GalacticCactus Forum
Forums => English & Linguistics => Topic started by: pooka on March 21, 2008, 07:33:33 AM
-
Someone, I think it was Porter, recently responded to a place where I had jokingly snarkily corrected someone's grammar.
"hipper than I" - Annie
"hipper than me" -Pooka
"hipper than I [am]." -Porter
This is an important question because it's why I didn't write an honors thesis. Is Porter right?
Pronouns in Arabic act somewhat as helping verbs, and I was interested in writing about it, but I couldn't think of anything to say.
-
I think that all three versions are perfectly correct.
I wasn't saying that your version was wrong -- I was saying that Annie's wasn't.
-
I too get confused with the I/me thingy.
What is that rule again?
-
A simple rule of thumb -- if you can replace it with "him", use "me", and if you can replace it with "he", use "I".
-
Is Porter right?
Right according to what standard? According to a strict prescriptivist standard, "than I" is always correct and "than me" never is, on the assumption that "than" is always and only a conjunction and must be followed by a clause or at least a subject.
According to centuries of usage, however, "than" can function perfectly well as both a conjunction and a preposition, meaning that "than me" is totally cromulent.
-
Hmm.
-
I like Porter's simple version. It embiggens us all.
-
I'm not sure that really tells you which to use after "than," though.
-
It tells you that you can use either one.
"Hipper than him." == cromulent
"Hipper than he [is]." == cromulent
-
But if you're under the impression that only one is correct, then you'll just end up confused.
-
Gotcha.
-
See, now I understand better why me is confused.
-
Personally, I prefer "Hipper than me", as it doesn't require any implied words in order for it to make sense to me.
-
I get suspicious anytime a grammatical analysis of a piece of disputed usage requires the assumption of words that aren't there. See also "[what is] more important" versus "more importantly."
-
There's been a argument, since the 18th century, over whether than is a conjunction or a preposition or both. Most prescriptivists who write books nowadays say it is only a conjunction, and so is always followed by a clause, even if the clause is often missing some words:
You are wiser than I [am].
You love him more than [you love] me.
But it's been a preposition since the 16th century, and can be followed by object pronouns or reflexives. The prescriptivist who insists that than is only a conjunction must conclude that these examples are wrong:
A man no mightier than thyself or me
In personal action, yet prodigious grown
And fearful, as these strange eruptions are.
- Shakespeare, Julius Caesar
And, though by Heaven's severe Decree
She suffers hourly more than me...
Swift, To Stella, Visiting Me in Sickness
-
That Shakespear didn't know nothing 'bout talking 'Merikan.
-
He certainly did use grammar we consider unacceptable, and some of it was then as well. Poetic license is a wonderful thing.
-
What do you think he did that was considered unacceptable at the time?
-
If you think I am digging up notes from a class I took over 10 years ago, you are sadly mistaken. ;)
-
I would be surprised if contemporaries of Shakespeare complained about his grammar. As I understand it there was no concept of correct grammar (http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:P5NdFAD89fwJ:www.uqu.edu.sa/majalat/humanities/2vol15/011.pdf+%22Umm+Al-Qura+University+Journal%22+cole&hl=en&client=firefox-a) in English before the 18th century.
-
If you think I am digging up notes from a class I took over 10 years ago, you are sadly mistaken. ;)
I just expect you to cite your sources. :P
And anyway, the "than [object]" construction appears in a lot of other writing from that time period, too. It is not an example of Shakespeare taking poetic license.
goofy: I'm not sure I would say there was no concept of correct grammar before the eighteenth century, but that is certainly when traditional prescriptivist grammar arose.
-
I just expect you to cite your sources. :P
Dr. Kipling. ;)
And anyway, the "than [object]" construction appears in a lot of other writing from that time period, too. It is not an example of Shakespeare taking poetic license.
I wasn't saying it was. I was arguing with using Shakespeare as evidence.
-
A writer who is considered one of the best writers of English cannot be used as evidence for how to write English???!
-
Best writer hardly is the same thing as one who follows the rules. Shakespeare is often given as an example of knowing how and when to break the rules.
-
Erroneously, I would say. The concept of "the rules" did not exist for another couple centuries.
-
I've never understood this argument that good writers are allowed to break "the rules". Does this mean that the rest of us should strive for mediocrity?
-
I've heard English teachers say things like "When you're Shakespeare, you can break the rules." I guess the rules are like training wheels, except that you have to keep them on until you're one of the best cyclists that's ever lived. ;)
-
It is an extension of the notion that you must master the rules before creating in music. There are a lot of rules about what constitutes a well formed musical composition, but if everyone followed them, there would be no new music.
The other day I decided to split the difference between King James English and Shakespeare's English to call the English of that time Pre-Colonial English. I do think the conduct of the Empire caused things to happen to English, some to change it, some to make it more resistant to change. I had been noticing some idioms as I was listening to Psalms that people had criticized (when they appear in the Book of Mormon) as following Shakespeare. But it turns out the King James Version was largely based on a text that pre-dated Shakespeare. So I would tend to argue that "that valley from whose bourne no traveller may return" probably came to Shakespeare from the Psalms. I don't really have a Great Bible at my disposal to back that up, unfortunately.
-
I think that period is usually called Early Modern English.
And are you talking about the Tyndale Bible? I suppose that did predate Shakespeare.
-
Oh, okay. Not, it was after Tyndale, unless the Tyndale Bible was colloquially known as the Great Bible. There was also something called the Bishop's bible. Did you know part of the directives guiding the KJV was that it have no annotations, because the bible in current use (which I believe is the Great Bible) had a lot of footnotes that were considered incendiary?
-
I don't know what the Great Bible or Bishop's Bible was. I've heard from a few different sources that the KJV was based largely on Tyndale's work, though.
-
It is an extension of the notion that you must master the rules before creating in music. There are a lot of rules about what constitutes a well formed musical composition, but if everyone followed them, there would be no new music.
I'm not sure that analogy works. Given the number and possible combinations of English words, there is still a lot that can be written that has never been written before, while still following the rules - whichever of the 2 kinds of rules of grammar (http://www.arrantpedantry.com/2008/03/19/rules-are-rules/) we're talking about.
-
Chaucer coulden't spelle for beannes.
-
When are Xselfs (e.g. myself, itself, themselves) appropriate over a simple me/it/them ?
-
They're pretty much required in reflexive constructions ("He hit himself") and some emphatic constructions ("I don't care for black jellybeans myself"). I'm guessing you're talking about other constructions, like "Please return it to either Bob or myself" or "Either Bob or myself can help you." Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage has a great entry on those, so I'll just link to it (http://books.google.com/books?id=2yJusP0vrdgC&pg=RA3-PA647&vq=myself&source=gbs_search_s&sig=r4kr_gJH5cJwGE8rnf1_QXDozBM). Though if you have any further questions, I'd be happy to answer them.
The basic gist of the article is that it's not ungrammatical, though a lot of people consider it a stylistic sin. If you use it—especially if you overuse it—some people will likely frown on it, but that doesn't mean you always need to avoid it. My personal opinion on it: I think it sounds a little awkward at best and stilted at worst. I don't use it myself.
-
:P
Thanks!
-
De nada.
-
I don't use it myself.
Do you use it when you are with someone else?
-
I don't understand the question.
-
I don't use it [by] myself.
-
But that's not what I said or meant. I was just saying that I don't use "myself" as an object or subject. The "myself" there was emphatic.
(Sorry if you're trying to be funny and I'm killing it, but I guess I don't get it.)
-
She was trying to be funny. :wacko:
Having all these emoticons is great!
-
I laughed, but it may or may not have been out loud.
-
L(momnb)OL!
-
"Email exchange between Lee and me."
or
"Email exchange between Lee and myself."
-
Lee and I exchanged emails.
-
Actually, it's more like
"Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and complete copy of a November 9, 2006 email exchange between Lee and me/myself."
-
Ah. Well, the general rule about trying to make a sentence simpler when possible clearly does not apply to legalese.
-
:devil:
-
"Email exchange between Lee and me."
or
"Email exchange between Lee and myself."
The former is always correct and unobjectionable. The latter incurs the wrath of some usage commentators and editors, though technically there's nothing wrong with it. As I said before, I personally don't like this usage, but I have to admit that there's some part of me that find it entirely appropriate if not preferable in legalese—probably because it's fitting with a style that never uses a small word when there's a bigger one available.
-
"Email probably because it's fitting with a style that never uses a small word when there's a bigger one available.
:D
Actually, I just thought that the rhyme of Lee and me was awkward.
-
What's preferred: elaborated on or elaborated upon?
I don't know. Jon Boy might, though.
-
Crap. That has nothing to do with pronouns. Well, I guess the "what" and the "I."
-
I've never heard of a preference either way. Google gives 609,000 hits for "elaborated on" versus 222,000 for "elaborated upon." Both sound perfectly fine to me.
-
I fear that "upon" is going the way of the dodo. Unless you need an extra syllable for a poem, what's the diff with "on"?
-
Why do you think it's going to disappear? I don't see any evidence that it's on the verg of extinction. The OED says this:
Originally denoting elevation as well as contact, the compound has from the earliest period of its occurrence so far lost the former implication, that is, it has been regularly employed as a simple equivalent of on, in all the varieties of meaning which that preposition has developed. The use of the one form or the other has been for the most part a matter of individual choice (on grounds of rhythm, emphasis, etc.) or of simple accident, although in certain contexts and phrases there may be a general tendency to prefer the one to the other.
-
I see it less amongst younger writers and speakers except when used for cadence.
-
Is it "The security guards will find whomever broke into the store" or "The security guards will find whoever broke into the store?"
(I have one answer, someone else has a different one. I await all y'all's input.)
-
The traditional answer is that if whoever serves as a subject of one clause, then that trumps its role as the object of another. Thus the latter is preferred.
-
Interesting. It sounds like you're saying neither is wrong.
Can you, by chance, document that answer?
-
According to a traditional prescriptive standard, one is right and the other is wrong. According to descriptive standard, both exist in free variation and both are standard.
Here's an entry from The Columbia Guide to Standard American English (http://www.bartleby.com/68/18/6518.html), but I don't think it's entirely clear. Just google "whoever whomever" and you'll find lots of sites like this one (http://www.grammarbook.com/grammar/whoever.asp).
-
Ah, gotcha. Thanks. :)
-
No problem. So which one did you think was right?
-
When I first saw it, I had completely overlooked that it was the subject of "broke into the store." So I thought it should be "whom." When I had it pointed out to me that it was also a subject, I was thrown. :)
-
"Who is it?"
"It is I."
or
"It is me."
?
-
It's me.
After all, you wouldn't say "It is he." instead of "It is him.", would you?
-
I'm inclined to agree with you, since "me" is a direct object and not a subject like "I" is. But someone today told I me was wrong for doing that.
-
It depends on whether or not you want to sound stilted. ;)
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage (http://books.google.com/books?id=2yJusP0vrdgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=merriam-webster%27s+dictionary+of+the+english+language&sig=ACfU3U3sZm7xULt_-ov3LhfGgld7yG_EeA#PPA566,M1) has an excellent entry on the matter, but it's a little longish. If you want something between a one-sentence and one-page answer, I'd be happy to give one.
-
Well, skimming that article I must agree with the sentiment that "[me] feels right in that position."
But I'd love to read your condensed answer since I ain't reading that whole thing.
Cool to know that a free, scanned version of that dictionary is out there though. I've never checked out Google Books before.
-
I'm inclined to agree with you, since "me" is a direct object and not a subject like "I" is. But someone today told I me was wrong for doing that.
Actually, it's not a direct object—it's a subject complement.
-
Never heard of that. I got the same impression—that I was wrong in my characterization of "me" as a direct object—from the M-W article.
They don't teach you about those things in high school. What are they?
-
Never heard of that. I got the same impression—that I was wrong in my characterization of "me" as a direct object—from the M-W article.
I'd have to say you got the wrong impression, then. The last paragraph of the entry says,
Clearly, both the it is I and it's me patterns are in reputable use and have been for a considerable time. It is I tends to be used in more formal or more stuffy situations; it's me predominates in real and fictional speech and in a more relaxed writing style. Him, her, us, and them may be less common after the verb to be than me is, but they are far from rare and are equally good.
Here's the short version of the debate: It is me is the newer form, and it is apparently first attested in the 16th century. Both it is I and it is me have existed side by side since then, though in the early 18th century some people started to object to it is me (namely Bishop Lowth, who also railed against split infinitives and other perfectly standard and grammatical constructions).
Some argue for it is I on grammatical grounds; because I is a complement to the subject it, it should be in the same case (the subject or nominative case). Or so the argument goes. Of course, there's several hundred years of evidence against this argument; English speakers use object pronouns instead of subject pronouns in a lot of different constructions.
In sum, though some misinformed people may give you a bad time about it, it is perfectly okay to use it is me.
They don't teach you about those things in high school. What are they?
What are subject complements? That's basically just the term for the thing that comes after a linking verb that describes the subject of a sentence, as in I am Jonathon or I feel well. A direct object is the complement of the verb rather than the subject.
-
So "well," as used in your last example, is a noun and not a verb?
Anyway, the distinction about complimenting a verb rather than a subject still isn't clear to me. A noun and a verb are both always needed to form a sentence, right? So how do you distinguish?
"I threw the ball." The ball is both what I did something to and also the object of my doing.
"It is I." I am both what it is and also the thing that is.
-
I'd have to say you got the wrong impression, then.
What I meant was that I got the same impression from you as I did from the article.
-
Uh, wait. I think I misread you or something. You are correct that me is not a direct object in it is me.
In that example, well is an adjective, not a noun or a verb. It describes, or complements, the subject of the sentence, I. Subject complements can be either nouns or adjectives. Objects can only be nouns. An object receives the action of the verb, while with a subject complement there is no action.
One way to distinguish between an object and a subject complement is to make the sentence passive. The ball was thrown by me works perfectly well, but I am been by me obviously does not.
Clear as mud?
-
Put another way, a subject complement says something about the subject, while an object does not. In it is I/me, I/me says who it is. In I threw the ball, the ball doesn't say anything about I.
-
In sum, though some misinformed people may give you a bad time about it, it is perfectly okay to use it is me.
Or perfectly informed people who happen to be language snobs. ;)
-
In other words, people who should know better. :P