From: pjh@eng.cam.ac.uk (Philippa Hogben)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Use of 'I' and 'me'
Date: 19 Aug 92 13:58:37 GMT
Organization: cam.eng

roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:

>>A thought has just struck me that many people seem to defend what may
>>otherwise be classed as incorrect English by saying "Well, Shakespeare
>>wrote that". 

>That's not what I was doing.  I was using Shakespeare as an example
>among many: there are plenty more in the OED.

>Besides, how do we determine what's correct other than by considering
>what the best speakers and writers in the language do and have done?

Are those writers whose works survive to the present day necessarily
the_best_ writers or are they just the most popular.

>>Does this mean that Shakespeare always wrote gramatically
>>correct English? 

>*This* doesn't mean it, but he did.  

How do you know? What evidence have you?

>(Except where he was writing things
>that were obviously and comically wrong.  This is not such a case.)

>>Or did he use colloquial constructs that he knew his
>>audience would identify with? 

>False dichotomy.  A thing can be colloquial *and* correct.

Can it? According to my dictionary colloquial means:

denoting or characterised by informal or conversational idiom or
vocabulary.

I would say that a thing which is "correct" was therefore not
colloquial. That does not mean to say that it would necessarily be
uncommon.

>>(Not forgetting that English has changed since his days.) 

>But the "you and I" story hasn't changed much over that time, except
>that people have started to complain about it, usually on grounds bvased
>on Latin grammar.

But logically speaking, it _is_ incorrect since the subject pronoun
"I" is used where an object pronoun is required.

>>It was once pointed out to me that Shakespeare wrote
>>to get "bums on seats" (to use another colloquialism) and that he
>>would often rewrite his plays to get the reactions he was looking for.

>Meaning what?  Can you show me an example of Shakespeare rewriting to
>replace a correct usage with an incorrect one, or a "formal" one with an
>informal one?  Keep in mind that the subject of English grammar did not
>exist in his day; nobody taught it in the schools or wrote abut it in
>books.

Of course I can't. The only versions of his plays I have seen are the
"final" versions which have survived to the present day. I haven't
seen any of the versions he screwed up and threw away because he
didn't get the reaction he wanted. I wasn't saying he specifically
changed one (correct) usage with another (incorrect) I was just
suggesting that he knew his audience and if most of them would usually
use "you and I" instead of "you and me" he would surely use that to
avoid alienating his audience.

>>Again, there are instances of authors/playwrights who appear to
>>deliberately use the language incorrectly to provide dramatic effect.

>a) Shakespeare was not one of those, except in the situations I
>mentioned;

>b) this example is not one of those situations;

>c) Shakespeare's knowledge of correct/incorrect usage was entirely
>intuitive, as was everybody else's in his time.

So he wasn't necessarily a "good" - i.e. grammatically correct -
author, which is the point I was originally trying to make.

>>Shakespeare (again) has somebody "take arms against a sea of troubles".
>>Surely a mixed metaphor? Shouldn't you take arms against a _host_ of 
>>troubles?

>Not if you're Hamlet.  

Try having a sword fight with the ocean - you will only come away wet
and the ocean won't be harmed. (I am being overly literal here, I
know.)

>What's wrong with mixed metaphors, btw? The only reason English
>teachers tell you to avoid them is that they often come out sounding
>comical.  They don't in this case; nobody sniggers during the Soliloquy.

Precisely. Shakespeare uses it for dramatic affect. However, if you
look at it literally, you should logically take arms against a "host"
not a "sea". But would it have improved ther soliloquy if Hamlet _had_
said that?

>"sea" is obviously a metaphor on its own; troubles don't look like
>water.  He might as well have said "forest" or "shitload" (except for
>the scansion and the inappropriateness of tone...).  "Sea" simply
>signals the huge number of troubles; 

So does host.

>one takes arms against the
>troubles, not against their number or magnitude.

I totally agree.

Philippa

--
Philippa Hogben   pjh@eng.cam.ac.uk  (Reverse if mailing from Janet)
Any mistakes are mine, all mnie.

I am not a .sig virus. I am a free bug.