Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: OT, YAEGT - "... and I" vs "... and me"

Expand Messages
  • Jack Steiner
    Both are correct, the position that a form that people actually use is incorrect is what we call prescriptivism. The reason you would want to use and I instead
    Message 1 of 20 , Nov 3, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Both are correct, the position that a form that people actually use is incorrect is what we call prescriptivism.
      The reason you would want to use and I instead and me is because I is the form of the first person singular pronoun when it is a subject, me is its form when its an object. If you take away the and and keep only the I/me it normally acts just like this (I verb, It verbed me). However a growing number of English speakers will choose the me form when the subject is compound (consists of more than one constituent). This is grammatical and consistent in dialects that do so.
      For formal purposes one should, for now at least, always use and I if it is part of the subject, however this is for sociological reasons and is not because one form is actually linguistically better than the other.

      > Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2012 22:34:56 +1300
      > From: yuridg@...
      > Subject: OT, YAEGT - "... and I" vs "... and me"
      > To: CONLANG@...
      >
      > Not really a Conlang question, but this is the only community I'm part
      > of that may be able to answer.
      >
      > I'd like to know your educated opinions on the following question:
      >
      > Is it EVER correct to say "... and me" or should it ALWAYS be "... and I"?
      > Either way, why or why not?
      >
      > I keep reading on online newspapers and hearing on the radio and TV
      > people saying "... and I" when I would've used "... and me". I never
      > hear "... and me" anymore.
      >
      > I do have my own opinion on the answer to my question, but I guess I'm
      > really polling for other opinions.
      >
      > Thanks
      > Yuri de Groot
    • Ph. D.
      ... Standard English has and I in subject position (where I would be used alone) and and me in object position (where me would be used alone). I went
      Message 2 of 20 , Nov 3, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        On 11/3/2012 5:34 AM, yuri wrote:
        > Not really a Conlang question, but this is the only community I'm part
        > of that may be able to answer.
        >
        > I'd like to know your educated opinions on the following question:
        >
        > Is it EVER correct to say "... and me" or should it ALWAYS be "... and I"?
        > Either way, why or why not?
        >
        > I keep reading on online newspapers and hearing on the radio and TV
        > people saying "... and I" when I would've used "... and me". I never
        > hear "... and me" anymore.
        >
        > I do have my own opinion on the answer to my question, but I guess I'm
        > really polling for other opinions.
        >
        > Thanks
        > Yuri de Groot

        Standard English has "and I" in subject position (where "I" would be
        used alone) and
        "and me" in object position (where "me" would be used alone).

        I went to the party.
        George and I went to the party.
        *George and me went to the party.

        You may ride along with me.
        You may ride along with George and me.
        *You may ride along with George and I.

        For decades, school teachers have corrected students using "and me" in
        subject
        position so that now most people (at least American English speakers)
        believe
        "and I" should be used in all positions. (Example: Two ten-year-olds
        talking. One says,
        "Me and Jimmy went fishing yesterday." Teacher overhears them and says
        sternly,
        "Jimmy and I!")

        I'm not being prescriptivist; I'm just stating the standard.

        --Ph. D.
      • R A Brown
        ... [snip] No - as others have said, it should _not_ always be ... and I . ... Sadly, the asterisk is wrong. The form is does occur and is far too often IMHO
        Message 3 of 20 , Nov 3, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          On 03/11/2012 12:51, Ph. D. wrote:
          > On 11/3/2012 5:34 AM, yuri wrote:
          >> Not really a Conlang question, but this is the only
          >> community I'm part of that may be able to answer.
          >>
          >> I'd like to know your educated opinions on the
          >> following question:
          >>
          >> Is it EVER correct to say "... and me" or should it
          >> ALWAYS be "... and I"? Either way, why or why not?
          >>

          [snip]

          No - as others have said, it should _not_ always be "... and I".

          >
          > Standard English has "and I" in subject position (where
          > "I" would be used alone) and "and me" in object position
          > (where "me" would be used alone).
          >
          > I went to the party.
          > George and I went to the party.
          > *George and me went to the party.
          >
          > You may ride along with me.
          > You may ride along with George and me.
          > *You may ride along with George and I.

          Sadly, the asterisk is wrong. The form is does occur and is
          far too often IMHO encountered.

          > For decades, school teachers have corrected students
          > using "and me" in subject position so that now most
          > people (at least American English speakers) believe "and
          > I" should be used in all positions.

          I can assure you that this not confined just to America.
          The use of "... and I" in colloquial British English has
          become so commonplace that it might be said now to be
          "standard." I have even heard it several times used
          anachronistically in dialogue in 'period plays' on TV.

          Yuri, my friend, you may well find that if you do use "...
          and me" correctly in English, a native English speaker will
          "correct" you and say it should be "... and I." Probably
          best not to argue, but give a non-committal grunt ;)

          O tempora! O mores!

          --
          Ray
          ==================================
          http://www.carolandray.plus.com
          ==================================
          Nid rhy hen neb i ddysgu.
          There's none too old to learn.
          [WELSH PROVERB]
        • And Rosta
          ... It s a change in progress. Formerly, there was Situation 1: 1a. In formal registers, pronouns take subjective forms whenever they are subject (single or
          Message 4 of 20 , Nov 3, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            yuri, On 03/11/2012 09:34:
            > Not really a Conlang question, but this is the only community I'm part
            > of that may be able to answer.
            >
            > I'd like to know your educated opinions on the following question:
            >
            > Is it EVER correct to say "... and me" or should it ALWAYS be "... and I"?
            > Either way, why or why not?
            >
            > I keep reading on online newspapers and hearing on the radio and TV
            > people saying "... and I" when I would've used "... and me". I never
            > hear "... and me" anymore.

            It's a change in progress. Formerly, there was Situation 1:

            1a. In formal registers, pronouns take subjective forms whenever they are subject (single or conjoined) of a tensed clause, and take nonsubjective forms otherwise.
            1b. In informal registers, pronouns take subjective forms whenever they are sole (nonconjoined) subject of a tensed clause, and take nonsubjective forms otherwise.

            Whether or not (1b) is/was Standard is debatable, depending on definitions of Standardness. (My dialect has (1a) & (1b).)

            Prescriptivist reaction to (1b) led to the originally hypercorrect Situation 2:

            2a. In formal registers, pronouns take subjective forms whenever they are subject of a tensed clause and whenever they are conjoined.
            2b. = 1b.

            (2a) has been around a long time, but due to the epidemiological nature of language change (and cultural change in general) has begun to snowball, as speakers catch (2a) not from schoolteachers but from other (2a) users. Given that on the one hand (2a) is used by numerous echt StdE speakers when trying to be on their best linguistic behavious (and, as Ray has noticed too, one hears it used anachronistically by higher class characters in recently-made period dramas), while on the other hand numerous other StdE speakers (who will tend to be older and have a more bourgeois pedigree) execrate (2a) as a repellent error (and would genuinely never use it), I think one has to conclude that there are rival Standard Englishes for the time being.

            Because the change is in progress, there are various intermediate stages between (1a) and (2a), differing as to whether all pronouns are affected (ME is in the vanguard), whether conjunct order matters (post-conjunction position is in the vanguard), whether the conjunction matters (AND is in the vanguard), and so on.

            --And.
          • Roger Mills
            ... Not really a Conlang question, but this is the only community I m part of that may be able to answer. I d like to know your educated opinions on the
            Message 5 of 20 , Nov 3, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              --- On Sat, 11/3/12, yuri <yuridg@...> wrote:
              Not really a Conlang question, but this is the only community I'm part
              of that may be able to answer.

              I'd like to know your educated opinions on the following question:

              Is it EVER correct to say "... and me" or should it ALWAYS be "... and I"?
              Either way, why or why not?

              I keep reading on online newspapers and hearing on the radio and TV
              people saying "... and I" when I would've used "... and me". I never
              hear "... and me" anymore.

              I do have my own opinion on the answer to my question, but I guess I'm
              really polling for other opinions.
              ======================================================

              As others have pointed out, "X and I" is correct in subject position (technically,  prescriptively)--
              whereas "X and me" is only correct as direct/indirect object or as object of a preposition.

              I'm sure it's what most instructional materials, both for foreigners as well as native speakers, still say. You probably learned your English from such materials.

              I think French permits "X et moi" as subject, but never "X et je" as object. I'm pretty sure you couldn't get away with (subject) "X y me" or (object) "X y yo" in Spanish. (If, as I assume from your name, Russian is your native language, what's the situation there?)

              However..... as you point out, we often hear/write "X and me" or "me and X" in subject position vs. "X and I" (rarely "I and X", oddly enough) in object position, even from well-educated speakers.

              When I was in elem.school back in the 1940s, many of my classmates (and often I too) were guilty of using X and me ~ me and X as subjects. In those days it was stigmatized. We were quickly pounced upon by our teachers "NO no, it's 'X and I', and "I" always comes second!!" But it just didn't always sink into a lot of kids' brains, and it's very common nowadays.
               
              Oddly, I don't recall "X and I" occuring much in object position in those days. But that has indeed changed, and now you can hear lots of people say things like "Henry had dinner with Mary and I", or "just between you and I".....As a Certified Old Fogey and a bit of a pedant, I have to say that this usage really grates on my ears (moreso than "X and me ~ me and X" as subjects, oddly enough, though I recognize both as incorrect usage-- but it useless to make an issue of it.)

              Another one that has invaded the language is "a whole nother X.." for "another whole...".  Friends and I had been using it in a more or less humorous way for some time, and the first time I ever heard it on the public airwaves was on Johnny Carson's TV show sometime in the 1970s, and I nearly fell out of my chair! Now one hears it everywhere. At least the change of "a nV...." to "an V...." (or vice-versa by analogy) has precedent in the history of English. A certain snake used to be "a nadder", now it's "an adder". "Apron" IIRC was from something like French _naperon_ (related to modern Engl. napkin and napery).  As we linguists like to say, that's the way the language crumbles.
            • Mike S.
              ... My two cents: Formally, ... and I is for the subject of a finite verb. It s also good for comparative expressions Alice drinks more beer than John and
              Message 6 of 20 , Nov 3, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 5:34 AM, yuri <yuridg@...> wrote:

                >
                > Is it EVER correct to say "... and me" or should it ALWAYS be "... and I"?
                > Either way, why or why not?
                >

                My two cents:

                Formally, "... and I" is for the subject of a finite verb. It's also good
                for comparative expressions "Alice drinks more beer than John and I [do]"
                when the first thing being compared is a subject. (I usually add the "do"
                to avoid sounding like a pedant.) But cf "The situation amuses Alice more
                than [it does] John and me". (In theory case can occasionally make an
                important logical distinction e.g. "Alice likes John more than [likes] me/I
                [do]", but unfortunately in practice you can't rely on case by itself being
                meaningful in this way to ordinary English speakers any more than you can
                rely on your appendix to help digest your food.) Formally "... and me" is
                for everything not covered by "... and I", incl what I'll call the
                copulative case: "That's John and me in the photo." Some would probably
                say those those should be nominatives too though. I think that usually
                sounds a bit stilted even for formal contexts. I am moderately
                prescriptionist when it comes to these things, but I don't think English
                need be made to emulate Latin.

                Informally, "... and me" can and does (or used to) replace "... and I" in
                many places. That's acceptable colloquially, but I would advise ESL
                learners to avoid it in professional contexts. On the other hand, this
                hypercorrective "... and I" business seems to have started with the grating
                stock phrase "between you and I" (at least that's where I first noticed it
                maybe three decades ago) and seems to be currently spreading, as mentioned
                by others. It has always reminded me of the pointless, embarrassing use of
                a word that the speaker does not understand. I would avoid it, and nod
                politely as Ray Brown suggested if someone tries to hypercorrect you.

                As to your question "why or why not" -- I just think "... and I" belongs
                wherever "I" could go, and "... and me" belongs wherever "me" could go.
                There is a subtle argument to be made that the informal replacement of "...
                and I" with "... and me" occurs because at some level "I" is really a
                verbal clitic while "me" is a true pronoun, and conjunctions can only
                coordinate pronouns not clitics. I can't see any similar rationale for
                "... and I" replacing "... and me".



                > I keep reading on online newspapers and hearing on the radio and TV
                > people saying "... and I" when I would've used "... and me". I never
                > hear "... and me" anymore.
                >

                I can only hope that this useless hypercorrection eventually dries up and
                blows away.

                --
                co ma'a mke

                Xorban blog: Xorban.wordpress.com <http://xorban.wordpress.com/>
                My LL blog: Loglang.wordpress.com <http://loglang.wordpress.com/>
              • Mike S.
                ... Well, I m all wet here. I should have known that by drawing a broader conclusion from personal experience I was bound to be walking on thin ice. It seems
                Message 7 of 20 , Nov 4, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Mike S. <maikxlx@...> wrote:

                  >
                  > On the other hand, this hypercorrective "... and I" business seems to have
                  > started with the grating stock phrase "between you and I" (at least that's
                  > where I first noticed it maybe three decades ago) and seems to be currently
                  > spreading, as mentioned by others.
                  >

                  Well, I'm all wet here. I should have known that by drawing a broader
                  conclusion from personal experience I was bound to be walking on thin ice.
                  It seems that the use of "between you and I" goes in and out of fashion,
                  all the way back to Shakespeare:

                  http://books.google.com/books?id=2yJusP0vrdgC&q=%22between+you+and+i%22#v=snippet&q=%22between%20you%20and%20i%22&f=false

                  The two main points seem to stand: No one really knows why this usage
                  appears in certain decades and not others. And, it's deprecated in formal
                  modern English (at least at the moment).

                  --
                  co ma'a mke

                  Xorban blog: Xorban.wordpress.com <http://xorban.wordpress.com/>
                  My LL blog: Loglang.wordpress.com <http://loglang.wordpress.com/>
                • And Rosta
                  ... You didn t say that and I is new (as it indeed isn t). You did say that it is spreading (as it indeed is). ... Do we even know that it appears in certain
                  Message 8 of 20 , Nov 4, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Mike S., On 04/11/2012 19:55:
                    > On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Mike S.<maikxlx@...> wrote:
                    >> On the other hand, this hypercorrective "... and I" business seems to have
                    >> started with the grating stock phrase "between you and I" (at least that's
                    >> where I first noticed it maybe three decades ago) and seems to be currently
                    >> spreading, as mentioned by others.
                    >
                    > Well, I'm all wet here. I should have known that by drawing a broader
                    > conclusion from personal experience I was bound to be walking on thin ice.
                    > It seems that the use of "between you and I" goes in and out of fashion,
                    > all the way back to Shakespeare:
                    >
                    > http://books.google.com/books?id=2yJusP0vrdgC&q=%22between+you+and+i%22#v=snippet&q=%22between%20you%20and%20i%22&f=false

                    You didn't say that "and I" is new (as it indeed isn't). You did say that it is spreading (as it indeed is).

                    > The two main points seem to stand: No one really knows why this usage
                    > appears in certain decades and not others.

                    Do we even know that it appears in certain decades and not others? Either way, the forces of hypercorrection and contagion seem the likeliest causes.

                    > And, it's deprecated in formal modern English (at least at the moment).

                    I don't think that's accurate. As I said in my original contribution to the thread, some deprecate it in formal modern English, while some prefer it in formal modern English.

                    --And.
                  • Mike S.
                    ... At the link I gave above, from Merriam-Webster s Dictionary of English Usage, there are written usage citations from Shakespeare until the early 18th c.,
                    Message 9 of 20 , Nov 4, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 3:51 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@...> wrote:

                      > Mike S., On 04/11/2012 19:55:
                      >
                      > On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Mike S.<maikxlx@...> wrote:
                      >>
                      >>> On the other hand, this hypercorrective "... and I" business seems to
                      >>> have
                      >>> started with the grating stock phrase "between you and I" (at least
                      >>> that's
                      >>> where I first noticed it maybe three decades ago) and seems to be
                      >>> currently
                      >>> spreading, as mentioned by others.
                      >>>
                      >>
                      >> Well, I'm all wet here. I should have known that by drawing a broader
                      >> conclusion from personal experience I was bound to be walking on thin ice.
                      >> It seems that the use of "between you and I" goes in and out of fashion,
                      >> all the way back to Shakespeare:
                      >>
                      >> http://books.google.com/books?**id=2yJusP0vrdgC&q=%22between+**
                      >> you+and+i%22#v=snippet&q=%**22between%20you%20and%20i%22&**f=false<http://books.google.com/books?id=2yJusP0vrdgC&q=%22between+you+and+i%22#v=snippet&q=%22between%20you%20and%20i%22&f=false>
                      >>
                      >
                      > You didn't say that "and I" is new (as it indeed isn't). You did say that
                      > it is spreading (as it indeed is).
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >> The two main points seem to stand: No one really knows why this usage
                      >> appears in certain decades and not others.
                      >>
                      >
                      > Do we even know that it appears in certain decades and not others? Either
                      > way, the forces of hypercorrection and contagion seem the likeliest causes.


                      At the link I gave above, from Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English
                      Usage, there are written usage citations from Shakespeare until the early
                      18th c., and "then nothing for about 150 years". In the late 19th c., it
                      makes a comeback. Mark Twain, who should have known better, used it often
                      until finally corrected by someone. So while the written sources are a bit
                      sketchy, the phrase seems to have had two major runs in modern English's
                      history, with the second, current run possibly being more intense.

                      Even if the second run is caused by hypercorrection and contagion, but what
                      about the first? Why would Shakespeare and his contemporaries, not too far
                      removed from Middle English, be using the nominative for the object of a
                      preposition, even sporadically? No one was prescribing formal English back
                      then. There doesn't seem to be a solid answer.


                      >
                      >
                      > And, it's deprecated in formal modern English (at least at the moment).
                      >>
                      >
                      > I don't think that's accurate. As I said in my original contribution to
                      > the thread, some deprecate it in formal modern English, while some prefer
                      > it in formal modern English.
                      >
                      > --And.
                      >

                      I find that perplexing. "Me and Alice had a great time at the party" is
                      colloquial, vulgar even -- but genuine and unpretentious and down to
                      earth. What virtue does "between you and I" have? I remember feeling
                      genuine embarrassment for the person whom I first noticed saying it years
                      ago. I can't help feeling that way now.

                      --
                      co ma'a mke

                      Xorban blog: Xorban.wordpress.com <http://xorban.wordpress.com/>
                      My LL blog: Loglang.wordpress.com <http://loglang.wordpress.com/>
                    • yuri
                      Thanks everyone for your replies. Roger, if you re going to assume someone s nationality, look at their surname, not their first name. My mother named me after
                      Message 10 of 20 , Nov 5, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Thanks everyone for your replies.

                        Roger, if you're going to assume someone's nationality, look at their
                        surname, not their first name. My mother named me after a Russian
                        character in a movie. My last name is very typically Dutch. I have
                        lived in New Zealand (an English speaking country) since I was five,
                        and in the Netherlands until I was five.

                        It sounds like most of you agree with what I was taught by an Irish
                        nun in form 1 & 2.
                        I'm really pleased that there are other English speakers who
                        understand the difference between subject and object and the
                        nominative and accusative forms of English pronouns. I was starting to
                        feel alone. My wife is an English teacher and even she uses "... and
                        I" as the object of a verb.

                        Here in New Zealand, "hypercorrection" as And put it, has taken root
                        and everyone says "... and I" even when "X and I" is the object of the
                        verb. This really messes with my OCD - even more so when I correctly
                        say "... and me" and someone "corrects" me.

                        It seems like no-one in New Zealand from my generation has been taught
                        grammar as thoroughly as my class was by Sister Eucharia at St
                        Patrick's School in Bryndwr, Christchurch, NZ.

                        Now that I have two daughters, aged two and four, I want them to learn
                        proper grammar. It's okay to be prescriptivist with children who are
                        still learning their native tongue.

                        Yuri de Groot

                        PS: A chocolate fish for the first person to guess which movie my
                        mother got my name from. (hehe ended a sentence with a preposition).
                        You'll have to come to NZ to collect your prize.
                      • And Rosta
                        ... Is that the prevailing belief? I don t know. The Inkhorn controversies evidence at least a self-consciousness about English and a desire to actively
                        Message 11 of 20 , Nov 5, 2012
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Mike S., On 05/11/2012 03:30:
                          > On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 3:51 PM, And Rosta<and.rosta@...> wrote:
                          >
                          >> Mike S., On 04/11/2012 19:55:
                          >>
                          >> On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Mike S.<maikxlx@...> wrote:
                          >>>
                          >>>> On the other hand, this hypercorrective "... and I" business seems to
                          >>>> have
                          >>>> started with the grating stock phrase "between you and I" (at least
                          >>>> that's
                          >>>> where I first noticed it maybe three decades ago) and seems to be
                          >>>> currently
                          >>>> spreading, as mentioned by others.
                          >>>>
                          >>>
                          >>> Well, I'm all wet here. I should have known that by drawing a broader
                          >>> conclusion from personal experience I was bound to be walking on thin ice.
                          >>> It seems that the use of "between you and I" goes in and out of fashion,
                          >>> all the way back to Shakespeare:
                          >>>
                          >>> http://books.google.com/books?**id=2yJusP0vrdgC&q=%22between+**
                          >>> you+and+i%22#v=snippet&q=%**22between%20you%20and%20i%22&**f=false<http://books.google.com/books?id=2yJusP0vrdgC&q=%22between+you+and+i%22#v=snippet&q=%22between%20you%20and%20i%22&f=false>
                          >>>
                          >>
                          >> You didn't say that "and I" is new (as it indeed isn't). You did say that
                          >> it is spreading (as it indeed is).
                          >>
                          >>
                          >>
                          >>> The two main points seem to stand: No one really knows why this usage
                          >>> appears in certain decades and not others.
                          >>>
                          >>
                          >> Do we even know that it appears in certain decades and not others? Either
                          >> way, the forces of hypercorrection and contagion seem the likeliest causes.
                          >
                          >
                          > At the link I gave above, from Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English
                          > Usage, there are written usage citations from Shakespeare until the early
                          > 18th c., and "then nothing for about 150 years". In the late 19th c., it
                          > makes a comeback. Mark Twain, who should have known better, used it often
                          > until finally corrected by someone. So while the written sources are a bit
                          > sketchy, the phrase seems to have had two major runs in modern English's
                          > history, with the second, current run possibly being more intense.
                          >
                          > Even if the second run is caused by hypercorrection and contagion, but what
                          > about the first? Why would Shakespeare and his contemporaries, not too far
                          > removed from Middle English, be using the nominative for the object of a
                          > preposition, even sporadically? No one was prescribing formal English back
                          > then.

                          Is that the prevailing belief? I don't know. The Inkhorn controversies evidence at least a self-consciousness about English and a desire to actively improve it.

                          If for centuries the nonsubject subjective forms were found only in the phrase _between you and I_ or when a conjoined complement of _between_, then hypercorrection is not a convincing explanation, because that wouldn't predict the restriction to those environments.

                          What's special about "between X and Y" is that it's not equivalent to "between X and between Y", so there's no reason to take _X_ and _Y_ to be complements of _between_; rather, only _and_ would be complement of _between_. It seems plausible that there have been dialects in which pronouns took objective forms when complements and took subjective forms otherwise, which will give _between you and I_, and yet further dialects that preserved a relic of that earlier dialect in the form of a fixed and irregular phrase _between you and I_.

                          Nowadays, nonsubject subjective forms are not confined to the complement of _between_, so discussed about _between you and I_ is of only historical significance. However, in considering the origins and causes of the modern innovative system in which all conjoined pronouns take subjective forms, _between you and I_ is relevant in that the modern system may have been partly a generalization from _between you and I_, and not purely a hypercorrection. It's possible the modern system doesn't have hypercorrective origins at all, but hypercorrective origins better explain how the system began confined to formal register.

                          >> And, it's deprecated in formal modern English (at least at the moment).
                          >>
                          >> I don't think that's accurate. As I said in my original contribution to
                          >> the thread, some deprecate it in formal modern English, while some prefer
                          >> it in formal modern English.
                          >
                          > I find that perplexing. "Me and Alice had a great time at the party" is
                          > colloquial, vulgar even -- but genuine and unpretentious and down to
                          > earth. What virtue does "between you and I" have? I remember feeling
                          > genuine embarrassment for the person whom I first noticed saying it years
                          > ago. I can't help feeling that way now.

                          The reason why those who prefer the innovative system prefer it is mainly that it's marked for formality and widely used by others. Language as an effective social--communicative system relies on the impulse to emulate the speech of others. The innovative system is more likely to be used by speakers who have, or feel they have, a greater distance between their usual, colloquial dialect and their formal dialect, and aiming for features marked as formal makes them more confident of hitting the target. Like you, I too cringe at hearing the innovative system used, but think that's just my own reprehensible snobbery.

                          yuri, On 05/11/2012 08:50:
                          > I'm really pleased that there are other English speakers who
                          > understand the difference between subject and object and the
                          > nominative and accusative forms of English pronouns.

                          100% of English speakers understand these differences. Dialectal differences in the distribution of the subjective and objective forms of pronouns don't result (synchronically) fromfailures of understanding.

                          > Here in New Zealand, "hypercorrection" as And put it, has taken root
                          > and everyone says "... and I" even when "X and I" is the object of the
                          > verb. This really messes with my OCD - even more so when I correctly
                          > say "... and me" and someone "corrects" me.

                          What I was trying to say was that the original cause of the language change was hypercorrection, but that the growth and spread of the change is due to contagion, i.e. to emulating the speech of others.

                          (You have my blessing to ignore anything I say if it messes with your OCD. I appreciate what a blight OCD can be.)
                          2
                          > It seems like no-one in New Zealand from my generation has been taught
                          > grammar as thoroughly as my class was by Sister Eucharia at St
                          > Patrick's School in Bryndwr, Christchurch, NZ.

                          That sounds plausible. We learn grammar as infants from those around us, especially our care-givers, and don't need to be taught it, and we are mostly naturally impervious to whatever knowledge of our own language teachers try to teach us. Usually the teacher will try to teach it only if it differs from the dialect of the pupils, and hence the teacher should generally be regarded as teaching something that is incorrect and to be ignored.

                          > Now that I have two daughters, aged two and four, I want them to learn
                          > proper grammar. It's okay to be prescriptivist with children who are
                          > still learning their native tongue.

                          It's a parental right to decide whether that's okay, tho my own advice would be that most prescriptivism is at best snobbish and is often without any rational justification; there's a risk of teaching one's children a load of rubbish and engendering in them hang-ups and insecurities about their own language and perhaps also unwarranted snobbery about the language of others. As a parent, I endured a number of agonies -- some of them described in a recent email in the thread about language and politics -- about whether to 'correct' my son when he was in fact correctly using the dialect of his peers (and teachers):
                          "Another difficult episode in my life as a closet prescriptivist
                          involved an agonizing decision I faced about what to do when my young
                          son started to call H 'haitch' -- I was paralysed by indecision about
                          whether to capitulate to my own unseemly snobbery and 'correct' him;
                          the problem solved itself when he overheard me telling friends about
                          my quandary, and unilaterally decided to say aitch and side with the
                          bourgeoisie. On the other hand, his mother used to 'correct' him when
                          he pronounced _have_ as _of_, and then I'd go and have a quiet word
                          with him and explain that pronouncing _have_ as _of_ is not in fact
                          any sort of mistake, whatever his nongrammarian mother might believe:
                          good grammarianism and good linguisticianship, tho perhaps questionable
                          parentship.)"


                          > PS: A chocolate fish for the first person to guess which movie my
                          > mother got my name from. (hehe ended a sentence with a preposition).

                          When you first mentioned it, I guessed _Yuri Zhivago_.

                          --And.
                        • Roger Mills
                          ... Roger, if you re going to assume someone s nationality, look at their surname, not their first name. RM My apologies. The last name didn t show up in the
                          Message 12 of 20 , Nov 5, 2012
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- On Mon, 11/5/12, yuri <yuridg@...> wrote:
                            Roger, if you're going to assume someone's nationality, look at their
                            surname, not their first name.

                            RM My apologies. The last name didn't show up in the "reply", but when I saw the actual email in my inbox list I figured I'd made a mistake.

                            It sounds like most of you agree with what I was taught by an Irish
                            nun in form 1 & 2.

                            RM I'm sure they were very adamant about such things, as were my public school teachers way back in olden days.

                            I'm really pleased that there are other English speakers who
                            understand the difference between subject and object and the
                            nominative and accusative forms of English pronouns. I was starting to
                            feel alone. My wife is an English teacher and even she uses "... and
                            I" as the object of a verb.

                            Here in New Zealand, "hypercorrection" as And put it, has taken root
                            and everyone says "... and I" even when "X and I" is the object of the
                            verb. This really messes with my OCD - even more so when I correctly
                            say "... and me" and someone "corrects" me.

                            RM At least in the US, so far,,,, if you use "X and me" in the correct place, nobody corrects you.

                            It seems like no-one in New Zealand from my generation has been taught
                            grammar as thoroughly as my class was by Sister Eucharia at St
                            Patrick's School in Bryndwr, Christchurch, NZ.

                            RM That speaks ill of the NZ public education system.

                            Now that I have two daughters, aged two and four, I want them to learn
                            proper grammar. It's okay to be prescriptivist with children who are
                            still learning their native tongue.

                            RM If they're going to grow up in NZ, where "...and I" is evidently rampant, it may turn out to be a losing battle :-((((

                            Yuri de Groot

                            PS: A chocolate fish for the first person to guess which movie my
                            mother got my name from. (hehe ended a sentence with a preposition).
                            You'll have to come to NZ to collect your prize.

                            RM Could it be...."Doctor Zhivago"? If that's right, you can give my chocolate fish to your little daughters.  ;-))
                          • Charles W Brickner
                            ... From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU] On Behalf Of Roger Mills RM I can t disagree with any of that, and especially concur
                            Message 13 of 20 , Nov 5, 2012
                            • 0 Attachment
                              -----Original Message-----
                              From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:CONLANG@...] On
                              Behalf Of Roger Mills

                              RM I can't disagree with any of that, and especially concur with your last
                              sentence, though I do believe that as Certified Old Fogies we're entitle to
                              cringe at modern life now and then ;-))))
                              ---------------------------------

                              Hear, hear! So many folks are fond of using initials after their name to
                              indicate educational level, honors, etc. Mind you, I have no quarrel with
                              that! I think I'll start signing my name with C.O.F.
                              Charlie
                            • Roger Mills
                              ... (snips) What s special about between X and Y is that it s not equivalent to between X and between Y , so there s no reason to take _X_ and _Y_ to be
                              Message 14 of 20 , Nov 5, 2012
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- On Mon, 11/5/12, And Rosta <and.rosta@...> wrote:
                                (snips)

                                What's special about "between X and Y" is that it's not equivalent to "between X and between Y", so there's no reason to take _X_ and _Y_ to be complements of _between_; rather, only _and_ would be complement of _between_.

                                RM Hadn't thought of that.... I suspect you may be right.
                                 (more snips)

                                Someone wrote:
                                >>   And, it's deprecated in formal modern English (at least at the moment).

                                And (?)>> I don't think that's accurate. As I said in my original contribution to
                                >> the thread, some deprecate it in formal modern English, while some prefer
                                >> it in formal modern English.
                                >
                                RM Would Queen Elizabeth II ever say, in public, "Prince Philip and me will attend Ascot" or "The Prime Minister had dinner with Prince Philip and I" ???

                                The reason why those who prefer the innovative system prefer it is mainly that it's marked for formality and widely used by others. Language as an effective social--communicative system relies on the impulse to emulate the speech of others. The innovative system is more likely to be used by speakers who have, or feel they have, a greater distance between their usual, colloquial dialect and their formal dialect, and aiming for features marked as formal makes them more confident of hitting the target. Like you, I too cringe at hearing the innovative system used, but think that's just my own reprehensible snobbery.

                                RM I can't disagree with any of that, and especially concur with your last sentence, though I do believe that as Certified Old Fogies we're entitle to cringe at modern life now and then ;-))))
                              • Mike S.
                                ... It s an idea tentatively put forth that, during the time period, Latin grammar was prescribed and English grammar was assumed. Upon reflection, I don t
                                Message 15 of 20 , Nov 5, 2012
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 6:52 AM, And Rosta <and.rosta@...> wrote:

                                  > Mike S., On 05/11/2012 03:30:
                                  >
                                  >> On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 3:51 PM, And Rosta<and.rosta@...> wrote:
                                  >>
                                  >> Mike S., On 04/11/2012 19:55:
                                  >>>
                                  >>> On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Mike S.<maikxlx@...> wrote:
                                  >>>
                                  >>>>
                                  >>>> On the other hand, this hypercorrective "... and I" business seems to
                                  >>>>> have
                                  >>>>> started with the grating stock phrase "between you and I" (at least
                                  >>>>> that's
                                  >>>>> where I first noticed it maybe three decades ago) and seems to be
                                  >>>>> currently
                                  >>>>> spreading, as mentioned by others.
                                  >>>>>
                                  >>>>>
                                  >>>> Well, I'm all wet here. I should have known that by drawing a broader
                                  >>>> conclusion from personal experience I was bound to be walking on thin
                                  >>>> ice.
                                  >>>> It seems that the use of "between you and I" goes in and out of fashion,
                                  >>>> all the way back to Shakespeare:
                                  >>>>
                                  >>>> http://books.google.com/books?****id=2yJusP0vrdgC&q=%**22between+**<http://books.google.com/books?**id=2yJusP0vrdgC&q=%22between+**>
                                  >>>> you+and+i%22#v=snippet&q=%****22between%20you%20and%20i%22&****f=false<
                                  >>>> http://books.google.**com/books?id=2yJusP0vrdgC&q=%**
                                  >>>> 22between+you+and+i%22#v=**snippet&q=%22between%20you%**
                                  >>>> 20and%20i%22&f=false<http://books.google.com/books?id=2yJusP0vrdgC&q=%22between+you+and+i%22#v=snippet&q=%22between%20you%20and%20i%22&f=false>
                                  >>>> >
                                  >>>>
                                  >>>>
                                  >>> You didn't say that "and I" is new (as it indeed isn't). You did say that
                                  >>> it is spreading (as it indeed is).
                                  >>>
                                  >>>
                                  >>>
                                  >>> The two main points seem to stand: No one really knows why this usage
                                  >>>> appears in certain decades and not others.
                                  >>>>
                                  >>>>
                                  >>> Do we even know that it appears in certain decades and not others?
                                  >>> Either
                                  >>> way, the forces of hypercorrection and contagion seem the likeliest
                                  >>> causes.
                                  >>>
                                  >>
                                  >>
                                  >> At the link I gave above, from Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English
                                  >> Usage, there are written usage citations from Shakespeare until the early
                                  >> 18th c., and "then nothing for about 150 years". In the late 19th c., it
                                  >> makes a comeback. Mark Twain, who should have known better, used it often
                                  >> until finally corrected by someone. So while the written sources are a
                                  >> bit
                                  >> sketchy, the phrase seems to have had two major runs in modern English's
                                  >> history, with the second, current run possibly being more intense.
                                  >>
                                  >> Even if the second run is caused by hypercorrection and contagion, but
                                  >> what
                                  >> about the first? Why would Shakespeare and his contemporaries, not too
                                  >> far
                                  >> removed from Middle English, be using the nominative for the object of a
                                  >> preposition, even sporadically? No one was prescribing formal English
                                  >> back
                                  >> then.
                                  >>
                                  >
                                  > Is that the prevailing belief? I don't know. The Inkhorn controversies
                                  > evidence at least a self-consciousness about English and a desire to
                                  > actively improve it.
                                  >

                                  It's an idea tentatively put forth that, during the time period, Latin
                                  grammar was prescribed and English grammar was assumed. Upon reflection, I
                                  don't see why Shakespeare would have been immune to reaching for what might
                                  have sounded to him like an elevated (in this particular case possibly
                                  affected) style, and I don't see why he wouldn't have borrowed the phrase
                                  from who knows what dialect or idiom or register. Shakespeare has the
                                  words coming from a man facing death:

                                  [...] And since
                                  in paying it, it is impossible I should live, all
                                  debts are cleared between you and I if I might but
                                  see you at my death. Notwithstanding, use your
                                  pleasure. If your love do not persuade you to come,
                                  let not my letter.”

                                  Or maybe the phrase was Shakespeare's innovation. He was, after all, a
                                  writer and writers take liberties. If so, maybe the whole thing going on
                                  now is a case of a 400-year old grammatical butterfly effect going back to
                                  this play.

                                  I didn't know much about the Inkhorn Controversies, but from what I gather,
                                  they remind me of a debate over Orwell's Politics and the English Language
                                  (a good read btw).



                                  >
                                  > If for centuries the nonsubject subjective forms were found only in the
                                  > phrase _between you and I_ or when a conjoined complement of _between_,
                                  > then hypercorrection is not a convincing explanation, because that wouldn't
                                  > predict the restriction to those environments.
                                  >
                                  > What's special about "between X and Y" is that it's not equivalent to
                                  > "between X and between Y", so there's no reason to take _X_ and _Y_ to be
                                  > complements of _between_; rather, only _and_ would be complement of
                                  > _between_. It seems plausible that there have been dialects in which
                                  > pronouns took objective forms when complements and took subjective forms
                                  > otherwise, which will give _between you and I_, and yet further dialects
                                  > that preserved a relic of that earlier dialect in the form of a fixed and
                                  > irregular phrase _between you and I_.
                                  >

                                  Yes, Chomsky has suggested an explanation similar to this. We are not
                                  hearing a lot of "between we" so it's a plausible explanation.


                                  >
                                  > Nowadays, nonsubject subjective forms are not confined to the complement
                                  > of _between_, so discussed about _between you and I_ is of only historical
                                  > significance. However, in considering the origins and causes of the modern
                                  > innovative system in which all conjoined pronouns take subjective forms,
                                  > _between you and I_ is relevant in that the modern system may have been
                                  > partly a generalization from _between you and I_, and not purely a
                                  > hypercorrection. It's possible the modern system doesn't have
                                  > hypercorrective origins at all, but hypercorrective origins better explain
                                  > how the system began confined to formal register.
                                  >
                                  > And, it's deprecated in formal modern English (at least at the moment).
                                  >>>
                                  >>> I don't think that's accurate. As I said in my original contribution to
                                  >>> the thread, some deprecate it in formal modern English, while some prefer
                                  >>> it in formal modern English.
                                  >>>
                                  >>
                                  >> I find that perplexing. "Me and Alice had a great time at the party" is
                                  >> colloquial, vulgar even -- but genuine and unpretentious and down to
                                  >> earth. What virtue does "between you and I" have? I remember feeling
                                  >> genuine embarrassment for the person whom I first noticed saying it years
                                  >> ago. I can't help feeling that way now.
                                  >>
                                  >
                                  > The reason why those who prefer the innovative system prefer it is mainly
                                  > that it's marked for formality and widely used by others. Language as an
                                  > effective social--communicative system relies on the impulse to emulate the
                                  > speech of others. The innovative system is more likely to be used by
                                  > speakers who have, or feel they have, a greater distance between their
                                  > usual, colloquial dialect and their formal dialect, and aiming for features
                                  > marked as formal makes them more confident of hitting the target. Like you,
                                  > I too cringe at hearing the innovative system used, but think that's just
                                  > my own reprehensible snobbery.
                                  >

                                  In general, if people are using an innovation aiming to sound formal but
                                  failing, I don't think it's snobbery to gently make them aware of that. In
                                  this particular case, perhaps I am in denial and "between you and I" is the
                                  new normal. But I suspect that it's passing junk that will eventually be
                                  prescribed back into the margins.

                                  --
                                  co ma'a mke

                                  Xorban blog: Xorban.wordpress.com <http://xorban.wordpress.com/>
                                  My LL blog: Loglang.wordpress.com <http://loglang.wordpress.com/>
                                • yuri
                                  The first two correct replies about the origin of my name were And Rosta and Roger Mills. Roger s fish will be passed onto the girls at his request. If I m
                                  Message 16 of 20 , Nov 5, 2012
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    The first two correct replies about the origin of my name were And
                                    Rosta and Roger Mills.
                                    Roger's fish will be passed onto the girls at his request. If I'm ever
                                    in the vicinity of And I'll need to be reminded to give him his prize.
                                    (Are you _this_ And Rosta
                                    http://www.uclan.ac.uk/ahss/journalism_media_communication/english_linguistics/rosta_and.php
                                    ?)

                                    Thanks all for the lively discussion.

                                    Yuri de Groot
                                  • Roger Mills
                                    ... The first two correct replies about the origin of my name were And Rosta and Roger Mills. Roger s fish will be passed onto the girls at his request.
                                    Message 17 of 20 , Nov 5, 2012
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      --- On Mon, 11/5/12, yuri <yuridg@...> wrote:
                                      The first two correct replies about the origin of my name were And
                                      Rosta and Roger Mills.
                                      Roger's fish will be passed onto the girls at his request.
                                      =================================================

                                      I'm sure they'll enjoy it...as I would have too, if NZ weren't on the other side of the world..........but I don't travel well anymore, and (as I've discovered) neither do chocolate items from/to warmer climes :-)))).

                                      Yuri de Groot
                                    • And Rosta
                                      ... No. But some of her grandchildren might. And her greatgrandchildren will. And many StdE speakers of her children s generation already do. ... But whether
                                      Message 18 of 20 , Nov 18, 2012
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Roger Mills, On 05/11/2012 16:37:
                                        >> Someone wrote:
                                        >>> it's deprecated in formal modern English (at least at the moment).
                                        >
                                        > And (?)
                                        >> I don't think that's accurate. As I said in my original contribution to
                                        >>> the thread, some deprecate it in formal modern English, while some prefer
                                        >>> it in formal modern English.
                                        >
                                        > RM Would Queen Elizabeth II ever say, in public, "Prince Philip and
                                        > me will attend Ascot" or "The Prime Minister had dinner with Prince
                                        > Philip and I" ???

                                        No. But some of her grandchildren might. And her greatgrandchildren will. And many StdE speakers of her children's generation already do.

                                        Mike S., On 05/11/2012 18:31:
                                        > On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 6:52 AM, And Rosta<and.rosta@...> wrote:
                                        >> The reason why those who prefer the innovative system prefer it is mainly
                                        >> that it's marked for formality and widely used by others. Language as an
                                        >> effective social--communicative system relies on the impulse to emulate the
                                        >> speech of others. The innovative system is more likely to be used by
                                        >> speakers who have, or feel they have, a greater distance between their
                                        >> usual, colloquial dialect and their formal dialect, and aiming for features
                                        >> marked as formal makes them more confident of hitting the target. Like you,
                                        >> I too cringe at hearing the innovative system used, but think that's just
                                        >> my own reprehensible snobbery.
                                        >
                                        > In general, if people are using an innovation aiming to sound formal but
                                        > failing, I don't think it's snobbery to gently make them aware of that.

                                        But whether or not they're failing depends on who's listening. In most contexts in which the innovative system is used in order to sound formal, it succeeds in sounding formal and causes no cringeing among hearers. Furthermore, even when it causes cringeing it will still sound formal, since it is predominantly used in formal registers. I'm describing British usage here; things might be different elsewhere.

                                        > In this particular case, perhaps I am in denial and "between you and
                                        > I" is the new normal. But I suspect that it's passing junk that will
                                        > eventually be prescribed back into the margins.

                                        "Between you and I" turns out to be a special case, doesn't it; it's not always an exemplar of the innovative system. As for the innovative system overall, I suppose you call it junk because you take it to be ephemeral, and take the ephemeral to be junk; as a system in its own right it's not junky. I am happy to bet that it is not ephemeral and to bet even more that it won't be prescribed back into the margins. Rather I would predict that it will become increasingly entrenched as a formal register phenomenon, and that if it eventually does fall out of use then it will be because of a rejection of it because it is high register and not because of prescriptivism.

                                        yuri, On 05/11/2012 19:08:
                                        > The first two correct replies about the origin of my name were And
                                        > Rosta and Roger Mills.
                                        > Roger's fish will be passed onto the girls at his request. If I'm ever
                                        > in the vicinity of And I'll need to be reminded to give him his prize.

                                        I'll donate mine to your daughters too.

                                        > (Are you _this_ And Rosta
                                        > http://www.uclan.ac.uk/ahss/journalism_media_communication/english_linguistics/rosta_and.php
                                        > ?)

                                        Yes and no. That is not in fact a picture of me. But of all the innumerable And Rostas that walk the earth, I am the one that that webpage so uninformatively describes.

                                        --And.
                                      • Roger Mills
                                        This reminded me of something. In the US (AFAIK) there s the old idiom (used when passing on a secret) ...just between you, me and the lamp-post... where one
                                        Message 19 of 20 , Nov 18, 2012
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          This reminded me of something. In the US (AFAIK) there's the old idiom (used when passing on a secret) "...just between you, me and the lamp-post..." where one doesn't hear "I" for "me". Of course, I haven't heard anyone say this in a good many years.;-((((

                                          --- On Sun, 11/18/12, And Rosta <and.rosta@...> wrote:
                                          Roger Mills, On 05/11/2012 16:37:
                                          >> Someone wrote:
                                          >>>     it's deprecated in formal modern English (at least at the moment).
                                          >
                                          > And (?)
                                          >>  I don't think that's accurate. As I said in my original contribution to
                                          >>> the thread, some deprecate it in formal modern English, while some prefer
                                          >>> it in formal modern English.
                                          >
                                          > RM Would Queen Elizabeth II ever say, in public, "Prince Philip and
                                          > me will attend Ascot" or "The Prime Minister had dinner with Prince
                                          > Philip and I" ???

                                          No. But some of her grandchildren might. And her greatgrandchildren will. And many StdE speakers of her children's generation already do
                                          =================================================

                                          I suspect you are right. Alas, alack.
                                          (snip the rest)
                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.