The Narrow Path Ministries

On a lighter note (hopefully), I have always been quite surprised to hear Steve and others use the word "stumbling" or "stumbled" in what appears to be an improper grammatical way. For example, the topic titled "Stumbling your brother". Shouldn't that be "Causing your brother to stumble"? Many times Steve has used the word similarly and it does not seem to be proper grammar.

dwight92070 wrote:"Stumbling your brother". Shouldn't that be "Causing your brother to stumble"?

Among the several correct uses of stumbling, (listed in dictionary.com) is this: to cause to stumble; trip.

1 Peter 2:8 says, “A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense.”

I suppose if a stone can stumble me (cause me to trip), so can a brother.

I love the English language, and one of the things I like the most is that new words are added and usage changes over time. Isn't it fun when you notice what appears to be a change while it is happening?

That's not a new use of the word; it goes back at least as far as Webster's 1828 edition.

Candlepower wrote:

dwight92070 wrote:"Stumbling your brother". Shouldn't that be "Causing your brother to stumble"?

Among the several correct uses of stumbling, (listed in dictionary.com) is this: to cause to stumble; trip.

1 Peter 2:8 says, “A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense.”

I suppose if a stone can stumble me (cause me to trip), so can a brother.

Dwight: Right there, your last sentence, IMO, is incorrect grammar. If you Google "stumbled", or "stumbling", I don't believe you will ever see it used that way. A stone does not stumble me, rather it is a stone that causes someone to stumble.

backwoodsman wrote:That's not a new use of the word; it goes back at least as far as Webster's 1828 edition.

Dwight: Do you have that definition handy, so we can see it?

dwight92070 wrote:

backwoodsman wrote:That's not a new use of the word; it goes back at least as far as Webster's 1828 edition.

Dwight: Do you have that definition handy, so we can see it?

Look for "verb transitive" here:
http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/stumble

Yep. You settled that point, Backwoodsman.

It seems odd that the more common points of bad grammar are seldom addressed—for example, the past tense and present participle of "lie."
So often we hear someone say, "When I was laying in my bed" instead of "When I was lying in my bed" or "I laid on the couch" instead of "I lay on the couch."

Once, around Christmas time, I heard a brother read Luke 2:16 as "And they went with haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby laying in a manger." Though the word was clearly "lying" in the text from which he was reading, he read it as "laying."

As a teacher, I had the pupils use a grammar program prepared by the Ontario Institute of Studies in Education. One of the tasks for the pupils was to choose which of the following was correct:
(A) "Yesterday, the girl laid on the beach."
(B) Yesterday, the girl lay on the beach."

If the pupil selected the correct sentence (B), then the program pronounced his response as "incorrect."

I don't think I have EVER heard anyone using the past participle of the word, i.e. "lain." (For example, "She had lain on the beach for about an hour.")

At age 22, I took my teacher training in Manitoba. When I was being observed in practice teaching, my instructor said, "You're from Ontario, aren't you?"
"How did you know?" I asked her. She replied, "You said to the pupils, 'Git out your books,' instead of 'Get out your books'."

It's interesting that Charles Harrington Elster today apparently disagrees with Webster:

Is it proper to say, "I stumbled my brother"? That is, as opposed to "I caused my brother to stumble." Thanks, Dwight

The verb to "stumble" is intransitive, meaning it does not act on an object, as opposed to a transitive verb, which needs an object to act on. In "She hit the ball," the verb to "hit" is transitive; it acts on the ball. But in "I can walk," the verb to "walk" is intransitive; it performs an action without having to perform it on something.

"Stumble" was once transitive, meaning "to trip, cause to fall," but that use faded in the mid 17th-century. Today "stumble" is only intransitive, meaning that you cannot "stumble your brother"; he must stumble on his own. Whether you flung an impediment in his path to cause him to stumble on his own is another matter. See the story of Cain and Abel in Genesis. — CHE

Dwight: So, if I understand correctly, "stumble" was once transitive, but faded away in the mid 1600's, and is now only intransitive.

Continuing the good fun in the playground of English Grammar....

According to Merriam Webster, stumble, stumbled, and stumbling can all be used as either transitive or intransitive verbs. If you go to the site you will see that at the writer's discretion, those words can be used correctly either way...transitively or intransitively. Here's the link: http://www.dictionary.com/

One could say, "My horse stumbled on the road" (intransitive) and be correct. Or, "That stone in the road stumbled my horse" (transitive) and be correct. One might even say, "Watch out! That stone will stumble your horse also (transitive) and be correct. Another might add, "If someone don't get that there stone outa the road, it'll be stumblin' horses all day!" (Incorrect spelling and grammar in that last sentence perhaps, but the use of stumbling is not incorrect.)

Also, according to Webster, the British Dictionary definition of stumble does not allow for a transitive use. Pity.

Therefore, in America it's okay to say, "...if a stone can stumble me, so can a brother." Using stumble transitively may sound odd to some, but I'm not going to let stumble stumble me.