h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Always puzzled me that one, Plaguesville. People have been saying "It's me" and "you and me" for centuries, a construction clearly parallel to the French (which has had a huge influence on English since a battle was fought near an obscure Sussex town ) "C'est moi" and "toi et moi".

But no, some madman decided that if we're to speak properly we need to imitate Latin with all that "tu et ego" malarkey. Lunacy I tell you

Do I make time stand still for you, Plaguesville ?

As far as I can see, it says at the moment that I posted that 14 hours ago, and as that was sometime yesterday afternoon from work, it seems to be about right.

Re I/me - isn't it the rule that whichever it would be if it were just you, that's the one you use with someone else also. But it's definitely so&so and me/I not me/I and so&so.

The rule is as you said, but that's not the way the language works. Although "Andrea and I went to the shops" is "correct grammar", it is perfectly normal to hear "Me and Andrea went to the shops".

"It was me who pulled the plug on the whole venture"
"Is that him over there?"
etc.

Please excuse the repitition but I must throw in a little joke I keep in my pocket for these purposes. In German, the cases are strictly kept to. So, if someone asks you if you speak French, and you do, you would answer "Ich" in the nominative in the German.

The joke is that someone asked a group of people that (in French) and a German answered "je"

I think it's purely a case of what sounds best. Having just asked my Turkish colleague, who said that the nominative is usual in that case in Turkish, too, I have come to the conclusion that it may only be English and French who revert to the illogical accusative to answer such questions.

*perfectly normal to hear 'Me and Andrea'*

Common, yes, both in terms of frequency & as an exmplar of poor use of grammar. Is this going to be another case of common usage changes the rules?

Yes. That's how language works. That's why we say "caught" instead of "catched". That's why we say feet instead of feeties.

Did people say that once?

I realise that language evolves. Just seems a pity that it appears to go to the lowest common denominator.

don't know but from now on I am going to use feeties

Ictoan,
Ken Livingstone will be delighted that you are going to set an environmentally friendly example.

T.C.
"Do I make time stand still for you, Plaguesville ? "
I scarcely have any other thoughts.

Assuming that you didn't post on the previous day, have you got any old tablets you don't need? These I've got are obviously not much good.

(Nurse! Nurse! T.C.'s just written to me! Wheel my chair a little closer to the screen, please.)

"Stop that noise or I'll cut off your ISP!"

Jack,

If "you and me" (in translation) is good enough for the French, then I shall revel in continuing to say "It is I." I enjoy the looks of puzzlement or pain on the faces of the listeners.

I've only just realised that a hymn we sang last Sunday, first line "I the Lord of sea and sky ..." contains the line "Here I am, Lord. Is it I Lord ... " Written by Dan Scutte, it's not a terribly old one, so perhaps there's still a chance for "proper" grammar.
The trouble with it is that I always recall the first time I heard it, sung at a school assembly by my daughter and her eager faced young friends. I've got a lump in my throat and a tear in my eye even now.

Judge for yourself:
http://home.att.net/~icu8/midis/christian/i_the_lord.htm

Thanks for all the molly coddling folks . I've been offline a few days and it was a most informative, entertaining and pleasant backlog I found waiting on my return.


>> Just seems a pity that it appears to go to the lowest common denominator. <<

This thought has been a recurring theme thru-out the history of the language since those heady days when Chaucer, by virtue of saying more than anyone else -ie: he lead by example, established the foundations of modern english.

In one sense, the LCD does usually mean simpler, easier ways to express ourselves. But be assured that shortcuts only work if they can still communicate sense and meaning fully and accurately, otherwise the thinkers and poets will always find new ways to express the inexpressable.

Strangely, one of my favourite beefs, the spelling of 'rime' (as Chaucer spelled it) has only gotten more complex over time and for no real good reason except to make it look better when paired with rhythm. I think 'rime' is clearer, simpler, better.

I agree of course with Gnomon that language must evolve and that usage is the only authourity but I also consider myself a protector and defender of the faith and encourage 'proper' usage just as I might insist that a mechanic use the proper tools or a surgeon sharpen his scalpels.

But I guess everybody is prone to the LCD and in spite of my generally conservative and elitist attitude about language I have recently adopted 'thru' as the best way to spell "through'. It meets the LCD criteria, it is 'easier' and 'simpler'. What's more, it completely avoids any possible confusion with 'tough' and 'thorough', which I could never bring myself to spell 'tuff' and 'thoro'.


~jwf~

On the other hand, there's another hymn which goes:

It's me, it's me oh Lord
Standing in the need of prayer

I'll just point out that strictly speaking, the "lowest common denominator" is something greater than all the individual elements which encompasses them all. But I will accept this inexact usage of the term in English since it is commonplace, even if not correct.

Rime - as in frost - not a word used so much these days, but did you know it occurs in a sight testing reading chart? I'm interested in how many people read it correctly & know what it means, read it but say it doesn't make sense, or think it must say time.

Re evolution of language - do you think we will end up accepting double negatives as they are so frequently used?

Double negatives were common in the time of Shakespeare and are still common in certain dialects of English. (I didn't do nothin'). The reasoning that two negatives make a positive may be logical but it is not something that most people are comfortable with, leaving us puzzled when people start using constructions like "it is not unlikely that he will fail to arrive".

I don't think there will ever be a change to a situation where such constructions are considered "bad grammar", though.

While I can see a fairly strong majority who still would not naturally use a double negative, my observations (possibly out of date, due to long years of exile) show that the following constructions are on the verge of becoming the accepted:

*different than* as opposed to *different from*
*handfulls* as opposed to *handsfull*
*sorry for* rather than *sorry about* when followed by a substantive. (e.g. sorry for the mess I made. .. how can you have feelings for a mess - feelings of sympathy? But even my Mum said that the other day. She hadn't made a mess, of course, it was something else)

- distraction at work knocked the last one clean out of my mind. ... to be continued... or maybe someone else can continue it.


But definitely not the double negative.

More things catching on:

The Americanisms "presently" to mean "at present" rather than soon; and "momentarily" to mean "in a moment" rather than "for a moment".

"Progressing" things.