I am wondering if others are as inclined to say '... and me' as I am.
I would always say '... and I'.
I rarely put 'me' first except for 'me and you'.
Is this a cultural preference with regional differences?
Are there any diktats by grammarians (which I might still choose to ignore)?
Well, there is always "me, myself and I". That puts "me" first. And there always "who's on first" if "who" is "me".
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE!
I am NOT asking about whether 'I' or 'me' should be used.
I AM asking about which order you use when joining a first-person pronoun to a name or another pronoun with a conjunction.
Personally, if I use me it goes first, if I use I it goes last. Not sure why or if this is correct.
Me and my brother.
My Brother and I.
Me and my brother.
Probably makes no difference. Emphasis seems to be on the first person listed, so put that person first.
Me too.
IMO it also matters whether the I/me are the subject or object.
The group of muggers threatened to kill my brother and me.
AJ
The group of muggers threatened to kill my brother and me.
So you choose your moments when to be polite and allow others to go ahead of you?
So you choose your moments when to be polite and allow others to go ahead of you?
It's more like he's shoving his brother in front of himself. "Take him! Take him!" :)
It's more like he's shoving his brother in front of himself. "Take him! Take him!" :)
Oft-times you Americans just cannot get the British and Australian sense of humour.
That IS EXACTLY what I was implying, but it's not funny to us if you spell it to our target.
We look for some way of saying something with an innocuous feel to it - but when they think about it dawns on them, "Hey! ... That comment just insulted me!"
It's more like he's shoving his brother in front of himself. "Take him! Take him!" :)
Similarly, If you come across a wild carnivore while hiking with your friend, you don't need to outrun the carnivore. You just have to outrun your friend.
The group of muggers threatened to kill my brother and me.
'Cept, I'd always say "my brother and I". Though again, I've got no sources to defend my position.
@AJ : The group of muggers threatened to kill my brother and me.
@CW : 'Cept, I'd always say "my brother and I". Though again, I've got no sources to defend my position.
Rules number one, two, and three of personal pronoun and a noun joined by a conjunction state:
1. Try it with just the pronoun.
2. Try it with just the pronoun.
3. Try it with just the pronoun.
The group of muggers threatened to kill I. is rubbish.
The group of muggers threatened to kill me. sounds correct.
Therefore use:
The group of muggers threatened to kill my brother and me.
The group of muggers threatened to kill I. is rubbish.
The group of muggers threatened to kill me. sounds correct.
Therefore use:
The group of muggers threatened to kill my brother and me.
Or, when neither pronoun works: The group of muggers threatened to kill both my brother and his brother. 'D
The group of muggers threatened to kill both my brother and his brother.
"Take them! Take them!"
"Take them! Take them!"
"Take our parents! They're the ones who got us into this mess! Just leave our authors alone, as they clearly have nothing whatsoever to do with how we act out in a story." ')
The group of muggers threatened to kill I. is rubbish.
The group of muggers threatened to kill me. sounds correct.
Therefore use:
The group of muggers threatened to kill my brother and me.
Surely it's all about subject and object:
My Brother and I went ....... (subject, nominative in Latin))
attacked my brother and me ..... (object, accusative in Latin)
Surely it's all about subject and object:
Yes, and the way to work out whether you are dealing with the subject or object is my Rule 1, 2, & 3; see what it sounds like with just the pronoun.
I suspect that other rules might apply for 'Formal English'. I've noticed that using 'I' or 'and I' in situations where they represent the object seems to be common when formality or pretentiousness is required.
AJ
I suspect that other rules might apply for 'Formal English'.
I would state that sentiment as the rules should be strictly applied less often for Informal English.
Even CMOS (puke!) states
But in many sentences, the nominative pronoun sounds pedantic or eccentric to the modern ear, e.g. Was that he on the phone?
There's only one "rule" and it's very simple. I don't think it hurts to test how the other sounds. If they both sound acceptable I would then prefer the one which is technically correct.
@sejintenejI suspect that other rules might apply for 'Formal English'. I've noticed that using 'I' or 'and I' in situations where they represent the object seems to be common when formality or pretentiousness is required.
It very much depends on where, how and by whom you have been brought up and influenced.
If you have seen Upstairs, Downstairs or Downton Abbey you will realise that understairs staff have to speak properly and with good grammar. Formal English was all that was heard or allowed.
Indeed there were big houses where the young junior illiterate staff got two hours a day of compulsory reading, writing and arithmetic from more senior staff. Been there, done that.............
Indeed there were big houses where the young junior illiterate staff got two hours a day of compulsory reading, writing and arithmetic from more senior staff. Been there, done that.............
You get two hours off from writing every day for compulsory reading, writing and arithmetic? Your editors sound like stern task masters.
sejintenej
Indeed there were big houses where the young junior illiterate staff got two hours a day of compulsory reading, writing and arithmetic from more senior staff. Been there, done that.............
You get two hours off from writing every day for compulsory reading, writing and arithmetic? Your editors sound like stern task masters.
Standard hours were about 6am to 10pm (later if there was some type of reception), two hours off per day, half day off per week, one day off per month. The youngsters had never been to school so their two hours off were tied up in education.
and when you get the master on to you for a couple of hours for bad pronunciation .... 'bin there :-(
I'd always say "my brother and I".
Personally I wouldn't, but I think enough people agree with you to stick two fingers up to the grammar nazis.
AJ
Personally I wouldn't, but I think enough people agree with you to stick two fingers up to the grammar nazis.
In a peace sign? Why two fingers, in particular? Why not all four in a proper Nazi salute? (By the way, just as an aside, why is the "N" in "Nazi salute" capitalized. It wouldn't be for a "soldier's solute". Or is this just another case of a broken Windows spell checker?)
why is the "N" in "Nazi salute" capitalized. It wouldn't be for a "soldier's solute". Or is this just another case of a broken Windows spell checker?)
Nazi is a pronoun so it has a capital.
BTW The salute used by the Nazi Party is very old and predates them, they stole it, just as they stole and misused an ancient religious symbol for their main symbol.
As to why the 'Peace sign' is the way it is - as per Wikipedia it comes from the UK Nuclear Disarmament movement and is::
The symbol is a combination of the semaphore signals for the letters "N" and "D", standing for "nuclear disarmament". In semaphore the letter "N" is formed by a person holding two flags in an inverted "V", and the letter "D" is formed by holding one flag pointed straight up and the other pointed straight down. Superimposing these two signs forms the shape of the centre of the peace symbol.
(By the way, just as an aside, why is the "N" in "Nazi salute" capitalized.
For the same reason "Adam's apple" is capitalized. When a proper noun is used it retains the capitalization.
For the same reason "Adam's apple" is capitalized. When a proper noun is used it retains the capitalization.
Again, I wasn't thinking of "Nazi" as a name, but instead as akin to "army" in "an army salute". Dumb oversight on my part.
You'd think, after this many years after the demise of the Nazi party, that Nazi would have lost it's official name (proper noun) status and simply reverted to 'insignificant insult' status. Alas, one can always dream, thought that's like hoping "Trump" eventually becomes only a bad memory.
You'd think, after this many years after the demise of the Nazi party, that Nazi would have lost it's official name (proper noun) status and simply reverted to 'insignificant insult'
Hasn't happened to the Clerk of the Green Wax, and that's over 500 years ago, the Whirling Dervishes are from the 19th century and still get a mention, so why should something in living memory be totally forgotten yet?
You'd think, after this many years
It's not really a matter of time, but whether the use still literally refers to the proper noun.
* spartan has no capital because it no longer means something related to the city of Sparta
* Platonic philosophy does have a capital because it relates to the ideas of Plato.
* spartan has no capital because it no longer means something related to the city of Sparta
* Platonic philosophy does have a capital because it relates to the ideas of Plato.
* Spartan requires a capital when referring to a model of van once available in the UK.
* I can't remember platonic relationship ever having a capital.
Don't you just love English!
AJ
Don't you just love English!
English, yes!
The English, no!
Don't you just hate smartarse Aussies?
