<br>
<br>
<p>Not silly and pedantic at all. If you want to hear clearly how wrong that is, take out the “and my friend” part and say it again. If you are ever in doubt whether to use “me” or “I” take out the other person and say it again. It will sound either fine or jarringly incorrect. Use that as your guide.</p>
<p>Example:
Me and my friend went to the movies.</p>
<p>or</p>
<p>My friend and I went to the movies.</p>
<p>Take your friend out both sentences and see how they sound.</p>
<p>I am well aware of that reasoning, but you are misunderstanding the way that language works. You’d be hard-pressed to find an English speaker who misunderstands the sentence “me and my friend went to the movies.” People speak in this manner because it makes sense to them and to their audience. In fact, if a linguistic construction does not make sense to its speakers, it would quickly disappear because it has no communicative value. That is a simple linguistic rule. Do not impose your own logic on the way that people speak and have spoken for many years. If it has survived thus far, it is clearly an effective means of communication that makes perfect sense in the community in which it is spoken. </p>
<p>this is taken from elsewhere:
“When a person says something like “me, too,” he or she is not speaking “incorrectly,” but it may SEEM that they are because people tend to have a simplistic and thus inaccurate understanding of the definitions of words. In this particular example, the word “me” is used not to signify a first person direct or indirect object, as it is commonly used, but rather it is used to signify a first person subject. The linguistic principle is that words take on different meanings in different contexts, and though “me” is usually used as an object, there are instances, such as this one, when it can be used as a subject, and the listener will have no problem understanding the speaker. No one takes the pronoun “me” in this sentence to be an object. I find this type of complexity in language beautiful, as well – it’s not that someone who says “me, too” is misusing English, but rather that the rules of English are much more complex than we can easily define.”</p>
<p>
Yes, the prejudice against infinitive-splitting began as a kind of scholarly deference to Latin grammar, but it never made any sense. In Latin one can’t, therefore in English one mustn’t?!? </p>
<p>In fact, the possibility of splitting infinitives is one of the things that gives English its richness and subtlety. Consider the following three clauses:</p>
<p>To boldly go where no man has gone before.
Boldly to go where no man has gone before.
To go boldly where no man has gone before.</p>
<p>All three correct, all three meaning essentially the same thing–but differing in rhythm, emphasis and imaginative impact.</p>
<p>Same thing with stranded prepositions, only more so. Stranding prepositions is often really necessary to make meaning clear, because the preposition is closely bound to a verb from which it must be separated if it is not to be stranded. For instance:</p>
<p>You’re the one I have dreamed of.</p>
<p>A pedant might correct this to,</p>
<p>You’re the one of whom I have dreamed.</p>
<p>This is no more correct than the first version, and it doesn’t express the meaning nearly as well, because “to dream of” is a phrase that has a specific meaning in our language that is more than the sum of its parts. Separate “dream” from “of” and meaning is lost.</p>
<p>Nightchef, if this was Facebook, I would like your post.</p>
<p>May I pipe in here with a couple of pet peeves?</p>
<p>I hate it when people use an apostrophe to indicate a plural such as “rooster’s” when they mean “roosters”. Another one is the “overuse” of “quotation marks”. Drives me “nut’s”.</p>
<p>I have never been good at grammar or spelling. I could never understand sentence diagramming, never know when to say who or whom and my eyes glaze over when someone says adverb, adjective or pronoun. I somewhat know the proper use of apostrophes and can not stand when someone says anyways instead of anyway. </p>
<p>However, I know many people who are very good at grammar that get that same puzzled or glazed look I get when discussing grammar when I start discussing math. Mathematics was always my best subject and it will always make more sense to me.</p>
<p>Oh, I heartily agree – relying on Latin logic for English usage is silly! I was just pointing out that somewhere in the past there was a reasonable explanation for doing things that way.</p>
<p>But that’s sort of how grammar evolves, is it not? We’re told a way to do something based on the way it’s been done in the past for the sake of comprehension. Over time, things bend to the context. Eventually, it devolves into a terrible argument over whether one is correct in saying “X” when intending “Y” and suddenly you get X=Y and no one even “gets” why it used to be X in the first place, it sounds so wrong.</p>
<p>I’ve had an “ear” for English grammar and spelling since I was very little. This stuff is fascinating to me!</p>
<p>I do have to admit, though, that seeing a blatant grammatical error will turn me off from the product or service being advertised. I’m not talking who vs. whom or which vs. that, but plurals using an apostrophe or a misused homonym like their/they’re/there. Then/than has been popping up more and more lately, too!</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Not being misunderstood by an English speaker is an exceedingly low bar for proper usage. English speakers don’t have any trouble understanding “Me went to the movies” either, but that doesn’t mean it’s good English. It contains exactly the same error as “Me and my friend went to the movies,” and they are equally lousy English.</p>
<p>Go ahead and write “me and my friend…” in your freshman Expos writing course at Harvard and see how far you get with that.</p>
<p>Undecided–I do understand the difference between their/there/they’re, then/than and accept/except. But I would still rather calculate statistics.</p>
<p>
Actually I disagree with your first point here. English speakers (at least American English speakers) would understand “Me went to the movies,” but there would definitely be a brief processing “hiccup” on the listener’s part because this expression is so completely unsupported by colloquial usage.</p>
<p>
It contains the same error, yes, but they are not equally lousy English. Usage matters.</p>
<p>coureur, you’ve twisted my argument and ignored my key points. It’s quite rude. I believe I very clearly stated that I DO believe in strict rules for written language. And by the way, I wrote an essay in my applications to Harvard and Yale about my rejection of such prescription as yours, and I was admitted by both of them. I know this comes off as arrogant, but your condescension warrants it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This quotation demonstrates that you have no comprehension whatsoever of my second paragraph, which describes a very basic linguistic phenomenon.</p>
<p>And you’re more than welcome to, morrismm! In fact, I’m grateful you do – I certainly have no interest. ;)</p>
<p>That’s a point I try to stick to. Some people are better at, and more mindful of, certain things. I happen to be stuck on grammar and spelling. I roll my eyes at friends who continually use the wrong homonym or wrong word in their Facebook statuses, but I rarely point it out to them. If I’m at the grocery store, though, and I see a sign for “Banana’s,” it’s a pretty sure bet that I’m annoyed and far less likely to make a purchase. It stands out as a red flag to me. If the company can’t be bothered to use apostrophes and plurals correctly, what else do they not bother to do correctly? </p>
<p>Does that seem oversensitive?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Unfortunately, I comprehend it just fine. I simply disagree with it - that and the whole purely Descriptionist approach to grammar, spelling, and usage. You, on other other hand, appear to have taken Lewis Carroll rather too seriously:</p>
<p>“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.”</p>
<p>The messy truth lies between prescriptionism and descriptionism. The descriptionists are right that rules governing language have always derived from the consent (or at least the practice) of the governed, and therefore have always changed, and will continue to change, as actual usage changes. In that sense, Humpty Dumpty is quite right–if he speaks on behalf of the entire community of language speakers, and not as a lone eccentric. </p>
<p>At the same time, the prescriptionists are right that wise writers will not want to be on the cutting edge of grammatical change; if we want to write clearly and convincingly, we should follow the rules as we find them in our particular here and now. But the best writing will come from those who follow rules with understanding, not slavishly, and who know how, when and why to break them.</p>
<p>If I needed bananas, undecided, I sure wouldn’t let the incorrect use of an apostrophe keep me from buying them. lol My banana cream pie would not be the same.</p>
<p>The thing about English usage versus math is that you can go through your whole life and avoid any discussion of math (and I would add, Thank God, for my sake) and math errors are often discovered and discussed privately. However, short of never speaking, you really can’t go through life without using English. Additionally, grammar errors make people appear uneducated and I am nearly certain that no self-respecting CCer wants that.</p>
<p>There is a Facebook page called, “Let’s eat, Grandma. How punctuation saves lives.” Or something to that effect. “Let’s eat grandma” has a very different meaning.</p>
<p>A short grammar book I like is called “Under the Grammar Hammer.” The author lists the 25 most common errors people make. He ranks them from what he views as the most serious to the least serious. Subject-verb agreement errors are number one because he calls them social markers. </p>
<p>Anyway, Happy July Fourth.</p>
<p>Ah, on the contrary, coureur, I recognize that Carroll’s quote is untrue. I recognize that languages follow complex rules (if they did not, the languages would not work. Period.), and that these rules are far to complex to be limited by some pseudo-logic. I recognize the richness of language and simple linguistic theory better than you seem to. I recognize the futility and arrogance of imposing arbitrary rules on a group that speaks a language that is perfectly intelligible, unique, and that serves its purpose. </p>
<p>I’m off of this thread.</p>
<p>far to complex? you did that on purpose, right?</p>
<p>I forgot to add: enjoy your little tantrum.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Shouldn’t it be, if this were Facebook.</p>
<p>One of my pet peeves…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have read quite a few sources that condone the use of the indicative mood in such a context if one is writing informally. Technically, however, you are correct.</p>