In the closing sentences of last week’s column about Super Bowl and Super Tuesday, I unwittingly set off some readers’ usage alarms. Talking about terms like Tsunami Tuesday and Super-Duper Tuesday, I wrote: “But none of these amplified epithets have managed to displace good old Super Tuesday.” That’s right — I used none with the plural verb have instead of singular has. I then continued: “A Google News search currently finds nearly 20,000 articles referencing Super Tuesday in the past month, compared to less than 1,000 for Super-Duper Tuesday and less than 500 for Tsunami Tuesday.” Less than 1,000, less than 500? Not fewer? Eagle-eyed commenters were to quick to pick up on both of these usage points. I’d like to say I hid these in the column as a test for readers, but I wasn’t that clever. It does provide a good opportunity, however, to take a look at two of the more contentious debates over English usage in modern times.
(more…)
Share This
For the past few decades, Lake Superior State University has issued an annual “List of Words Banished from the Queen’s English for Misuse, Overuse and General Uselessness.” Candidates for “banished words” are nominated by the public at large, and then a committee decides on the final selection, which is released every year on New Year’s Day. The 2008 list is a typical mix of terms deemed by the committee to be clichéd, improperly used, or objectionable in some other way, with a particular emphasis on management-speak, Internet lingo, and youth slang. Of course, the LSSU list is never effective in actually banning words — in fact, some words from years past have flourished quite successfully (“online” in 1996, “9-11” in 2002, “blog” in 2005). In general, the list is most informative as a barometer of pet peeves about language: what is it that gets under people’s skin, so much so that they think words (or particularly disliked senses of words) should be removed from the lexicon forthwith?
(more…)
Share This
Of the 22 replies about the "Fred and me" "me and Fred" thing waiting when I got up this morning, there were a few who said things like, As far as I remember from my parents' childhood teachings, it is considered sort of impolite to put oneself first when naming several people and I also grew up being told by my parents to always list myself last as well -- so you say my friends and I went to the store, not I and my friends... In terms of where it originates, I grew up in the States, but I think the grammar lesson came from my English father. But as far as I know it's a convention only - more about politeness than correct grammar. It's only the me/I distinction that's cold hard grammatical rules..
I can't imagine saying "I and Fred went to market" because it sounds wrong....
There was one that seemed to have got the whole thing a bit upside down, which I'm posting in case anyone else is puzzling over it...
Interesting about the me first or last thing, but it is somewhat irrelevant, because if one looks at the sentence and the dependent clause, "me" is incorrect anyway as it should be I as part of the plural subject of the word "chatting." So "Susanna and I chatting" or "I and Susanna chatting" is the object of "hear" but you made the common mistake of using "me" thinking of it being the object of "hear."
Not that you need a grammar lesson from a veterinarian, but I could not keep it to myself.
Shera
(Um, probably you should have done. You're suggesting that the sentence should have read And for those of you who want to hear we chatting (or who missed it because of the fire alarm...) or, removing Susanna from the sentence (an easy way to check your Is and Mes), And for those of you who want to hear I chatting (or who missed it because of the fire alarm...) which is slightly wrong unless you're in those parts of rural England in which it's perfectly fine.)
This was the most definitive of all the replies...
This is not a question but rather a response to yours. "Me and..." constructions are just as grammatically correct as "...and me" constructions, when usage suits them. Which, to be frank, yours did. I've never heard of citing "me" last as a preferred method of construction, and I've been a bona fide "Gloomy Grammarian" most of my life.
That said, in the "I could be wrong" vein, coupled with the "now I'll be up all night wondering" urge, I consulted a few books. "The Style Booklet" (David Sonstroem, University of Connecticut) says nothing useful, nor does the Associated Press style manual. Margaret Shertzer's "The Elements of Grammar" spends a great deal of time on nominative (I, you, she, he, etc) and objective (me, you, her, him, etc.) case personal pronouns but cites no preference for the specific order in which said pronouns should appear. "The Elements of Style," that Strunk and White classic, also speaks of the nominative and objective forms of personal pronouns but does not cite specific order as preferred. Finally, the college textbook "Analyzing English Grammar", fourth ed., Thomas P. Klammer, Muriel R. Schulz, and Angela Della Volpe, authors, examines personal pronouns at length and never cites a word order preference. I did not check the MLA handbook, but I imagine its focus is less on usage and more on proper citation (as it should be).
Now - one thing I did notice is that, by and large, many of the examples presented tended to be in the "she and I," "him and me" order. Perhaps your reader has used this prevalence to inform his (or her?) understanding that this order is, in fact, the correct usage? If so, that would be an error of quantity rather than kind - BUT "me and him" and "him and me" are equally grammatically correct, in their contexts as personal pronouns used in the objective.
In short (too late!), as far as I can tell, you and I are correct in our assumptions about when to use "me and Catherine," or "Catherine and me." It's a matter of personal preference, really.
And yes, now that it is 4:00 AM, eastern standard time, I can at last rest easy in my understanding of pronoun usage. Can you tell I am about to earn my Master of Arts degree in English?
Sincerely, yet somehow also Grammatically Yours-
Patricia Lafayllve
and this one, which made me smile, and may have something to do with it...
Sure, I've been told it's generally good form to put yourself last, but in this case, the sentence you wrote was iambic. Had the words been reversed, it would not be thus, and therefore less pleasant to read.
Cheers,
Annie
You mentioned that they used CGI to ".... cover Charlie Cox's naked torso because it would bring down America." Do you know if they are planning to restore the scene (and any others they deemed too adult for us Americans) in the DVD release? ~lindac
I don't know. I'm sure there will be some stuff that was cut, but I have no idea what... (ghosts I hope. Lots of really funny ghost bits went away.)
The signing was fun and, er, long -- probably the longest lunchtime signing I've done, which I wasn't really expecting. I played with the Japanese brush-pens a lot. I like the way that sometimes good drawings you don't expect come out of your brush.
Working on article about fairy tales for the Guardian right now, and they've also put an interview from several months ago up -- http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/sciencefiction/story/0,,2177992,00.html
and a pretty simple quiz that could win two pairs of tickets to the Criterion Event on Tuesday night at http://books.guardian.co.uk/competition/0,,2177394,00.html
The Times did an interview with Matthew Vaughn about directing Stardust, at http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article2538898.ece
Not a question but a heads up on the Latest Dork Tower strip:
http://archive.gamespy.com/comics/dorktower/archive.asp?nextform=viewcomic&id=1286
I am sure others have pointed this out as well but hey ho.
Nope. You were first.
Which reminds me that John Kovalic sent me one of these -- http://dreamlandtoyworks.com/my_little_cthulhu.html and it has become of my favourite toys...
Hey Neil, Just watched the Beowulf trailer - very snazzy - but I wondered, is it too late to get that fella to put a shirt on? Or maybe the Photoshop guy could airbrush one on or something? It is all a bit disturbing and a bit Conan. :-) Thanks,Pete
Yup. Too late. That longship has sailed. Oddly, though, in the morning scene in the Inn in the Stardust film, Charlie Cox is wearing a CGI shirt, because there were concerns that his naked torso could bring down America.
I was wondering if you knew if the stage production of Wolves in the Walls would be playing anywhere other than New York. I live in Chicago and would absolutely love to go (and take my mother, who is also a huge fan) but just can't afford to make it to NY. You have a huge Midwest following - which I am sure you already know, and I know it would be a hit out here. Thank you for your time and help. Jessica
Not that I know of at this time. When I hear anything, I'll post it here. If you have an appropriate local theatre, tell them you want to see it. You never know...
And this last one really puzzled me, mostly because it's citing something I can't recall encountering before. I'm on the road, so couldn't check the reference works I'd usually look at,
Dear Neil,
Hi! Sounds like you're having quite the time traipsing 'round the world!
So, to business:
You have written something in your blog that set off my "pet peeve alert." :
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE
Do not use "me and him." (Your actual statement was "me and Susanna.")
Naming oneself first, rather than last, drives me crazy!
It used to be that only uneducated people talked that way, but now I hear it everywhere, even out of the mouths, and blogs, of People Who Should Know Better.
I realize that a) language changes, and legitimately so, over time, and b) you are using a more casual voice when blogging
But, still, let's set a Good Example for those impressionable readers out there!
(And would Neil Gaiman, master of the English language, actually say "me and ...?" I shudder to imagine that.)
Carefully stepping down from my soapbox, and wishing you a Chag Sukkot Sameach and Shabbat Shalom!
-Randi Suss
So the sentence in question began And for those of you who want to hear me and Susanna Clarke chatting ... which is grammatically just fine, at least the way that I was taught grammar. I googled and saw no problems with that construction at http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutgrammar/meandi where they give several mayor-and-party-based examples...
Me and my friend went to a party last night. [Wrong]
I and my friend went to a party last night.
My friend and me went to a party last night. [Wrong]
My friend and I went to a party last night.
The mayor has invited me and my husband.
The mayor has invited I and my husband. [Wrong]
The mayor has invited my husband and me.
The mayor has invited my husband and I. [Wrong]
...and then I tried randomly googling "you and me" (2.7 million) vs "me and you" (2.5 million), then "me and my friends" (about 2 million examples) and "my friends and me" (168,000 examples), and decided that if there was a general "me second" rule it was one that wasn't very well known. Is this a North American rule? Is it something I've missed? Definitive links or quotes from Fowler are welcome...
Read the rest of this post
Last week for my inaugural column here at OUPblog I talked about how new words bubble up into the English lexicon and how Oxford lexicographers judge which ones deserve inclusion in new editions of our dictionaries. But we’re keeping tabs on many other more subtle aspects of our changing language beyond the flashy lexical newcomers. Take spelling errors, for instance. Dictionaries are, of course, expected to give the standard spellings of words and phrases, reflecting what is generally considered the most correct and acceptable in written English. But sometimes common misspellings tell us fascinating things about how writers navigate the tricky waters of English orthography. And sometimes once-nonstandard spellings become so widely accepted that they even (gasp) make it into the pages of the dictionary. (more…)
Share This
