Post by Mike SpencerPost by Stefan RamThis "me" thing is like a broken record in this Newsgroup . . .
Well, sorry about that.
And that's from the FAQ:
|From: ***@scripps.edu (Mark Israel)
|Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,alt.answers,news.answers
|Subject: alt.usage.english FAQ
|Followup-To: poster
|Date: 30 Sep 1997 00:45:52 GMT
|Organization: The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, California, USA
|Expires: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 00:00:00 GMT
|Message-ID: <60pi40$hn8$***@hermes.scripps.edu>
|
|Archive-name: alt-usage-english-faq
|Posting-Frequency: monthly
|Last-modified: 29 September 1997
|
| THE ALT.USAGE.ENGLISH FAQ FILE
| ------------------------------
|
| by Mark Israel
| ***@scripps.edu
| Last updated: 29 September 1997
. . .
|"between you and I"
|-------------------
|
| The prescriptive rule is to use "you and I" in the same contexts
|as "I" (i.e., as a subject), and "you and me" in the same contexts
|as "me" (i.e., as an object). In "between you and me", since "you
|and me" is the object of the preposition "between", "me" is the only
|correct form. But English-speakers have a tendency to regard
|compounds joined with "and" as units, so that some speakers use "you
|and me" exclusively, and others use "you and I" exclusively,
|although such practices "have no place in modern edited prose"
|(WDEU). "Between you and I" was used by Shakespeare in _The
|Merchant of Venice_. Since this antedates the teaching of English
|grammar, it is probably *not* "hypercorrection". (This is mentioned
|merely to caution against the hypercorrection theory, not to defend
|the phrase.) Shakespeare also used "between you and me".
. . .
|"It's me" vs "It is I"
|----------------------
|(freely adapted from an article by Roger Lustig)
|
| Fowler says: "_me_ is technically wrong in _It wasn't me_ etc.;
|but the phrase being of its very nature colloquial, such a lapse is
|of no importance".
|
| The rule for what he and others consider technically right is
|*not* (as is commonly misstated) that the nominative should *always*
|be used after "to be". Rather, it is that "to be" should link two
|noun phrases of the same case, whether this be nominative or
|accusative:
|
| I believe that he is I. Who do you believe that he is?
| I believe him to be me. Whom do you believe him to be?
|
|According to the traditional grammar being used here, "to be" is not
|a transitive verb, but a *copulative* verb. When you say that A is
|B, you don't imply that A, by being B, is doing something to B.
|(After all, B is also doing it to A.) Other verbs considered
|copulative are "to become", "to remain", "to seem", and "to look".
|
| Sometimes in English, though, "to be" does seem to have the
|force of a transitive verb; e.g., in Gelett Burgess's:
|
| I never saw a Purple Cow,
| I never hope to see one;
| But I can tell you, anyhow,
| I'd rather see than be one.
|
|The occurrence of "It's me", etc., is no doubt partly due to this
|perceived transitive force. In the French _C'est moi_, often cited
|as analogous, _moi_ is not in the accusative, but a special form
|known as the "disjunctive", used for emphasis. If _etre_ were a
|transitive verb in French, _C'est moi_ would be _Ce m'est_.
|
| In languages such as German and Latin that inflect between the
|nominative and the accusative, B in "A is B" is nominative just like
|A. In English, no nouns and only a few personal pronouns ("I",
|"we", "thou", "he", "she", "they" and "who") inflect between the
|nominative and the accusative. In other words, we've gotten out of
|the habit, for the most part.
|
| Also, in English we derive meaning from word position, far more
|than one would in Latin, somewhat more than in German, even. In
|those languages, one can rearrange sentences drastically for
|rhetorical or other purposes without confusion (heh) because
|inflections (endings, etc.) tell you how the words relate to one
|another. In English, "The dog ate the cat" and "The cat ate the
|dog" are utterly different in meaning, and if we wish to have the
|former meaning with "cat" prior to "dog" in the sentence, we have to
|say "The cat was eaten by the dog" (change of voice) or "It is the
|cat that the dog ate." In German, one can reverse the meaning by
|inflecting the word (or its article): _Der Hund frass die Katze_
|and _Den Hund frass die Katze_ reverse the meaning of who ate whom.
|In Latin, things are even more flexible: almost any word order will
|do:
| Feles edit canem
| Feles canem edit
| Canem edit feles
| Canem feles edit
| Edit canem feles
| Edit feles canem
|all mean the same, the choice of word order being made perhaps for
|rhetorical or poetic purpose.
|
| English is pretty much the opposite of that: hardly any
|inflection, great emphasis on order. As a result, things have
|gotten a little irregular with the personal pronouns. And there's
|uncertainty as to how to use them; the usual rules aren't there,
|because the usual word needs no rules, being the same for nominative
|and accusative.
|
| The final factor is the traditional use of Latin grammatical
|concepts to teach English grammar. This historical quirk dates to
|the 17th century, and has never quite left us. From this we get the
|Latin-derived rule, which Fowler still acknowledges. And we *do*
|follow that rule to some extent: "Who are they?" (not "Who are
|them?" or "Whom are they?") "We are they!" (in response to the
|preceding) "It is I who am at fault." "That's the man who
|he is."
|
| But not always. "It is me" is attested since the 16th Century.
|(Speakers who would substitute "me" for "I" in the "It is I who am
|at fault" example would also sacrifice the agreement of person, and
|substitute "is" for "am".)
.