No one says “me are going”, but lots of people say “me and X are going”, indicating that for native speakers, coordination of noun phrases functions differently than a single noun phrase.
In a contrasting case, people might think the phrase “I and John are here” sounds wrong, though they’d accept “John and I are here.” If you’re going by the “pure grammar” rule of “remove one subject from the phrase and check the grammar”, you’d have to accept either of those as equally viable, but many people don’t.
Close but not quite: the correct grammar is to always mention yourself last (with second person coming first if present in the sentence and then third person) and, as you say, use I or me depending on which one it would be if the others weren’t in the sentence.
Wrong
“Me and Dave are going spelunking”
“Remember that Dave, you, and I are going spelunking”
“This is a picture of Dave and I spelunking”
Right
“Dave and I are going spelunking”
“Remember that you, Dave, and I are going spelunking”
the correct grammar is to always mention yourself last
That was exactly why I mentioned this case. What exactly separates the grammar of “I (and Dave) am going” vs “Dave (and I) is going”? They’re both “subject plus verb”, indicating that the order of the coordinations is a matter of style, not grammar.
As to the subjective vs objective cases, the reasons I brought that up is that grammar seeks to explain the rules of language as native speakers use it. Therefore, the only “wrong” grammar is constructions that natives wouldn’t use, such as (eg) mimicking a Japanese grammar structure and saying “I the house to go.” Since native speakers often use cases like “Me and Dave are going spelunking”, it’s not wrong, merely a different register of speaking.
Accepting only prestige dialects as “correct” grammar is why people continue to think things like “black people don’t speak right”, despite the fact that African American English has the same consistency of grammar that the prestige dialect does.
I would encourage people to code switch rather than adhere to one style of language over another in every case. Imho, it’s kind of problematic that language itself has become racialized in America to the point where people can actually be criticized or made fun of for speaking in the “wrong” style associated with their perceived ethnic background.
What exactly separates the grammar of “I (and Dave) am going” vs “Dave (and I) is going”?
The same thing that seperates the first one from “going Dave am I and”. Word order matters.
the order of the coordinations is a matter of style, not grammar.
Categorically false
Therefore, the only “wrong” grammar is constructions that natives wouldn’t use
Wrong again. Plenty of native speakers of just about every single language there is have atrocious grammar. Native ≠ correct grammar.
It’s not wrong, merely a different register of speaking
It’s wrong when it comes to grammar. Whether or not gramatically incorrect colloquial speech is acceptable and sometimes even preferable to being gramatically correct (it is in most cases, but in some it can be very grating) is a different matter entirely.
Accepting only prestige dialects as “correct” grammar
Nobody said anything about dialect
people continue to think things like "black people don’t speak right
As I mentioned earlier, colloquial speech can be as good as or better than gramatically correct speech in some cases.
You’re mixing up a whole lot of things that aren’t grammar and just generally being wildly wrong all over the place.
Just because there is no central authority does not mean there is no general consensus. English classes from elementary school to university aren’t accidentally in line with each other by some weird coincidence.
Descriptivism has a place in the evolution of language, but not in a wholesale “everything native speakers might say is grammatically correct if they are understood”.
English classes from elementary school to university aren’t accidentally in line with each other by some weird coincidence.
So who has the authority when experts disagree? Like I said, no one is saying “I house go” but some people think “Give this to whomever comes here first” is correct while others argue for “whoever”. Descriptivism by definition seeks to explain how language functions. Prescriptivism only works within a narrowly defined framework, like APA or MLA for example, but even within those there’s disagreement.
Fresh minced garlic is easier to use and likely better, but the jarred stuff probably works fine in a pinch. I stopped making fresh ginger and used jarred for that now because it’s such a pain in the ass to prep. Garlic is too easy though, I never use jarred. I see the appeal though.
I know some people think there’s an aftertaste with iodized salt. I don’t have that experience. Is sea salt or kosher salt better than table salt? Maybe? There honestly isn’t much of a difference unless your recipe calls for a more coarse grind, in which case you need to adjust to prevent oversalting.
The prepackaged parmesan (which I like to call wood pulp) has a hugely inferior taste to freshly ground Parmesan. Big difference in flavor, but it also does depend on the application. Mixing a large quantity into a sauce? Yes, absolutely get fresh. Using as a garnish? Who cares?
Citizens of the US are really screwed, with a pseudo-democracy where they can only choose between conservatives or fascists, apart from practically half of the population who show that Descartes was wrong, because they exist but they don’t think.
All lives matter was a racist dog whistle. Both sides are bad is just the sad state of politics where neither major parties actually care about the people.
“Both sides” is an attempt to create a false equivalency between the party that wants to do an end run around our democratic systems/repeal the rights of women and already marginalized nationwide/jail dissenters, and the Democrats.
The Democratic Party has countless problems, but the fact of the matter is the above are incredibly important and imminent threats. Yeah, I’m going to hold my nose and vote for the less-bad option. Because both sides are not the same.
You falling for the theatre one presents a little better, doesn't mean they don't both lead to the exact same result, one just does it slower and politely enough to appease moderates such as yourself:
If you’re going to reduce my opinions to “falling for theater” then I have little interest in having a discussion with you. I don’t see what kind of discussion is worth having with someone willing to dismiss me out of hand.
Okay so you admit in your own argument that they're doing it slower. Yes, I WILL vote for a 50-year plan to fascism over voting for a 2-year plan to fascism, every time, without question. Gives us more time to turn it around before sitting officials burn everything down. At this point in this country I frankly don't give much of a damn what the Democrat long term goals are anymore because the Republican party is such an immediate and obvious threat to safety, democracy, and human decency. Given such an environment it's obvious that a few decades (or less) from now we're going to be dealing with significant problems in the Democratic party, since it's so easy to choose to usher them into power right now - it's easy for bad actors to abuse that. And frankly there are already problems in the Democratic party. But I'd rather deal with that then, than deal with Republican ideals now, because instituting Republican ideals now will not leave us with a future where we even have the choice to deal with Democrat problems.
(Hint: the Democrats long term goals are to lose to the fascists on purpose because that’s how they maximize their funding/support from liberalesque individuals like yourself.)
Very interesting hint. I do agree though, one is wolf in sheep’s clothing, other is wolf in wolf’s clothing. MLK Jr. had something to say about that:
I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negroes’ great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s “Counciler” or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can’t agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a “more convenient season.”
They also borrowed the money from each other too, so each has a $25 card and a $25 debt. The debt will never be paid, and they’ll acrue interest with each other. They’ll all use the growing debt as a justification to cut social services.
A word isn’t a product of letters, that would made mormon = nomorm, but an ordered set, where the subtract operation gives you the first set without any element also found on the second set (in set notation A-B = A-(A intersection B)
memes
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.