses differ from main interrogative clauses in
lacking Subject–auxiliary inversion.
Also, as a contrasting example:
7.3.3.5 Free relative clauses
…
100 I wondered [interrogative clause what he said].
101 I rejected [free relative clause what he said].
Because WONDER does not normally take an NP as Complement, and
because free relative clauses resemble noun phrases in their distribution, the
bracketed string in (100) must be an interrogative clause. Conversely,
because REJECT cannot take a regular clause as Complement, but does take
an NP as Complement (e.g. he rejected the proposal ), the bracketed string
in (101) must be a free relative clause.
One exception would be the use of a pronoun to represent the clause (e.g. "I myself wondered this"), but that is also not the same construction as your colleague is using.
answered May 20 at 17:20
geekahedrongeekahedron
1,8062 silver badges13 bronze badges
edited May 20 at 17:44
answered May 20 at 17:20
geekahedrongeekahedron
1,8062 silver badges13 bronze badges
answered May 20 at 17:20
geekahedrongeekahedron
1,8062 silver badges13 bronze badges
answered May 20 at 17:20
geekahedrongeekahedron
1,8062 silver badges13 bronze badges
1,8062 silver badges13 bronze badges
Normally, wonder takes a direct object with a transitivizing preposition like about, similarly to other mental predicates like worry, think, etc. For example, these are grammatical: Scientists have wondered/worried/thought about this problem for years.
– John Lawler
May 20 at 17:47
1
Naturally, that's common usage, but I would parse that as an intransitive verb modified by a prepositional phrase, rather than an object. Or as you put it, I suppose, the PP does the "transitivizing" rather than the usage of the verb itself.
– geekahedron
May 20 at 18:05
add a comment |
Normally, wonder takes a direct object with a transitivizing preposition like about, similarly to other mental predicates like worry, think, etc. For example, these are grammatical: Scientists have wondered/worried/thought about this problem for years.
– John Lawler
May 20 at 17:47
1
Naturally, that's common usage, but I would parse that as an intransitive verb modified by a prepositional phrase, rather than an object. Or as you put it, I suppose, the PP does the "transitivizing" rather than the usage of the verb itself.
– geekahedron
May 20 at 18:05
Normally, wonder takes a direct object with a transitivizing preposition like about, similarly to other mental predicates like worry, think, etc. For example, these are grammatical: Scientists have wondered/worried/thought about this problem for years.
– John Lawler
May 20 at 17:47
Normally, wonder takes a direct object with a transitivizing preposition like about, similarly to other mental predicates like worry, think, etc. For example, these are grammatical: Scientists have wondered/worried/thought about this problem for years.
– John Lawler
May 20 at 17:47
1
1
Naturally, that's common usage, but I would parse that as an intransitive verb modified by a prepositional phrase, rather than an object. Or as you put it, I suppose, the PP does the "transitivizing" rather than the usage of the verb itself.
– geekahedron
May 20 at 18:05
Naturally, that's common usage, but I would parse that as an intransitive verb modified by a prepositional phrase, rather than an object. Or as you put it, I suppose, the PP does the "transitivizing" rather than the usage of the verb itself.
– geekahedron
May 20 at 18:05
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f499106%2fwonder-the-question%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Whilst you have my sympathy in having constantly to hear this, it does seem as though wonder "ought" to have a transitive form - like ponder. Interestingly (and I hadn't realised this before you asked the question) wonder and ponder are of entirely different etymology. Whilst the former is Old Saxon, the latter is of Latin origin ponderare, reinforced by Middle French - ponderer. It is remarkable to think that the facility of individual words we use every day is determined by the way they entered the language of these islands literally millennia ago.
– WS2
May 20 at 22:32