next »

[dessang]

I work in an International School. Colleagues (teachers) who are english native speakers always say: "You and me are..." or "Me and my friend are going to..." or "Between you and I.." This confuses me, since I was taught that it is should be "You and I" or "My friend and I.." and "Between you and me".   Did I learn something wrong or miss out something in school? Or is the english speakers usage of "me" and "I" grammatically correct and I am wrong?
Help..

D.

[Joe Carillo]

Even if those colleagues of yours are native English speakers, they are definitely grammatically wrong in how they compounded the subjects in “You and me are...”, wrong in how they compound the doers of the action in “Me and my friend are going to...”, and wrong again in how they compounded the objects in “Between you and I.” The correct way to compound them is, as you’ve pointed out, as follows:

Compound subject: “You and I are…”
Compound doers of the action: “My friend and I are going to…”
Compound objects: “Between you and me…”

It seems to me that your colleagues think they have the upper hand in grammar and usage simply because they are native English speakers, but they are wrong in that belief. They seem to be unaware of the importance of avoiding mixed-case usage in English. By being too colloquial and cavalierly with the language, they are obviously not practicing what they are preaching to their students. And if they have managed to confuse you with their errant grammar, they must be confusing their students as well. I just hope that this situation in your school will not go on uncorrected.

It will be a bit complicated to show that your colleagues are wrong, but let’s make the effort and go through the process now. I’m sure it will be worthwhile for you and for others who may not be conversant with the grammar rules involved here. So here goes…

The Matter of Case

Remember the matter of case in English? Case is any of the three forms that a noun, pronoun, or modifier takes to indicate its functional role in a sentence, whether nominative or subjective, objective, or possessive. We need to understand these case forms very well to be able to combine nouns and pronouns properly when constructing sentences.

1.   Nominative or subjective case – Nouns or pronouns are in the nominative case when they perform the verb’s action (doer of the action), and are in the subjective case when they act as the subject of the sentence.

Example:

Nominative:
“The woman slapped him.”
[The noun “woman” is in the nominative case because it is the doer of the action]
         
“She slapped him.”
[The pronoun “she” is in the nominative case because it is the doer of the action]

Subjective:   
“The woman is lovely.”
[The noun “woman” is in the subjective case because it is the subject of the sentence]

“She is lovely.”
[The pronoun “she” is in the subjective case because it is the subject of the sentence]

2.   Objective case – Nouns or pronouns are in the objective case when they receive the verb’s action or act as the direct or indirect object of a sentence.

Examples:
“The woman slapped Mario.”
[The noun “Mario” is in the objective case, serving as a direct object of the verb “slapped”]

“The woman slapped him.”
[The pronoun “him” is in the objective case, serving as a direct object of the verb “slapped”]

“The woman slipped Mario a note.”
[The noun “Mario” is in the objective case, serving as the indirect object of the verb “slipped”]

“The woman slipped him a note.”
[The pronoun “him” is in the objective case, serving as an indirect object of the verb “slipped]

3.   Possessive case – Nouns or pronouns are in the possessive case when they indicate who or what possesses or owns something.

Examples:
“This seat is mine while that one is yours.”
[Both “mine” and “yours” are possessive pronouns]

“Theirs is the glory while ours is the hard work.”
[Both “theirs” and “ours” are possessive pronouns]

As I’m sure you already know very well, the possessive case is actually the simplest of the three cases in English. They are virtually no-brainers so we need not take them up in detail here.

The Case Rule in English 

Now, so we can properly compound nouns and pronouns or use them in combination as subjects, doers of the action, or direct or indirect objects, we must observe the so-called case rule in English.

Before discussing the case rule, however, we need to keep firmly in mind this very important characteristic of nouns in English: even if nouns do take a particular case when used in sentences, they don’t change form or inflect except in the possessive case; in contrast, the pronouns change form or inflect in all of the cases.

Specifically, nouns don’t change form or inflect at all in the nominative or subjective case as well as in the objective case. For instance, the noun “Elvira” will be “Elvira” in all those three cases. (In the possessive case, of course, the noun changes form or inflects to “Elvira’s.” That’s all.)

With this qualification about the difference between nouns and pronouns, we are now ready to take up the case rule in English.

The case rule: A noun and pronoun being used in combination to form a compound subject, a compound doer of the action, or a compound object of the verb should both be in the same case; otherwise, the sentence will be grammatically incorrect.

In practice, we don’t have to consciously apply the case rule in the following situations: when the compound subject of the sentence consists of both nouns, when the compound doer of the action consists of both nouns, and when the compound receiver of the action consists of both nouns. This is because nouns don’t inflect or change at all in all such cases, as I explained earlier.

It is actually when a noun and pronoun—or a pronoun and another pronoun—are combined to form compound subjects, compound doers of the action, or compound objects or receivers of the action that the proper application of the case rule becomes crucial. The case rule provides that we can’t mix a noun and pronoun—or a pronoun and another pronoun—that are in different cases. When we do, the resulting sentence construction becomes grammatically incorrect.

Here are examples of disallowed case mixing:

1.   Mixing a noun and the objective-case pronoun “me”

Wrong:
“Jenny and me like each other.”
(The noun “Jenny” is in the nominative case but the pronoun “me” is in the objective case, resulting in case mixing.)

Correct:
“Jenny and I like each other.”
(Both the noun “Jenny” and the pronoun “I” are now in the nominative case.)

2.   Mixing the nominative-case pronoun “you” with the objective-case pronoun “me”

Wrong:
“You and me should travel together sometime.”
(The pronoun “you” is in the nominative case and the pronoun “me” is in the objective case, resulting in case mixing.)

Correct:
“You and I should travel together sometime.”
(Both “you” and “I” are in the nominative case.)

This brings us to your colleagues’ mixed-case construction:
“Me and my friend are going to...”
(The pronoun “me” is in the objective case while the noun “my friend” is in the nominative case, resulting in case-mixing.)

Correct:
“I and my friend are going to…”
(Both the pronoun “I” and the noun “my friend” are now in the nominative case.)
 
Better still (as matter of good form):
“My friend and I are going to…”

3.   Mixing the objective case “you” and the nominative case “I”

Wrong:
“Our neighbors are nasty to you and I.”
(The pronoun “you” is in the objective case while the pronoun “I” is in the subjective case, resulting in case mixing.)

Correct:
“Our neighbors are nasty to you and me.”
(The pronouns “you” and “me” are now both in the objective case.)

4.   Mixing the objective case “me” and the subjective case “they”

Wrong:
“I wish they were nicer to me and they.”
(The pronoun “me” is in the objective case while the pronoun “they” is in the subjective case, resulting in case mixing.)

Correct:
“I wish they were nicer to me and them.”
(The pronouns “me” and “them” are now both in the objective case.)

I think we’re done now in clarifying the case rule in English. All we need to do now is to see if your colleagues’ usage of “Between you and I…” is correct. It’s true that some grammarians still insist that the use of the nominative case “I” in this phrase is correct, but it’s now generally accepted that the objective case pronoun “me” is the formally correct usage here, as in this sentence: “This secret is just between you and me.”

So, Dessang, you absolutely didn’t learn something wrong or miss out something in school. It’s your colleagues who are definitely wrong in their mixed-case constructions. They are evidently clueless about the case rule in English and it will be great if you can somehow bring this discussion to their attention—the sooner, the better.

[maxsims]

cavalierlywith the language?

Do you say "It's me" or "It's I" when asked by someone you know to identify yourself through a closed door?

[Joe Carillo]

Yes, “cavalierly.” When someone talks in a manner that’s “marked by or given to offhand dismissal of important matters”—in this case good English grammar—then that’s being cavalierly with the language. I think “cavalierly” is a perfect description of teachers—worst yet, English-language teachers—who persist in speaking colloquially within school premises and within hearing range of their colleagues or students.

That definition of “cavalierly,” by the way, is Def. 2 by my digital Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary.

Now as to your second question: “Do you say ‘It’s me’ or ‘It’s I’ when asked by someone you know to identify yourself through a closed door?”

This form of the English expletive—meaning the use of “a word (as it in ‘make it clear which you prefer’) that occupies the position of the subject or object of a verb in normal English word order and anticipates a subsequent word or phrase that supplies the needed meaningful content”—makes the personal pronoun do a controversial grammatical contortion that has pitted grammarians against one another for as far back as I can remember. (That mouthful of a definition of "expletive," by the way, is part of Def. 1 by my Merriam-Webster's 11th.)

Formally, the grammatically correct usage is “It’s I,” where the pronoun “I” is in the subjective case (a form that’s roughly in the same league as “I am it”). In spoken English, however, it’s more natural-sounding and easier to articulate “It’s me,” where the pronoun “me” is in the objective case. So what happened is that as far as this particular expletive form is concerned, “It’s me” has been winning over “It’s I” in the lingua franca.

Modern-day grammarians like Patricia O’Conner (of Woe is I fame) has stuck her head out in favor of “It’s me,” but in my case, I have no desire to take sides either way. I’ll just avoid both “It’s me” and “It’s I” in formal writing. When I knock on someone’s door and I’m asked to identify myself by someone who knows me, I’ll probably say “It’s me” just so I won’t get a tongue lashing for being so formal and staid in my English once I’m allowed to get in.

[maxsims]

“marked by or given to offhand dismissal of important matters”

Yep, that's definition 2 of cavalier.   Cavalierly is the adverb.

[maxsims]

“marked by or given to offhand dismissal of important matters”

Yep, that's definition 2 alright.    But of cavalier, NOT cavalierly.   

Cavalierly is the adverb.

[Joe Carillo]

“marked by or given to offhand dismissal of important matters”

Yep, that's definition 2 alright.    But of cavalier, NOT cavalierly.   

Cavalierly is the adverb.

Let me clarify the usage that you're questioning here.

My original statement was this:

"By being too colloquial and cavalierly with the language, they are obviously not practicing what they are preaching to their students."

If you're taking issue with my use of the word "cavalierly," let me just say that I don't see any problem with the usage whether you look at that word as an adverb or adjective. Are you, in fact, insisting that I should have phrased that sentence as follows?

"By being too colloquial and cavalier with the language, they are obviously not practicing what they are preaching to their students."

If you are, then I would have to vehemently disagree with that usage of "cavalier," for it would mean "debonair," which is far from the meaning I am using the word for. That meaning is almost the opposite, "marked by or given to offhand and often disdainful dismissal of important matters." My feeling is that "cavalierly" in this context is in the same league as "beastly," "cleanly," and "beggarly," which can be taken as an adjective or adverb depending on usage and context. We know very well that a word isn't necessary an adverb just because it ends with a -ly; for instance, "chilly" and "willy-nilly." I therefore think that my use of "cavalierly" in the sentence in question is grammatically and semantically correct. 

[maxsims]

Let me clarify the usage that you're questioning here.

Your original statement was:

"By being too colloquial and cavalierly with the language, they are obviously not practicing what they are preaching to their students."

And you said that the meaning of "cavalierly" was "marked by or given to offhand and often disdainful dismissal of important matters" - this according to definition 2 given by Merriam-Webster.

And I explained that this definition is NOT that of "cavalierly" but of "cavalier" - again according to Merriam-Webster.   (It is Merriam-Webster, too, who describes "cavalierly" as an adverb.)

Then you said that, if we replace "cavalierly" with "cavalier", its meaning would somehow become "debonair", which is M-W's definition 1.   Would it?    I believe it would become whatever the reader made of it, and if you think that the reader may not choose the definition you favour, then perhaps you have used the wrong word anyway.

[Joe Carillo]

Let me just refresh our minds about the function of adjectives and adverbs. Adjectives are words that modify nouns, and adverbs are words that modify verbs, an adjective, or another adverb.

Now, let's take a look at the following sentences using "cavalier" and "cavalierly":

(1) "You are too colloquial and cavalier with the language."
(2) "You are being too colloquial and cavalierly with the language."

In Sentence 1, of course, the verb "are" is working simply as a linking verb, so it's clear that the complements that follow it, "too colloquial" and "cavalier," are adjectives. You follow?

In Sentence 2, however, the operative verb is "being," in this particular case helped by "are" as an auxiliary verb. Now, we will remember that in English grammar, when "be" is used as an operative verb rather than as a helping verb or auxiliary verb, it behaves like other action verbs do--deliver some form of action. And words that modify that action, like "too colloquial" and "cavalierly," are obviously not adjectives but adverbs, right? In this particular case, the action verb "being" is clearly being modified by, first, the adverb "too colloquial," and, second," by "cavalierly," which obviously should be an adverb, too, not an adjective.

This, maxsims, is precisely my point--the word "cavalierly" in my original sentence is being correctly used as an adverb, not as an adjective. And remember, too, that even if dictionaries don't specifically define the adverb sense of adjectives but simply note their existence at the tail-end of the dictionary entries, the definition doesn't preclude the adverb sense in actual usage. Such, in fact, is the case of my usage of "cavalierly" in that original sentence of mine.

I hope I have sufficiently clarified the grammatical conundrum that seemed to have escaped your understanding and appreciation.     

[maxsims]

I note that you have yet to acknowledge that your original definition of "cavalierly" was actually of "cavalier" (which suggests to the less-charitable among us that "cavalier" was the word you really wanted to use).   That aside, just two points need to be made:

1.   It is true that adverbs modify verbs, adjectives and other adverbs.   You state that "cavalierly" is
     an adverb modifying the verb "being".    But "being" is not a verb in your sentence; it's a copula.

2.   If you shorten the sentence in question to "By being cavalierly with the language, they are
     obviously not practising what they are preaching to their students", my contention becomes
     clearer.   As they say in the classics, if it looks wrong and it sounds wrong, then it probably
      is wrong!

[Joe Carillo]

I note that you have yet to acknowledge that your original definition of "cavalierly" was actually of "cavalier" (which suggests to the less-charitable among us that "cavalier" was the word you really wanted to use).   

I don’t think such acknowledgment is necessary, and I would explain very shortly why it isn’t. At the same time, I would like to take this opportunity to clarify for you and for everybody how a dictionary—in this particular case, Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary—defines adjectives and adverbs, particularly adverbs that end with -ly. The norm in defining them is for only the adjective form of the word to be defined; its adverb form is then acknowledged at the bottom of the dictionary entry. In other words, the dictionary presumes that the user of the dictionary knows that the meaning of the adjective and adverb form, say “cavalier” and “cavalierly,” is the same; the only difference is in how they are used—the adjective as a modifier of a noun or noun form, and the adverb as a modifier of a verb, an adjective, or another adverb.

In the particular case of my usage of “cavalierly,” you provoked this discussion by asking: “cavalierly with the language?”

My reply to you was this:

Yes, “cavalierly.” When someone talks in a manner that’s “marked by or given to offhand dismissal of important matters”—in this case good English grammar—then that’s being cavalierly with the language. I think “cavalierly” is a perfect description of teachers—worst yet, English-language teachers—who persist in speaking colloquially within school premises and within hearing range of their colleagues or students.

That definition of “cavalierly,” by the way, is Def. 2 by my digital Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary.

You took issue with this rejoinder of mine by saying:

“marked by or given to offhand dismissal of important matters”

Yep, that's definition 2 alright.    But of cavalier, NOT cavalierly.   

Cavalierly is the adverb.

Now this is where I would like to clarify your bone of contention and mine, once and for all. You insisted that the definition I gave, “marked by or given to offhand dismissal of important matters,” was that of “cavalier” and not that of “cavalierly.”

I submit here that your interpretation here of how this particular dictionary defines adjectives and adverbs is fatally flawed. The definition of the adjective “cavalier” provided by the Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary is not any different but is exactly the same as that for the adverb “cavalierly.” The only distinction that can be made between the two is in their actual usage—the adjective “cavalier” is to be used when the word is to modify a noun or noun form, and the adverb “cavalierly” when the word is to be used to modify a verb, an adjective, or another adverb.

I previously demonstrated that distinction with two examples, but for the sake of clarity, I’ll provide another set of examples here:

Adjective use: “He has a cavalier attitude towards his studies.”
Adverb use: “He is being cavalierly towards his studies.”

In both usages, “cavalier” and “cavalierly” mean exactly the same thing; the only difference is that the adjective “cavalier” is modifying the noun “attitude” and that the adverb “cavalierly” is modifying the verb “being.” Let me repeat that as a rule, dictionaries don’t provide a separate definition for adverbs, particularly for those that end with –ly; they expect the user to know that the definition for both is the same.

I will say nothing further about this matter after this, maxsims. I think we have already beaten the horse dead, to so speak. You may want to say your closing piece, of course; after that, I suggest we consider this matter closed.

[maxsims]

Yet again, you move the goalposts; no justification whatever for modifying a copula with an adverb.

[hill roberts]

"Between you and me/I"-- Somehow in Spain, it reads, "Between you and I" as in "Entre tu' y yo"

"me" in Spanish isn't used colloquially ...

Question: (Doorbell rings.) Who is it? --Quien es?
Answer: It's me.-- Soy yo. 

How many say, "It's I..." hardly any, but Joe, this would be the correct reply, right?

Still, there are just too many who use the pronoun "me" in Europe. Somehow, sitcoms, too, have a lot to answer for. It's a clumsy attempt to disfigure the English language, perhaps, and they are succeeding? Eventually, it's passed on to the next generation.

[Joe Carillo]

Sorry for overlooking this question of yours, Hill: “How many say, “It’s I...”? Hardly any, but Joe, this would be the correct reply, right?”

I must admit that that I was terribly distracted by the combined heat of the Philippine summer and the recent national elections here. Things have finally started to simmer down, so, better late than never, here’s my reply to that question of yours:

Yes, you’re right, “It’s I” is the quintessentially correct grammar construction, but count me among those who’d often catch themselves saying “It’s me" instead out of long habit. In fact, here’s what I wrote in my column in The Manila Times in October 2004 when an English grammar teacher caught me using “It’s me” instead:   

Current actual usage, however, tends to favor “It was me” and “It was me who did” over “It was I” and “It was I who did.” Although apparently violating the traditional grammar rule, “It was me” and “It was me who did” are perceived by many native English speakers as more natural sounding and idiomatic than “It was I” and “It was I who did.” I really have no strong feelings whichever way, but I do tend to unconsciously use “It was me” and “It was me who did” even if I’m aware that their formal grammatical moorings might be held suspect. I play it by ear. (Somehow, I don’t feel comfortable doing the same for the objective pronouns “him,” “her” and “them.” You thus won’t catch me saying “It was her” and “It was them” or “It was her who did” and “It was them who did.” The grammar-bending usage just seems to work fine only for the objective pronoun “me.”)

The jury still seems to be out on this usage, of course, so I would suggest that you keep on using “It was I” or “It was I who did” in strictly formal situations, such as when taking academic tests or writing job application letters; that way, you can avoid being finessed by grammatically officious recruitment officers or getting embroiled in grammar arguments that will likely be always tilted against your favor. In more relaxed situations, however, such as during private conversations or when writing informal letters and general non-fiction and fiction, you can freely use “It was me” and “It was me who did,” confident that they won’t get you ostracized as an English-language barbarian.

I must caution you, though, that there aren’t many English grammar knights anywhere who might come to your rescue when someone challenges you for using “It was me” and “It was me who did.” The only knowledgeable English-language fancier I know that had really stuck her neck out in defense of this usage is Patricia O’Conner, former book review editor of The New York Times, who had this to say about it in her book Woe Is I: The Grammarphobe’s Guide to Better English in Plain English:

“These days, anyone who says ‘It is I’ sounds like a stuffed shirt. It wasn’t always so. In bygone days, you might have had your knuckles rapped for saying ‘It’s me’ instead of ‘It is I.’ Your crime? A pronoun following the verb to be, the English teacher would have insisted, should act like a subject (“I,” “he,” “she,” “they”) and not an object (“me,” “him,” “her,” “them”). But language is a living thing, always evolving, and ‘It is I’ is just about extinct. In all but the most formal writing, some of the fussiest grammarians accept ‘It’s me.’ Most of us find the old usage awkward, though I must admit that I still use ‘This is she’ when someone asks for me on the phone. Old habits die harder than old rules.”

[curiouscat]

Could "cavalierly" be used in the same way as say, using a term or saying something "loosely". Like maybe double negatives (i.e. I don't got nothing to say)?