Alright, so you said "with who," not "with whom." Understandable. But "give it to James and I"? What??!
Argh!
*self-conscious cough*
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
James and me? Me and James?
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Exactly. Me. Give it to me. Not "give it to I."
/.02
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
(yes, James and me.)
--j_k
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Don't even give any of it to James. Give all of it to I! Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
Unless you're a Rasta, in which case "give it to I" is perfectly acceptable and even to be encouraged.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
(What's wrong with this sentence?)
Bring these goodies to Grandma.
Edit for proper respect to Grandma
[ January 17, 2007, 09:47 PM: Message edited by: Glenn Arnold ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:(What's wrong with this sentence?)
The unnecessary parentheses.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
And the fact that it should end with a question mark and start with the words, "Will you."
Posted by dantesparadigm (Member # 8756) on :
Grandma is old and about to die and will not be able to enjoy the goodies on as many levels as say, me, so therefore the sentence should read:
Bring those goodies to Greg.
<-- Greg
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Also, Grandma, being a revered matriarch, is worthy of capitalization.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
The silly thing is that the whole "James and I" stupidity emerged from the desire to be grammatically correct. People hear that "James and me went to the movies" should be "James and I went to the movies," and then over-apply that "intellectual" switch to the wrong situation.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Instead of actually learning the difference between a subject and an object.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Actually, it's not true that it's simply hypercorrection, nor is it true that certain speakers don't know the difference between a subject and an object. People who say things like "give it to James and I" do not use pronoun forms interchangeably; it's always when there's a compound noun phrase functioning as an object that the nominative form is used. You never see the same sort of error when it's a single pronoun.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
That's the point, Jon Boy. The reason that one would make the mistake with a compound subject is that one does not know the actual rules; rather, they just know the sound of the word, and, if they have been hearing good enough English, the sound of the language is enough to give them grammar for 99% of occasions.
The same lack of grammatical acumen is seen in the errors involving use of "who" and "whom".
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
^ Precisely.
It is likely true that some (many?) people who misuse forms like "James and I" do know the difference between a subject and an object. But certainly many do not.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Also, Grandma, being a revered matriarch, is worthy of capitalization.
True. My bad. But the peeve in this case involves the word "bring."
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I hate the phrase "My Bad." I was being ironic, but it was a private joke.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
What's wrong with that use of "bring"?
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Bring/take issue, no?
Archaic, and had to think for a second to remember that rule.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Phanto: That's the one. Who/whom is becoming archaic too.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Ah. Forgot about that one.
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
quote:Who/whom is becoming archaic too.
Yeah, so is "all right" as two words. I, nonetheless, refuse to change. Although I've eagerly embraced the somewhat simplified "all singular nouns add 's in the possessive, regardless of last letter." Too bad about the Jesus/ Ulysses grandfather clause...it's almost a simple apostrophe rule.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
Who's giving me what now?
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
The grammar nazis? Heartburn? *evil grin*
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*passes Shan the pepto*
Posted by Sibyl (Member # 10079) on :
quote:Originally posted by Liz B:
quote:Who/whom is becoming archaic too.
Yeah, so is "all right" as two words. I, nonetheless, refuse to change.
Then there's "any more", which these days is almost universally "anymore". It annoys me, and I try not to get annoyed any more.
Sibyl
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I find word shortenings to be double plus good.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:Also, Grandma, being a revered matriarch, is worthy of capitalization.
True. My bad. But the peeve in this case involves the word "bring."
Perhaps, but you could just as easily correct the sentence to "Bring those goodies to Grandma", provided, of course, it is Grandma who is speaking. Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Should I mention that my parents learned English as their third and fourth languages? So, growing up, we spoke English using incorrect sentence structure and word usage because my parents spoke as though they were translating directly from Plautdeutsch to English. Which they were.
In Plautdeutsch, there is one verb which means both to borrow and to lend. It took me decades to learn the proper usage of To borrow and To lend, and I'm not convinced I've yet got it completely right. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Well, neither a lender nor a borrower be, and you'll have no problem.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: And the fact that it should end with a question mark and start with the words, "Will you."
And he forgot to say "please".
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sibyl: Then there's "any more", which these days is almost universally "anymore". It annoys me, and I try not to get annoyed any more.
I've seen people write "eventhough" as a single word. Maybe it's because of "although", but it irks me.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by quidscribis: In Plautdeutsch, there is one verb which means both to borrow and to lend. It took me decades to learn the proper usage of To borrow and To lend, and I'm not convinced I've yet got it completely right.
Most Americans don't know the difference between imply and infer. So don't feel bad.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
"James and me went to the store" is perfect English. The fact that English teachers (btw, I AM an English teacher) insist that this isn't "proper" English is that a particular dialect of English (we'll call it "Standard") is taught in school in which the disjunctive form of personal pronouns is not accepted in coordinated subject position. However, most other dialects of English DO permit this. I would imagine that almost every American, for example, and one point or another during a given week, uses the supposedly improper "objective pronoun as subject" form. It's not the objective case... it's the disjunctive. Same reason I'd use "me" in the following dialog—
"Who is it?"
"It's me."
"Standard" English says I ought to say "It's I," as the pronoun is in the predicate nominative slot. But that's total crap. In nearly every dialect of American English, you use the disjunctive in this instance.
Sometimes I really hate being an English teacher... :sigh:
French speakers are very familiar with the disjunctive... it's used all the time in that language.
This post contains a much better explanation of what I meant in my previous post.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sibyl: Then there's "any more", which these days is almost universally "anymore". It annoys me, and I try not to get annoyed any more.
Sibyl
I don't think I've ever heard anyone complain about this; "any more" looks like an error to me, so I had to look it up. Here's what Merriam-Webster's says:
quote:Although both anymore and any more are found in written use, in the 20th century anymore is the more common styling.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Jon Boy,
Interesting link. In Spanish, the "object of a preposition" dilemma for personal pronoun is thorny, too. Some pronouns are in the objective (dative) case, others in the nominative.
Este reloj es para ti. (This watch is for you [objective].)
Este reloj es para mi. (This watch is for me [objective].)
Este reloj es para él. (This watch is for him [nominative... literally "for he"].)
Este reloj es para ella. (This watch is for her [nominative... literally "for she"].)
Este reloj es para ellos. (This watch is for them [nominative... literally "for they"].)
And so forth. "Between you and me" is "entre tú y yo" literally "between you and I."
I really am not hung up over this like some people, though I do use the "Standard" (read: proper) English forms.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
*swigs pepto*
*smacks lips*
*hands bottle to next sufferer*
*grins*
Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
A friend and I have been having a debate for the past six months about a simple sentence we both use constantly at our job.
My friend insists that it must be "Seventeen cents ARE your change," because, of course, cents is plural.
However, everyone else I know says "Seventeen cents IS your change," and I suspect that the common usage is correct, but I can't really articulate why. My best guess is that it must have something to do with the fact that change (like fish) isn't really a word that is pluralized normally-- a collective noun?-- and that in some sense, the non-plural "change" is actually the subject of the sentence, making "is" the correct verb-form.
Anyone have any insight? Ideally, I'd like to change my coworker's mind, but if I'm wrong, I'd like to know. I'm starting to find myself saying, "Seventeen cents ARE your change" too.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Alright:
Politics is an art.
Not:
Politics are an art.
Consult your local grammar book. I go with "is," similar to "Eggs and ham is a great meal."
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Bean and rice is nice.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Just because a noun has the form of a plural doesn't mean it has to have a plural verb (the converse is also true—grammatically singular nouns do not always take grammatically plural verbs). Things like money and time are mass nouns (not collective nouns) and almost always take singular verbs. In other words, you're not dealing with a number of cents, but with an amount of money.
Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
I emailed the grammar tip website, and to my surprise got this email back in less than twenty-four hours:
quote:You are right, Dean. Amounts of money, time, and distance are treated as single units. We would say, therefore, "Ten dollars is a lot of money," "Three hours is a long time," or "Five miles is a long way to run."
In case your friend isn't convinced simply by my saying it is so, here are two links to Web sites that back me up. You can find many more by going to a search engine and typing in "subject verb agreement money time distance":
"Your change is 17 cents." Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
My coworker and I made a deal. I will no longer leave people notes on paper towels, and he will say "Seventeen cents is your change" while in my presence.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Although I've eagerly embraced the somewhat simplified "all singular nouns add 's in the possessive, regardless of last letter." Too bad about the Jesus/ Ulysses grandfather clause...it's almost a simple apostrophe rule.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)