Conference thebay::joyoflex

I always had trouble with your second example until I learned this simple
rule: Get rid of the compound object and see how it sounds.

For example: Is it "He gave it to her and I" or "He gave it to her and me"?

Make it "He gave it to I" and "He gave it to me"..."me" wins.

-- Bill

re; .1

Is that a "rule of thumb"?

- chuck

Dave Barry says that the rule is: "No matter how you use 'me,' it's wrong."

JP

  re "... and I"

  This is my impression:  In years past, the mistake was to use "... and me" 
  incorrectly (e.g. "You and me should get together sometime") but now, as a
  result of over-correction, "... and I" is wrongly used (e.g. "Just between
  you and I, this is silly").

--Simon

Yup, just as people overuse "whom" to avoid under-using "who".  It's become
a matter of elegance and formality more than of grammar:  to sound "classy",
use "I", "whom", etc.; when you're just jivin', use "me", "who", etc.

				David Larrick

A further and, to me, equally annoying misuse of case is "-self" as in:

"You can send it to myself."

or:

"Mrs Mumble and myself will be in town that week."

Does anyone out there know the origin of this egregious error?


Cheers,
Dick

It really is quite easy.  I is the nominative (id est, the subject) pronoun.
Me is the dative or accusative (id est, the object) pronoun.  As in the case
of who versus whom, who is the nominative pronoun, whom the dative or
accusative pronoun.  If who is not the nominative subject, then the word whom
should be used.  That means if the verb has a subject other than the word who,
you should be using whom.  Nota bene, sometimes who is used in conjunction to
another subject, but in the nominative case, exempli gratia, "Who are you?"

Yah. What he said...

--- jerry

Re: .2 et al

The rules of common American grammar include these three:

1. When in doubt, use "I."
2. When in doubt, use "Whom."
3. When in doubt, put in the apostrophe.

Re: .3

The "Rule of Thumb" is a test in English common law. When a husband beats his wife, it is proper discipline if the switch is no larger in diameter than the
husband's thumb. Larger, and he can be charged with abuse (but if she tries it,
wait until they get home!)

I use the expression less since I found out where it comes from.

Rob

Re: #9

  Perhaps you are quite right when you say that the "rules of common American
grammer includes these..."  but the rules themselves are wrong for properly
spoken English (or if you would prefer, American).  Americans seem to do
exactly what you outlined in the rules, but why is there any doubt?  Is it that
hard to know when 'its' is a contraction of 'it is' versus the possesive
pronoun (as in 'his/her/its item')?  Who has a verb (who is a subjective
pronoun), whom is the objective of something (id est, whom has no verb).
Likewise with I, I is a subject, it has a verb.  Me is an object, it has no
verb.  I cringe everytime I hear Survivor's recent song where the lead singer
sings 'to you & I.'  I would normally provide the title, but I refuse to listen
to it, mainly because it irks me so, I change the station when I hear it.

  Is it really that much to ask that we learn our own language?  In most other
countries the educated people speak at least one other language other than
their native one, and many foreigners whom I have heard here speak English
better than many college graduates in this country.

Re .9

>The rules of common American grammar include these three:
>
>1. When in doubt, use "I."
>2. When in doubt, use "Whom."
>3. When in doubt, put in the apostrophe.

It seems that to me that people in our industry, especially, over-use 
nominative case and apostrophes.  See my earlier flame about misuse of 
apostrophes.  The rules above would do well for most people, but I would add 
some for our business:

1a.  Never use 'I', 'she', or 'he' at the end of a sentence.
3a.  If you are sure that it needs an apostrophe, think again.  If it isn't a 
computer word, it probably doesn't, except for contractions ending with 
n-apostrophe-t.
4.  Nothing, but nothing, ends in y-s.  It ends in i-e-s, and it doesn't need 
an apostrophe, either.

Programmerese:  They left some Twinky's on the table for you and I.
Corrected:      They left some Twinkies on the table for you and me.


Dave C.

I was reading about English grammar, and it was forced upon us as the middle
classes rose from mere workers to the middle class via the industrial
revolution.  The middle class wanted to sound educated, as were the upper
class, so grammar rules for English went wild, and the elite followed suit.
Therefore rules such as using the nominative at the end of a sentence
(correctly, even though the previous notes would dispute this) when used with
the verb to be and with comparisons using 'than or as.'  You answer the
telephone and the caller tells you that he would like to speak to you (stating
your name, not 'you.')  You say, "This is he." or "This is she."  That is
awkward, but correct.  Why?  Because it sounded elite and some grammarian
invented the rule at this point in time when the classes were trying to
ameliorate their speech.  Likewise with something along these lines:  "He is
richer than I."  Or "You are as sunburned as I."  The reason for this last one
is that the subject (nominative) pronoun replaces the idea of "I am," therefore
one should not use 'me.'  We all do it, and with all good reason.  We are not
putting the verb after 'I,' so we should be using 'me.'  This is something that
will be a definite change in our language, a logical change for the better.  I
must admit that I feel quite comfortable saying 'than me' or 'as me,' as well
as saying 'than I' or 'as I,' but I am not at all comfortable in saying 'This
is he' or 'This is him.'  I avoid it by saying something banal like 'Speaking'
or 'That's me.'  My French teacher said that the French will often avoid using
the awkward subjunctive (which no longer exists in English) by saying what they
want to say differently.  Even the French, with their 'Academie Francaise,' are
not able to keep their language from evolving.

re: 2 

1a.  Dave is clever, isn't he?  He said a sentence can never end in "he". 

3a. One of Dave's rules is never to use an apostrophe except in a contraction. 
His performance review had far too many 1's and too few 4's. 

4.  He tries to find words that end in "ys" and fails. Later he plays around
and discovers that a word ending in "y" and preceded by a vowel is spelled
as a plural ending in "ys". 

Pat Sweeney 

Re .13.

Thanks, Pat.  (When you said, "Re 2," you meant "Re .11," right?)

It just goes to show that one should never make categorical statements.
No rule has no exception.

Dave C.

re:  14

  Dave, probably what was meant was re:  -2.

Re .13 --

I think Dave should have 4s on his performance review (not 4's), just as
I was born in the 50s and the current decade is the 80s.

DECsystem-10s are nice, also `11s, but something bothers me about 
VAXs, VAX's, VAXes... I go with either VAXen or "VAX systems" 
(in the LAWS NotesFile somebody said it should legally be "VAX computers").

        -mg_

re:.16

I beg to differ. It is perfectly correct to use apostrophes in plurals of
numbers and letters. Thus, "4's" or "B's" is correct, whereas "4s" or "Bs"
is not.

--- jerry

In the Laws Notes file I was pointing out that a trademark is the name of a
brand of a product.  The most famous examples are Robert Young insisting
that it be called "Sanka brand de-caffinated coffee."  Also, "Band-Aid brand
adhesive bandages."

What's next?  "VAX brand 32-bit super-minicomputers"  "UNIX brand computer
operating system".  Isn't it silly?


Pat Sweeney

Re .17 and its antecedents

     The decision of whether a symbol requires just an 's' or an apostrophe
followed by an 's' is based on whether the symbol is a name for itself or for
something else.  If it is the name for something else, it does not need the
apostrophe. 

     Four 4s make sixteen.  ('4' is the name of a number, not of the symbol
enclosed in single quotation marks at the beginning of this parenthetical 
sentence.)  There are two 4's in the first line of this paragraph.  One way of 
looking at this is that the apostrophe used in making the plural of a symbol 
naming itself obviates the need for surrounding it in single quotation marks.

     The rule put forth here about symbols is usually applied to acronyms, 
whether or not they are written with periods or spaces.  ICBMs (note the 
casing):  more than one missile;  ICBM's more than occurrence of the symbol 
'ICBM'.

Dave "Picky" C.

Re previous:

That sounds worse than the DCL rules for using quotation marks and apostrophes!

Re previous sentence:
I spelled out the words "quotation marks" and "apostrophes" because I haven't
the faintest idea of how to quote quotation marks in English!

re .1

That's the best rule of all:  if you aren't sure how to use special symbols
without confusing the reader, write it out in words.  Or something like that.

Dave C.

re .-1

I agree. If you're really bent on confusing someone and you can't do it
by using symbols, then *the* most effective way is to spell it out.

I just read this note after a pointer from somewhere else - thought it was
recent till I spotted the year!

Re: .12 - who says the subjunctive in English is dead??  I only wish it were!!

Jeff.

     I used to be as much of a snob as the next fellow when it comes
to how I like my English, but I've come to the conclusion that
absolutely everyone speaks his native language *PERFECTLY*  . . . 
according to the rules as he knows them.  Why would anyone actually
waste his time thinking up ways to abuse the language, and make that
deliberate abuse seem perfectly unselfconscious? 

     To make an extreme example, would you expect someone from the
inner city to have the same set of experiences, including language
patterns, as someone who has lived on Beacon Hill and has gone to
private schools all his life? 

     What we are actually so selfrighteous and stuck up about is our
educations and cultural backgrounds, and the way we speak is one of
the fastest and clearest indications thereof. 

    <Ethnic> in Harvard Square: "Hey man, can you tell me where Harvard
    is at?"
    
    "One does not end a sentence with a preposition in Harvard Square."
    
    "Oh.  Sorry.  Can you tell me where Harvard is at, asshole?"

    Speaking of wrong use of apostrophes, I just had a laugh.  On our
    supply cabinet, typed neatly on a 3x5 index card, is a label.
    Actually, the label appears repeated on several draws.  Here's
    what it says:
    
    
    			SUPPLIE'S
    
    
    Isn't this kind of funny ?  I'm not really making fun of Claudia,
    if in fact she did it, or they were printed before she started working
    here.  I just think it's one of the epitomes I've seen yet.
    
    /Eric

      Re .27
      
      Several draws?  Do you mean several drawers?
      
      Dave C.

Re: .28:

	Yes, sorry.  I just checked the file cabinet.  The card only
	appears on TWO draws.

	Hence "several" is incorrect, since that implies at least
	three, right ? (as long as we're getting technical).

/Eric

Drawer: one who draws drawers drawing their drawers.

      Re .29
      
      But what is a draw in a file cabinet?  Those things that slide
      in and out and into which you can put things are drawers.

      Re .30
      
      ... in her/his drawers?
      
      Dave C.

Re .27:

>  ...  I just think it's one of the epitomes I've seen yet.

I didn't think "epitome" could be used without "of ..." appearing in
the same sentence or immediately before.  Also, can one have "one of"
an (?) epitome, or just THE epitome?  What do others think? 

Gabriel.

    Since an "epitome" is a single thing which best represents a class
    of like items, we would normally see it used in the singular:
    
         He is the epitome of ......
    
    However, if we are referring to several classes of items, each with
    it's own epitome, we would then have a collection of epitomes...a
    gathering of the elite.  A member of the collection would be "...one
    of the epitomes..." and it need not be specified as to which class
    of which it was the epitome. 
    
    In other words, if you stretch it a little, the plural may be OK.
    

    	RE: .-1
    
    	I realize that it's been a long time since this note, but to
    have it appear under this particular topic, of all things!!!
    
>    However, if we are referring to several classes of items, each with
>>>> it's own epitome, we would then have a collection of epitomes...a
>    gathering of the elite.  A member of the collection would be "...one
    
    I'm sure the writer meant "its own...", right?
    
    BTW, as far as the other comments on the use of apostrophes, using
    an earlier example, I would typically use '... 4 ICBMs per location
    ...', but '... 4 "ICBM"s in the previous sentence ...' (note the
    literal string enclosed in quotes, rather than the previously-mentioned
    apostrophe).

    	Frank