What is it about "I do not think it"

[Viktor77]

What is it about "I do not think it...[adjective]" that makes it sound old fashioned? Or perhaps posh?

An example is, "I do not think it wise," or "I don't think it wise," or "I think it wise," etc.

It's obviously an innovation so why should it sound old fashioned/posh if it is an innovation on a longer form? The longer form is of course the one we use today and it is "I don't think [that] it ('s) (be) wise,"* etc. I personally am quite fond of this form and its shortened length, but if I go around saying it I sound old fashioned or posh (in a bad way).

*The brackets indicate an optional use. The subjunctive I believe is correct in the negative (or at least that's the rule in Romance Languages), but that also sounds old fashioned or posh as we know.

[clawgrip]

I don't think it's "obviously an innovation" as you say. It is possible that in the past "think" or "believe" could readily select a direct object and complement adjective to describe an unaffected theme in an invisible action (no one can see you thinking or believing), and that there is a move away from this in contemporary language, relying more on full complement clauses instead. For example, "He called you stupid," and "He painted it red," are not old-fashioned or posh, which suggests that "call" and "paint" differ from "think" and "believe" in some important way. I am suggesting that "call" and "paint" can still select direct objects with complement adjectives because they represent obvious or visible actions. Just a guess, though.

Edit: "find" breaks this pattern: "I find it strange" is not particularly old-fashioned or posh-sounding, and yet it seems to be a non-obvious action. So who knows. Maybe there is no pattern, or not pattern that fits 100%.

[zompist]

It sounds old-fashioned because it's old-fashioned. You can find it in the KJV.

[clawgrip]

To be honest, that is a fairly lazy response that doesn't really contribute anything of value. It's mainly just begging the question. It is akin to saying "What are the major differences between English and Thai? One is English, the other is Thai. You can find Thai spoken in Thailand."

You can find "the longer form ... we use today" in the KJV as well, e.g. Luke 13:4 "think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?" Does this mean that "think" followed by a full complement clause is old-fashioned as well? Obviously not.

Certainly, being in the KJV can show that something is not a recent innovation, but it in no way indicates that something is necessarily old-fashioned.

[Astraios]

2 Peter 1:13, "δίκαιον δὲ ἡγοῦμαι", translated as 'Yea, I think it meet' in the KJV, but ἡγοῦμαι apparently means 'I consider/regard/hold as', rather than 'think (a thought)', so it doesn't seem to be something that snuck in from Greek. It could be from Romance because it happens in normal French for example, "Je te crois bete" - 'I think you (are) stupid'. Or it could just be a native phenomenon that we don't really use much anymore.

[clawgrip]

It already is a native, or at least colloquially common phenomenon with verbs like call, paint, colour, turn, make, find, etc.

He called her efficient.
He painted it blue.
He coloured it red.
It turned him evil.
He made her angry.
I found it a bit boring.

[Astraios]

Yes you said that, but I don't see how it responds to what I said. I was wondering if using 'X thinks Y Adj' is a copy from whatever language or if it's a native (i.e. found all the way back in whatever English you pick) thing. The fact that we prefer nowadays 'X thinks Y is Adj' is probably just because it's somewhere closer to 'say' and other verbs that have to take a clause.

[zompist]

To be honest, that is a fairly lazy response that doesn't really contribute anything of value. [...] Certainly, being in the KJV can show that something is not a recent innovation,

This is just baffling. Viktor thought it was a recent innovation, which is why it's "of value" to learn that it's not, and to give some information on how old it is.

but it in no way indicates that something is necessarily old-fashioned.

Which is probably why I didn't say that.

[clawgrip]

I guess I owe you an apology then, and we can chalk it up to a misunderstanding. I thought Viktor was wondering why one of these two possible forms had fallen out of colloquial usage and become old-fashioned, and that you were responding with a facetious comment. I was assuming when he said it was an innovation that he didn't actually believe it was recent, but perhaps I gave him too much credit.

[Salmoneus]

I'd question just how 'oldfashioned' it really is anyway, if you don't frame as such by starting with the 'I do not' form. It occured to me for instance that the pop song, 'Mad World' includes the lines 'I think it kind of funny, I find it kind of sad' (although further research indicates that there's disagreement over whether the first one is 'think it' or 'find it' - may be because there are a lot of versions?). A search online finds, for instance, a discussion at netmums.com asking "would you think it odd if your OH went to rugby match ALONE?" Actually, one that comes up with plenty of hits is "thought it odd" - it does seem more common in the past tense.

[finlay]

you would though

[clawgrip]

I think in North American spoken English "think it X" is significantly less common than "think (that) it's X" but I can't speak for other varieties of English.

[Radius Solis]

"Think it X" and "believe it X" may be uncommon these days, but where they ever more common? While it doesn't come out of people's mouths very often, it does happen, and we do use them occasionally in writing. So: do we actually know that this was not the case all along? Impressions about old-fashioned-ness are poor evidence for historical usage changes. We could easily have picked up that impression if, say, Victorian writers had a penchant for using it more than has otherwise been average over the centuries, or if a register we associate it with is no longer much employed. Though I don't know if either of those is the case.

But I think the evidence is against "think" and "believe" being different in some key way. There are other verbs of knowledge that do not have the same old-timey air to them when used this way:
We consider it wise
We find it strange
We proved it false

Whereas ?I know it wise is barely acceptable, if at all. And then there's I feel it important, which is in the same old-timey boat with "think" and "believe", or maybe more so.

I'm not seeing a pattern here. Perhaps there is no good explanation and it's all down to the happenstance of which verbs are more idiomatic in which phrasings?

[Melteor]

To be fair (ha!) the ZBB has made me appreciate just how old certain variations are in the language, and how some things can just recirculate in and out of fashion. The Romance you mentioned, Viktor, certainly has been a viable influence at several points.
Just so I add something, google wars gives this. Basically, the generalized phrase "I don't think it…" is >10 times as common without tense as with any tense marking. So it might not make sense to mark something you feel is a tenseless state, but most speakers expect a conjugated verb in that position and an adjective is an abrupt surprise. In formal speech ("I do not think it…") is far more commonly marked with "(i)s" than anything else (at least >80%).

[Viktor77]

When I wrote this last night I was using recent to indicate about 100 years ago, but that's all just impression and Radius may be right that it may just come down to a certain style being promoted more in an old-fashioned context.

It already is a native, or at least colloquially common phenomenon with verbs like call, paint, colour, turn, make, find, etc.

He called her efficient.
He painted it blue.
He coloured it red.
It turned him evil.
He made her angry.
I found it a bit boring.

I don't consider myself an expert in grammar but something here doesn't make sense. "I don't think it wise" is formed of two clauses "I don't think" and "It's wise" where the copula in the subordinate clause is dropped. That's the key here, the dropped copula. But how is "He painted it blue" of the same construction? "He painted" and "It's blue" so now you have "He painted that it's blue?" I understand that blue is a complement and so is wise, but aren't they behaving differently here?

But the other examples, found, wish, consider, prove(d), thought, are all of the same construction.

I find it odd. I find that it's odd.
I wish him well. I wish that he be well (the nominative pronoun appears to be too weak to stand on its own, or else this is conflating itself with the accusative or dative).

So is the conclusion thus that the dropping of the copula after certain verbs think/believe/know only sounds old fashioned because its association with certain styles of writing which are themselves associated with being old fashioned? And that the construction itself is still very much alive and kicking and so just depends on the verb in question? I ask because I was initially concerned that this was more widespread than think and believe and know (and probably a few more we haven't identified here), but it appears now it's restricted only to the former. At least for now we can say we have proved that plausible. Ha!

[Astraios]

I don't consider myself an expert in grammar but something here doesn't make sense. "I don't think it wise" is formed of two clauses "I don't think" and "It's wise" where the copula in the subordinate clause is dropped. That's the key here, the dropped copula. But how is "He painted it blue" of the same construction? "He painted" and "It's blue" so now you have "He painted that it's blue?" I understand that blue is a complement and so is wise, but aren't they behaving differently here?

Yes, because in "he painted it blue" and "he thought it wise", the 'it' is the object of 'paint' and 'think', whereas in *"he painted that it is blue" and "he thought that it is wise", the entire clause following the verb is the object. It's a direct object plus an adjectival object complement vs. a direct object complement clause with a predicative adjective.

I find it odd. I find that it's odd.
I wish him well. I wish that he be well.

These are not equivalents. They mean:

I consider it odd. I discover that it is odd.
I wish good things for him. I wish that he'll get better.

'Prove', however, is in the same place as 'think'; it can take a clause or a non-clause as its object. I proved him wrong = I proved that he is wrong.

It's a continuum between verbs which only allow a clausal complement (say), verbs which take either (think), and verbs which only take a non-clausal complement (paint).

[Boşkoventi]

I don't consider myself an expert in grammar but something here doesn't make sense. "I don't think it wise" is formed of two clauses "I don't think" and "It's wise" where the copula in the subordinate clause is dropped. That's the key here, the dropped copula. But how is "He painted it blue" of the same construction? "He painted" and "It's blue" so now you have "He painted that it's blue?" I understand that blue is a complement and so is wise, but aren't they behaving differently here?

You can think of it like that, but there isn't really a copula being dropped.

What's important is that some of these sentences indicate a state, a sort of implied copula ("be"), while others have a change of state ("become", "make").

"I find it wise" ~= "I find it" + "It is wise"
"I painted it blue" ~= "I painted it" + "It became blue"

Most of clawgrip's examples are resultatives:

He called her efficient.
He painted it blue.
He coloured it red.
It turned him evil.
He made her angry.
I found it a bit boring.

That is, the subject takes some action and as a result the object has some quality. Examples like "He called her efficient", "I found it a bit boring", and "We consider it wise" seem to be borderline cases (there's no actual change to the object), but they still indicate some sort of judgement on the part of the subject.

It's a continuum between verbs which only allow a clausal complement (say), verbs which take either (think), and verbs which only take a non-clausal complement (paint).

This is true, but I think the underlying reasons for this have to do with agency of the subject and resulting state of the object (basically whether it's an action or an experience). Consider:

1)
I find it odd
We consider it wise
We find it strange
We proved it false

2)
I think (that) it's wise
I feel (that) it's important
I believe (that) it's important

3)
I think it odd
? We consider (that) it's wise
? I feel it important
? I believe it important

In group 1, the subject is more agent-like, i.e. is actively making a judgement about something. In group 2, we have verbs like "think", "feel", "believe", which are more passive (i.e. the subject is less agent-like -- an experiencer). There is more a sense that the subject is simply observing something. This could be an observation of one's own feelings, to be sure, but it's being portrayed as an experience rather than an action.

Using "think" with the first construction ("think it wise") gives it the feeling of "consider it wise" -- the subject is actively making a judgement. A few other verbs, like "find", and maybe "feel" can also go both ways, but it's unusual.

"Prove" is an interesting case. I definitely prefer "I proved him wrong" -- both "I proved that he's wrong" and "I proved he's wrong" are grammatical, but somehow feel off.


* Disclaimer: These are of course my own native-speaker judgements. I'm sure Sal or someone will come along and insist "Oh, but such-and-such is perfectly valid!". NIMD, man.