BS: Me, myself, and I

Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 08:34 PM

I seen the light. Great God Almighty, I seen the light!

Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 07:19 PM

I never would have thunk it.

Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I
From: Lighter
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 07:12 PM

The most unkindest cut of all!

Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I
From: GUEST, topsie
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 02:00 PM

Maybe "innit it" is a spin-off from the ubiquitous "the thing is is".

Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 12:55 PM

You can say that again, Q :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 12:26 PM

innit it- the it is redundant.

Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 12:26 PM

innit it- the it is redundant.

Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 09:28 AM

Hi, Amos. Hope things are well.

Indeed it was he who said that, although to whom I am unsure. 'tweren't me cuz uh, English is awesomely about like communication, innit it?

Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I
From: Amos
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 12:36 PM

Correct English is a language. Colloquial English is another. It was I who said that.

Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 12:20 PM

Webster's Collegiate Dictionary gives three definitions for decimate, the first being selection by lot and kill every tenth one, the second to exact a tax of 10 percent... and the third, the one in common usage:
a. to reduce drastically esp. in number (cholera decimated the population) b. to destroy a large part of (firebombs decimated large sections of the city).
decimation

Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 11:39 AM

"Try telling that to a three-hundred-pound pissed off biker. "

Or a 300 lb hog?

Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I
From: Lighter
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 11:27 AM

We'll get around to that scary stuff once we've ironed out the double negatives.

Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 11:19 AM

"Excuse me, but if you say "I don't want no potatoes" that clearly means that you do want some potatoes. The hostess would be totally correct in serving said person potatoes."

Try telling that to a three-hundred-pound pissed off biker.

Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 11:10 AM

Me, myself AND I, are far more worried that the polar ice caps are melting, and that my country is underwater, with no more mainline train service twixt London and Penzance any longer, due to 30 metres of sea wall, behind which stood the train track, being broken apart in an instant yesterday, in yet more horrendous, climat change and WTF storms....thus leaving the train track now hanging over the sea....

But maybe me, myself and I, have our priorities all arse over elbow?

Its' a puzzlement, for sure.....

Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I
From: Lighter
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 11:06 AM

> "I don't think X" is often and "correctly" used when the logical meaning is "I think not-X".

Quite true, and it explains why it took the human race a hundred thousand years to develop the syllogism.

Even now it takes close study for even university students to get deductive reasoning straight, and all of us still stumble now and again. Darn that consequent!

A big "however," however, is that everyday life and speech do not usually carry the burden of careful and explicit deduction required by scientific and technical applications.

Maybe the world would be a better place otherwise, but pointing out the illogic (why not "ill logic"?) of widely used and understood idioms would be a thankless and full-time job.

When I was in school, we were warned never to use "contact" as a verb meaning "get in touch with." Why "get in touch with" was OK, but "contact" wasn't, remains a mystery. Few people seem to have paid attention, and decades later the ban sounds arbitrary and nonsensical.

The only usages worth objecting to are those whose (shouldn't that be "whiches" or something?) patent absurdity makes them truly distracting ("Walking down the street, a pub came into view"); those that   make you look like a jerk for writing them("Dont need no edjikashun, dont need no thot controll"); and those that are more or less incomprehensible.

There is (or is it "are"?) a handful of words like "irregardless" and "decimate" that have somehow attracted special scorn over the years, and, yes, for that reason they should be avoided in careful writing.

The bright side is that most people do want to avoid such things. But as for trivial examples, they "could care less."

Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 10:24 AM

Lighter, you are right, but older origins do not constitute any claim to "correctness". Logic can be a slightly stronger argument, but not sufficient either. Formal language and pronunciation is a mere convention, for England typically defined by the BBC. We agree that speakers and writers are not required and sometimes not well-advised to stick to it, but if they want to, they had best do it properly.

An example where logic disagrees with all levels of English language: "I don't think X" is often and "correctly" used when the logical meaning is "I think not-X". It may be a case of "fossilized" ironic understatement, much rarer in other languages, or even considered an anglicism there.

Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I
From: Lighter
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 10:00 AM

That, Nigel, is why they said "two times" instead of "twice."

They couldn't sensibly say "Twice further."

Actually they could, because once they'd said it the listener would have to make sense of it himself or herself or himself/herself or herself/himself.

Now my head hurts.

Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I
From: Lighter
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 09:49 AM

"Eether" is the pronunciation (with roots in Old English) that has the older claim to correctness. See the OED, but first be sure you know something about Old and Middle English phonology.

So anybody who says "eye-ther" had better switch before someone on this thread notices.

Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 04:48 AM

From: JohnInKansas - PM
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 09:45 PM

The most universal LIE in English is the use of the comparative "times more than."

If an original quantity is 5, then two times the original is 10.
Two times more than the original quantity is 15. Since the expression is used both ways (although rarely correctly) it is impossible to tell what is meant by it.

I saw an advert on tv the other night for Fairy Liquid (a washing up liquid). It did a comparison test with 'another leading brand' and got schoolchildren to lay out the cleaned plates on trestle tables to compare the cleaning power.
The advert claimed that Fairy liquid went 'two times further' whereas the film made it clear that it only went 'two times as far'.

Very misleading!

Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 02:55 PM

"I don't want no potatoes" is not any stronger than "I don't want any potatoes", it is just a different language level or local dialect. If there is an added message in it, it must translate "I don't want any potatoes, and I don't need no educieshen eether."

Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 02:17 PM

Margarine and store-bought mayonnaise would elicit from me, "I don't want none of that ---- greasy gunk on my potato," if I was at home, or in the corner café, but I might hold my tongue if I was dining with the Queen.

A sometimes crude SOB

Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I
From: Lighter
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 01:48 PM

> that clearly means that you do want some potatoes.

To whom? You mean you'd actually give that crude SOB potatoes when he's told you explicitly he don't want none?

But perhaps "clearly" in your comment stands erroneously for "according to inapplicable rules of mathematical logic."

In that case, you mean you'd actually give that crude SOB potatoes when he's told you explicitly he don't want none?

Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I
From: GUEST, topsie
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 01:41 PM

So, if you really don't want the potatoes, play it safe. Just say "I don't want potatoes, thank you" or, if they are mashed with margarine, "I don't want potato."

Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I
From: gnu
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 01:26 PM

"I don't want no potatoes." indicates disgust. An example of the application of such a statement may be when I see they are prepared by being mashed, having a HUGE amount of salted margerine added, having too much 2% MF milk added, and then being whipped with a blender. Note that the statement I would like to use in such a case does not convey my actual feelings but "I don't want no fuckin margerine and milk in me spuds." just doesn't seem fitting nor polite at a Kissmeass dinner to which I have been invited.

Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 12:12 PM

Excuse me, but if you say "I don't want no potatoes" that clearly means that you do want some potatoes. The hostess would be totally correct in serving said person potatoes.

Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I
From: Lighter
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 12:08 PM

> Communication requires a sender and a receiver....

and takes place despite varying kinds and degrees of static.

Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 11:40 AM

Communication requires a sender and a receiver. I suggest that in certain milieus there is no difference between "I don't want any potatoes, thanks" and "I don't want no potatoes, thanks." A host(ess) would be a prat to serve either person potatoes.

Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 09:55 AM

Lighter, I agree that fuming would be the wrong reaction - who is fuming here? But reflecting on the delicate relation between logic, etymology, and various levels of various languages is a necessity. Those who do not care may still care about their reputation, possibly being flawed by inadequate use of language. Inadequate can well mean "too 'correct' for the context".

For example, writing "irregardless" once, can count as a slip, but whoever does so constantly risks being regarded as a fraud. Colloquialisms, dialects, and slang are quite different categories from such plain errors - even though historically and logically the border may be found variable.

Chaucer and Shakespeare were artists of language, but also men of realism, and definitely open to development of language including creative adaptations from other European cultures - as opposed to later generations of English poets.

Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I
From: Lighter
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 06:33 PM

These and other objections to common usages undoubtedly make some of us feel more astute than "hoi polloi"; and note my omission of the vulgarly redundant definite article, in the knowledge that "hoi" means "the" in ancient Greek: one up for me!

It appears, however, that by the time anyone's noticed enough examples of an "incorrect usage" to raise a hullabaloo (I mean "an uproar"), it's too late to do anything except fume. Or, if you're an editor, to ban them from your publication.

Shakespeare used "between you and I" (see the OED). After two hundred years, people are still saying "ain't," and more of them every day are saying "irregardless" for "irrespective" and "based off" for "based on." Chaucer, could he come back, might lament the botch we've made of the Inglysshe he spoke.

I direct my precious end-of-the-day energies to other topics.

Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I
From: GUEST, topsie
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 05:21 PM

At last - somebody understands!

Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 04:30 PM

Topsie, you commented that "Princess Diana may not have died" or "9/11 may have been prevented" are nonsense -"

On the other hand, Elvis may not have died. I've heard that he's alive and well, living with Adolph Hitler in Brazil. That's correct.

Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I
From: Will Fly
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 05:15 AM

Correction: It woz us wot done it , Guv - innit!

Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 08:10 PM

It was us wot done it, Guv!

Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 04:13 PM

Confusing "their", "there", and "they're" is simply an error. In contrast, saying "It was me who did it" can be the right thing to do in situations in which "It was I" would sound too formal or "awkward", as Jeri puts it. Most people know when to speak in a formal manner and when not, and how. However, there are cases in which rules are hard to find. I am often amused when I hear labour representatives talk about politics; in many societies, including British and Australian, they cannot possibly find an adequate language level.

Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I
From: gnu
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 04:06 PM

I dare say you are as it behooves you.

Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 03:23 PM

I and me, who and whom, its and it's, and there and their and they're not to mention he and him and she and her. It behooves one to know the differences. Myself, not so critical.

Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I
From: GUEST, topsie
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 03:23 PM

OK, I confess - I do sometimes say "It was me" when asked who it was who did something.

Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I
From: The Sandman
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 03:07 PM

goodness gracious me.

Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 02:36 PM

You say I when it's the subject of the verb, whether or not it is placed before or after it. You say me when it's the object of the verb ditto.

Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 02:20 PM

TRouble with "There go I" is that it assumes that I has many members. TRy "Ther goes I.

Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 02:06 PM

No, not Jimmy!

Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I
From: gnu
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 01:48 PM

Well fuck I! Sooo many considerations I have never felt the need to discuss as it was clearly plain and simple to me eh la?

John... ere ye puttin the piche to we?

And I still says ya shouldna say yer gonna try and do sommat insteada try TO do sommat. Me, Moi and Jimmy Suis just cringe at that.

Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 01:37 PM

I'm not sure that using "I" is "formal" language necessarily.

Not necessarily. All examples you gave, teri, are approved language in all levels. The usage "It was me" as a whole sentence frequently occurs in colloquial language, exactly meaning "It was I" (... who committed the offence). Or "It was him" meaning (in formal language) "It was he", etc. Where is the difficulty?

The interrogative pronoun tends to the other direction in colloquial language: "Who did they arrest?" for (formal usage) "Whom did they arrest?"

Each dialect, pidgin language, etc. can have different grammar rules. Is the formal language awkward? Not at all, just those who want to use it should try to learn it properly, otherwise they do have a problem. (I am excused, being a furriner.)

Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I
From: Jeri
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 12:54 PM

"Me" has things done to/with them, so "it was me" is correct, because you'd say "they arrested me".
"I" us the one who does things. "I punched Rap in the nose, so they arrested me".

The reason it's "Bill and I played music" and not "Bill and me played music is that you'd say "I played music" not "me played music."

Of course, if you're in Jamaica, I think "they arrested I" is correct.

In the end, if you have a problem with someone else's grammar and usage that gets in the way of communicating, YOU have a problem, not they. ("They"--awkward, or what?)

Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I
From: GUEST, topsie
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 12:44 PM

I'm not sure that using "I" is "formal" language necessarily. I would use "It was me" when I meant "It was me they arrested" and "It was I" when I meant "It was I who was arrested". The difference is in how "me" or "I" relate to the verb - an object, or a passive subject. Formality doesn't come into it, though I suspect that the frequently heard use of "I" where "me" would be better results from a misguided attempt to sound "formal".

Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 11:53 AM

Bill D (03 Feb 14 - 11:02 AM), right: you can actually save a lot more on such sales, by stubbornly resisting the impulse to buy anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 11:13 AM

topsie, that was what I tried to convey. Formal language: "It was I, they arrested me." Possible colloquial version: "It was me, they arrested me."

There are constructions in which language and logic disagree. Avoid them altogether if you need to be precise. In rare cases, ambiguities of language can be exploited for skillful rhetorics (alias lies). What John describes seems more like abused logic to me - I would not blame it on grammar at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 11:02 AM

Naawwww, John... the most universal lie in ads is "UP TO".

"You can save UP TO $999 during our January sale!"

Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 12:40 AM

Death

Subject: RE: BS: Me, myself, and I
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 10:31 PM

How about "two times, more than"?....

To inform those who do not have the knowledge that "two times" is "more than."