has been assisting with recent efforts to rescue elegant tern chicks

[Phaedrus]

Have you an example or two from something written more recently than 1611?

Here are a couple of song examples that have come to mind. I'm pretty sure every church-going child in the English-speaking world learns this:

"Jesus loves me. This I know. For the Bible tells me so."

We also have this one, from Joni Mitchell's "Both Sides, Now" (1969), which Rolling Stone magazine has ranked 170 on its list of the 500 greatest songs of all time:

"So many things I could have done, but clouds got in my way."

 

[5jj]

"Jesus loves me. This I know. For the Bible tells me so."

First published in 1859.

"So many things I could have done, but clouds got in my way."

OK, I'll give you that one., though it's a few words shorter than the one I came up with myself in post #15!

If I were picky (something [O ] nobody (S) of any note, to the best of my knowledge has ever accused me of). I might say that poetry and songs are not great examples if one is trying to show examples of natural grammatical English.

I continue to think that the sentence we are discussing seems to be so unnatural as to be considered ungrammatical; you don't agree. I don't think anything either of us says is going to convince the other, so I'll bow out now.

 

[GoldfishLord]

Have you an example or two from something written more recently than 1611? The language of a religious work written over 400 years ago, beautiful though it may be, is hardly evidence of its naturalness or grammaticality today.

I know that some modern versions of the Bible retain this word order in that verse, but they also retain many other dated forms. How about some original words produced in the last fifty years?

I'd like to know if "that verse" refers to "But the bullock, and his hide, his flesh, and his dung, he burnt with fire without the camp; as the Lord commanded Moses" (Leviticus 8:17, KJV)".

 

[GoldfishLord]

I have been unable to find OSV constructions of any great length, though I did come up with my own:

OSV constructions of any great length I have been unable to find.

Though it somewhat weakens my earlier arguments, I have to admit that I think that is grammatical.

I'd like to know if "constructions" means "the arrangement of words according to syntactical rules", or "a group of words that has been arranged in that way".

 

[GoldfishLord]

That, I would say, is a matter of opinion.

O-S-V order is possible in some varieties of English, possibly influenced by Yiddish - Bagels(,) I love. However to the best of my limited knowledge, this is restricted in its acceptability and in the length of utterance possible. Even with your original sentence shortened to Efforts to rescue tern chicks, the aquarium has been assisting with, it seems to be so unnatural as to be considered ungrammatical.

I'd like to know if "your original sentence" refers to sentence 1 in post #1.

 

[5jj]

It refers to Phaedrus's Recent efforts to rescue elegant tern chicks in the Long Beach Harbor, the Aquarium of the Pacific has been assisting with.

 

[Phaedrus]

I continue to think that the sentence we are discussing seems to be so unnatural as to be considered ungrammatical; you don't agree.

Another famous example has come to mind. This is from the 1662 wording of the marriage ceremony in The Book of Common Prayer:

"Those whom God hath joyned together, let no man put asunder." (original spelling retained)

Without fronting of the direct object of put, the sentence would read: "Let no man put [those whom God hath joyned together] asunder."

 

[Tdol]

OK, but can we disagree a bit more nicelier?