Why "a Jehovah's Witness" is grammatically wrong

[carlos]

Hello!

 

I have often heard that the expression "I am a Jehovah's Witness" is wrong from a grammatical point of view. The right way of expressing it would be "I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses" or "I am a Witness of Jehovah".

 

Would somebody please explain the grammatical reason why it is wrong? I know I received an explanation once, but I am unable to remember or to locate it.

 

Actually, "a Jehovah's Witness" doesn't sound right to me, but who am I to say?

[Qapla]

I am no sure why it would be wrong. Let's look at it a moment.

 

The article "a" is singular.

The word Witness is singular.

 

So, if the police asked who saw a car accident would the expression, "I am a witness" be wrong?

 

Now, if we painted houses, not artwork, would it be wrong to say, "I am a house painter"?

 

If these expressions are not wrong, then why would it be wrong to say, "I am a Jehovah's Witness"?

[Sallyforth]

I'm not sure, but looking at it from the point of view that Jehovah is God's name, we could break it down to how it would sound if we substituted Jehovah's name (hypothetically, of course) with another name. Would it sound right if I said I was "a Cathy's witness?"

 

That sounds odd to me, but saying that I was a witness of Cathy would sound okay.

 

Just thinking out loud here. Not a grammar expert, as is obvious. I'm sure someone with more knowledge of the rules of grammar than I possess will let you know. It should be interesting.

[Qapla]

I'm not a Grammar Expert either.

 

But, based on how it sounds sometimes works ..... sometimes not.

 

Most will say. "It is me" instead of, "It is I" ..... however, grammatically speaking, the latter is correct - but, somehow, "It's I" sounds odd.

[rocket]

According to Grammer Checker:  http://www.gingersoftware.com/grammarcheck
 
To say: "I am a Jehovah's Witness." is grammatically correct. Clicking on "review rewriting alternatives" one might get the idea that "Jehovah's Witness" is the name of a Church or Organization.

 

• I am a former Jehovah's Witness
• No I am not a Jehovah's Witness
• I was a Jehovah's Witness
• I was raised a Jehovah's Witness
• I am a baptized Jehovah's Witness
• I would also be a Jehovah's Witness
• I was raised as a Jehovah's Witness
• I became a Jehovah's Witness

To me it is like saying "I am a Catholic" or "I am a Baptist." But I don't think there is any reason to go Postal over it.

I prefer to say I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses just as the Kingdom Hall sign says "Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses," rather than "Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witness."  I am one of many Witnesses for Jehovah's name.To say "I am a Jehovah's Witness" is still better than saying "I am a Jehovah Witness" of which a few at the door say.

Edited December 3, 2014 by lynn

[bagwell1987]

Jehovah has many witnesses of his power. "I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses" is how I describe myself. There are many, but I am one.

[Brenda]

A "Jehovah Witness "sounds like just a title.  I always try to say "I'm one of Jehovah's Witnesses"...don't know why...it just makes me feel better about the wording.  I don't know the proper gammer either...but know what feels right to me.

[Fiona]

I'm no expert but "Jehovah's" means belonging to jehovah. As more than one of us is belonging to jehovah I think , "I am one of Jehovah's witnesses " is correct

[Brother_Bliss]

We should move this to the Public JW Forum or the Christian Life forum. General Discussion is generally for non-theocratic topics.

 

But, I believe that saying "I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses" is more accurate, and that "I am a Jehovah's Witness" is grammatically incorrect. Collectively, we are Jehovah's Witnesses. Each of us as individuals are one of the many who make up the group. Each one of us are part of a religion generally known as Jehovah's Witnesses - our religion is never spoken of in the singular.

 

"YOU (plural) are my witnesses" says Jehovah (Isaiah 43:10). I am one of the ones he was referring to.

 

Substitute another name, and ask if it sounds right....

 

I am a Bob's witness, or, I am one of Bob's witnesses?

I am a Suzie's witness, or, I am one of Suzie's witnesses?

I am a Jehovah's witness, or I am one of Jehovah's witnesses?

[Beggar for the Spirit]

Ok Carlos I will also try to take a shot at understanding this.

I have heard this mentioned before by a C.O. and also at an assembly

as it being incorrect to say "I am a Jehovah's Witness".

 

So what I did is I went to my word processor and wrote

out a variety of sentences similar to "I am a Jehovah's Witness".

When I did this, I think I found the answer.

Here is what I did:

 

I am a Jehovah's Witness(incorrect)

I am a witness.(correct)

I am a George's cousin.(incorrect)

I am 1 of George's cousins.(correct)

 

I am a George friend.(incorrect)

I am 1 of George's friends.(correct)

 

 

After writing these out I came to this conclusion.

There seems to be 2 issues:

 

1}  Title vs Relationship

     If you add an "a" to this sentence before the 1st Noun(ex: I am a Jehovah's witness),

     then the 2nd noun(witness) becomes a title and the "relationship" is lost.

        Ex: I am a George's cousin (now cousin is a title instead of a relationship)

              I am a Jehovah's friend ( now friend is a title instead of a relationship)

    We normally use "a" when speaking of a title

       Ex: I am a doctor, He is a teacher.

    But without the a , and adding a 's(George's or Jehovah's), now there exists a relationship from the 2nd Noun to the 1st Noun

 

2} Multiple vs Singular

 "I am a George's cousin" is also incorrect because the 2nd noun(cousin, friend, witness) are all words that

  automatically carry the idea of having many, multiple.  So then it has to be written,

  " I am 1 of"

   This is because cousin, friend, witness are words/nouns that inherently have more than one, multiple.

   This is why if there was only 1 cousin or 1 witness, then a person would have to grammatically change

    the sentence to say,

  "I am the only cousin of George" or "I am the only witness of Jehovah"

   But a person cannot really say this because everyone has more than 1 cousin(even if the cousins are unknown) and

   Jehovah has millions of witnesses.

   So to say it or write grammatically correct,  it must have:

    " I am 1 of "  because it is 1 of many.

   But to say

    "I am a "(George's friend, Jehovah's witness) implies just 1, singular, which is incorrect.

 

 

I just looked back and read all this and I don't know if it makes sense? 

In my mind I think I understand it, but it is difficult to try and explain it.

Sorry if I made this more confusing.

Edited December 3, 2014 by Beggar for the Spirit

[trottigy]

If you are using it as a title "a Jehovah's Witness" is correct - as one would say, "I am a judge".

If you are saying it to show you are a memebr of a group of people then "one of Jehovah's Witnesses " (plural) is correct - as "I am one of many judges."

Look at our 1989 year book pages 3-13 and you will see both used correctly.

[trottigy]

Quote:

"'You say you're a Jehovah's Witness. Well, show me in the Bible where God says we should be his witnesses.'

"'Do you have a Bible at home?' I asked.

"'No, but my neighbor does and I can borrow it. If you can show me in the Bible that God says we should be his witnesses, I'll be one.'

"'Be careful what you say!' I warned.

"'I'm a man of my word,' he boasted.

"I wrote down for him the text Isaiah 43:9-12. Upon arriving home, he went to his neighbor, who helped him find the text. 'That's enough!' he told his neighbor. He went home and announced to his wife: 'I'm going to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses.'

[Huff]

If you are using it as a title "a Jehovah's Witness" is correct - as one would say, "I am a judge".

Not to be nit-picky but in this context the correct phrasing would be "A Witness of Jehovah", I believe.

Edited December 3, 2014 by Huff

[trottigy]

Not to be nit-picky but in this context the correct phrasing would be "A Witness of Jehovah", I believe.

Take a look at the '89 yearbook. You'll see the branch did not capitalize the "a".

This is because one wouldn't capitalize the "a" before Catholic, Mormon, or any other title. The "a" isn't part of the title, but "Jehovah's Witness" is.

Edited December 3, 2014 by trottigy

[Qapla]

OK ... the title of the thread is NOT what sounds better or what sounds odd or what do I like the sound of the best .... it is about the "grammar" of the wording "a Jehovah's Witness"

 

So, I used the word processor and typed in several sentences like "A Jehovah's Witness went to the store" and "He is a Jehovah's Witness" and a few more ways.

 

I found that, as long as I did not make some other grammar mistake, the grammar check said "No spelling or grammar errors were found" when I used "a Jehovah's Witness" - it also like "one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

 

This would indicate that, though some would prefer the expression "on of Jehovah's Witnesses", the answer to the original question is that NOTHING is grammatically wrong with "a Jehovah's Witness".

Edited December 3, 2014 by Qapla

[carlos]

I found that, as long as I did not make some other grammar mistake, the grammar check said "No spelling or grammar errors were found" when I used "a Jehovah's Witness" - it also like "one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

 

This would indicate that, though some would prefer the expression "on of Jehovah's Witnesses", the answer to the original question is that NOTHING is grammatically wrong with "a Jehovah's Witness".

 

John, I appreciate your test, but I trust better your own opinion as a native speaker than that of a word processor.

 

As Neil said above, let's try other expressions with the same structure:

 

I am a John's friend.

I am an Obama's consultant

I am a George's grandson.

 

Do they sound right to you? They don't sound right at all to me, but again I am not a native speaker.

 

If they don't sound right, why don't they? What is the grammatical reason why they don't?

 

I am thinking that maybe the problem with that structure is that the article "a" in those sentences applies to the person who follows. So those sentences would be correct if I refer to "a John", "an Obama" and "a George". But obviously I don't refer to "a Jehovah". Does this make sense?

Edited December 3, 2014 by cvillarrubia

[trottigy]

John, I appreciate your test, but I trust better your own opinion as a native speaker than that of a word processor.

As Neil said above, let's try other expressions with the same structure:

I am a John's friend.

I am an Obama's consultant

I am a George's grandson.

Do they sound right to you? They don't sound right at all to me, but again I am not a native speaker.

If they don't sound right, why don't they? What is the grammatical reason why they don't?

I am thinking that maybe the problem with that structure is that the article "a" in those sentences applies to the person who follows. So those sentences would be correct if I refer to "a John", "an Obama" and "a George". But obviously I don't refer to "a Jehovah". Does this make sense?

If "John's Friend" - all capitals - was the name of an organization, then saying, "I am a "John's Friend" is correct, but if you just wanted to say you are John's friend - then saying "I am one of John's friends" (no capital in friend) would be correct.

That 1989 yearbook really shows the difference very well.

Perhaps this is easier to see. DON'T look at the " 's ". Try it as - I am a JW. One would never say "I am one of JW" - if you are using JW as a Title.

Edited December 3, 2014 by trottigy

[rocket]

Perhaps this is easier to see. DON'T look at the " 's ". Try it as - I am a JW. One would never say "I am one of JWs" - if you are using JW as a Title.

 

That would be comparing apples to oranges because in the first instance you would not to intend to say "I am a Jehovah Witness" but rather the "  's after the J " is unwritten. In like manner in the second instance if the unwritten "  's after the J" is assumed "I am one of JWs" would be correct because the acronym follows the real words used.

[trottigy]

Thanks Lynn. You are correct, I shouldn't have had the s at the end either (apple vs oranges). It is corrected.

Edited December 3, 2014 by trottigy

[Sallyforth]

I'm not a Grammar Expert either.

 

But, based on how it sounds sometimes works ..... sometimes not.

 

Most will say. "It is me" instead of, "It is I" ..... however, grammatically speaking, the latter is correct - but, somehow, "It's I" sounds odd.

The old way we learned this was that if you took that expression and changed it to it's simplest structure, it would be easy to figure out.

 

For instance, you would know immediately that if your sentence ended as '"It is me that bought the gift"' that you wouldn't ever say '"Me bought the gift"', you would say '"I bought the gift"'. So in that case, we were taught to do this little mental trick to see if what you said made sense. Hence, the sound test.

 

However, despite all that, I still say "It's me!" (in most situations) because...ha ha, it sounds so completely unnatural to say, "It is I." You get all kinds of funny looks from people when you talk that way!  

[trottigy]

Just a note about the English language: I have taken several English classes in college and no professor ever graded a paper the same. For example, I submitted the exact same paper (as it worked for 2 different assignments) to 2 different English professors. One marked up my punctuation like crazy and I received a C. The other marked up just one comma placement and gave me an A. I didn't make a single change!

English tends to be VERY subjective. Please don't nit pick at each other. Both may be completely acceptable possibilities.

Edited December 3, 2014 by trottigy

[carlos]

If "John's Friend" - all capitals - was the name of an organization, then saying, "I am a "John's Friend" is correct, but if you just wanted to say you are John's friend - then saying "I am one of John's friends" (no capital in friend) would be correct.

 

Thank you, Jerry. I think I got it... and then lost it.

 

I got it... In a structure with the Saxon genitive (someone's something), the article (the, a) belongs to the someone, not the something. In "the Lord's servant" the article belong to "the Lord" nor "the servant". If I say "a John's friend", I don't mean "a friend of John" but rather "a friend of a John". If I say "a Jehovah's witness", strictly speaking it would mean "a witness of a Jehovah", which is not what the speaker wants to convey. So that expression would not be correct if I were using the word "witness" in its common sense, but since "Jehovah's Witness" has become a compound name, it's acceptable that it takes the article. That makes sense. I should have stopped there.

 

But then... Other religious groups have compound names too, like "The Daughters of Mercy" or "The Promise Keepers". Would you say "My neighbor is a Daughter of Mercy / a Promise Keeper"? Or rather "My neighbor is one of the Daughters of Mercy / one of the Promise Keepers"? They are names of organizations too...

 

EDIT: If someone says "My neighbor is a sister of mercy" or "a promise keeper" those expressions are correct too, but they don't refer to the religious groups but to the words in their more simple meaning.

Edited December 3, 2014 by cvillarrubia

[carlos]

So now I think Bob was right:

 

But, I believe that saying "I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses" is more accurate, and that "I am a Jehovah's Witness" is grammatically incorrect. Collectively, we are Jehovah's Witnesses. Each of us as individuals are one of the many who make up the group. Each one of us are part of a religion generally known as Jehovah's Witnesses - our religion is never spoken of in the singular.

 

Except in his opening statement:

 

We should move this to the Public JW Forum or the Christian Life forum. General Discussion is generally for non-theocratic topics.

 

It's ok if you move it somewhere else. But I don't think we are actually talking about something theocratic, but about grammar.

[trottigy]

"Our religion is NEVER spoken of in the singular" is not correct.

 

Look at our brochure "Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Question of Blood" and you will see MANY instances of this.

 

Perhaps, most of us (JWs) don't, but even then - some of us do.

 

"USA Today" and other newspapers and books certainly use it in the singular as a title OFTEN. Here is a quote showing that in the Watchtower:

 

“BEFORE you shut the door on a Jehovah’s Witness,” says an article in the newspaper USA Today, “pause to consider the shameful persecution they suffered not too long ago, as well as the rich contribution they have made to the First Amendment freedoms we all enjoy.” 

 

http://m.wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2001368

Edited December 3, 2014 by trottigy

[Sallyforth]

BTW, that should have been "its simplest structure" not "it's" (it is) --