0
Nona the brit Posted 21 years ago
Linguistics Studies

JTTs point on using I or me.

(Mod - I moved this from a learner's question as I felt they just needed a simple answer, which they received from others, rather than a debate on the issue. This is more appropriate for this section, so others interested in the theory of linguistics can continue if they wish.)
Re: I, me
Posted: 17 Mar 2005 07:57 AM
JTT: This is how this issue is viewed by language scientists:

----------------------------------
CGEL:
Prescriptive works instantiating this sort of aesthetic authoritarianism provide no answer to such obvious questions. They simply assert that grammar dictates things, without supporting their claim from evidence.

The descriptive view would be that when most speakers use a form that our grammar says is incorrect, there is at least a prima facie case that it is the grammmar that is wrong. ... If what is involved were a matter of taste, all evidence would be beside the point. But under the descriptivist viewpoint, grammar is not a matter of taste, nor of aesthetics.

{Examples like the one at issue} show, however, that the only completely secure territory of the nominative in Present-day English is with pronouns functioning as the whole subject in a finite clause.

{Examples like the one at issue}, with 'I' as final coordinate is, however, so common in speech and used by so broad a range of speakers that it has to be recognized as a variety of Standard English, ..."
-----------------------------------------------------

http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/1994_01_24_thenewrepublic.html

Probably no "grammatical error" has received as much scorn as "misuse" of pronoun case inside conjunctions (phrases with two parts joined by [and] or [or]). What teenager has not been corrected for saying [Me and Jennifer are going to the mall]? The standard story is that the object pronoun Emotion: it wasnt me does not belong in subject position -- no one would say [Me is going to the mall] -- so it should be [Jennifer and I]. People tend to misremember the advice as "When in doubt, say 'so-and-so and I', not 'so-and-so and me'," so they unthinkingly overapply it, resulting in hyper-corrected solecisms like [give Al Gore and I a chance] and the even more despised [between you and I].

But if the person on the street is so good at avoiding [Me is going] and [Give I a break], and even former Rhodes Scholars and Ivy League professors can't seem to avoid [Me and Jennifer are going] and [Give Al and I a chance], might it not be the mavens that misunderstand English grammar, not the speakers? The mavens' case about case rests on one assumption: if an entire conjunction phrase has a grammatical feature like subject case, every word inside that phrase has to have that grammatical feature, too. But that is just false.

[Jennifer] is singular; you say [Jennifer is], not [Jennifer are]. The pronoun [She] is singular; you say [She is], not [She are]. But the conjunction [She and Jennifer] is not singular, it's plural; you say [She and Jennifer are], not [She and Jennifer is.] So a conjunction can have a different grammatical number from the pronouns inside it. Why, then, must it have the same grammatical [case] as the pronouns inside it? The answer is that it need not.

A conjunction is just not grammatically equivalent to any of its parts. If John and Marsha met, it does not mean that John met and that Marsha met. If voters give Clinton and Gore a chance, they are not giving Gore his own chance, added on to the chance they are giving Clinton; they are giving the entire ticket a chance. So just because [Al Gore and I] is an object that requires object case, it does not mean that is an object that requires object case. By the logic of grammar, the pronoun is free to have any case it wants.

The linguist, Joseph Emonds has analysed the 'Me and Jennifer/Between you and I' phenomenon in great technical detail. He concludes that the language that the mavens want us to speak is not only not English, it is not a possible human language!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Censorship is highly odious in any forum
  

Top answer

Out of curiosity, what happened to the rest of page 2 of that original thread, Nona? It looks like you just moved JTT's post. A few other posts seemed to have dribbled off along the route.

  • Out of curiosity, what happened to the rest of page 2 of that original thread, Nona?
  • It looks like you just moved JTT's post.
  • A few other posts seemed to have dribbled off along the route.
Free · every Monday

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.

18 Answers
0
Out of curiosity, what happened to the rest of page 2 of that original thread, Nona? It looks like you just moved JTT's post. A few other posts seemed to have dribbled off along the route.
0
http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/1994_01_24_thenewrepublic.html

Probably no "grammatical error" has received as much scorn as "misuse" of pronoun case inside conjunctions (phrases with two parts joined by [and] or [or]). What teenager has not been cor
0
0 "There’s not single linguist who would actually try to publish an article with constructions like 'Me and Noam Chomsky was talking one fine day,' or 'This was a secret theory between Chomsky and I.'" 02br
02br
00Very true. 02br
02br
00But this is simply because we have imposed an entirely arbitrary, socially acceptable "standard" of "correct" English g
0
0 All language is 'entirely arbitrary'. The screen in front of you would still be a screen, if we called it a krong. 'Screen' however is the entirely arbitrary standard of the correct English word for the thing in front of you. 02br
02hr
02br
00By Pinker's reasoning, 'between you and I' is right. But the nature of that reasoning (that coordinated pronouns have special
0
0 01blockquote
00...an entirely arbitrary, socially acceptable "standard" of "correct" English grammar...12blockquote
12br
00Interestingly, in this instance, the reviled usage (between you and I) is most commonly used not by an underclass, but by those who have had a little more education than most people and imagine that the phrase is somehow 01
0
0 "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet"[W] 02br
02br
00What is Pinker's view on krongs, by the way? pure intellectual curiosity, you understand. 0-
0
0 "Wrong." 02br
02br
00MrP 0-
0
0 He knows nowt! 0-
0
0 How is it then, that 'umble scholars, like myself, sometimes say... 02br
02br
00"Me and John went to the park" (or some such thing) 02br
02br
00but could never say "Me went to the park". 02br
02br
00It isn't because I'm unaware of the "rule". What's wrong with me? 02br
02br
00It's silly to call Pinker elitist. He i
0
0 Well, I find it difficult to interpret the comments about Rhodes scholars and Ivy League professors as anything other than (perhaps unconsciously) snobbish. 02br
02br
00Pinker is saying: 02br
02br
001. This form of words exists. 02br
002. Rhodes scholars use it. 02br
003. It is therefore ok. 02br
02br
00Pinker

Related Questions