From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Use of 'I' and 'me'
Date: 17 Aug 92 18:33:26 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <pjh.714050893@nessi> pjh@eng.cam.ac.uk (Philippa Hogben) writes:
>roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>
>>In article <14048@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au> s913606@yallara.cs.rmit.OZ.AU (Mab) writes:
>>>We were discussing the use of the term 'you and I' as opposed to 'you
>>>and me' the other day... as in:
>
>>>'You and I can go now' (pretend there's no such word as 'we' okay?)
[deleted]
>>Yes and no.  "you-and-I" has been an immutable (i.e., non-declinable)
>>piece of English for about 7 centuries.  Especially when preceded by the
>>word "between," it's found everywhere.  (As in Shakespeare, _Merchant of
>>Venice_, Act III, Sc. 1: "All debts are cleered betweene you and I.")
[deleted]
>>So an English teacher would say that "He called you and me" is correct.
>>But the glue that holds "you-and-I" together is very strong, and this
>>has led to "you-and-I" being common in colloquial speech.  

>I would say that the first writer is correct w.r.t the formal usage of
>English. 

Correct.

>The second writer appears to be correct in identifying the
>common colloquial usage. 

If you mean me, OK.

>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?

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

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

>(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.

>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 exaqmple 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.

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

>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.  

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.
"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; one takes arms against the
troubles, not against their number or magnitude.  Only English teachers
are bothered by this; nobody else ever remarks on the imprecision in the
phrase.  Nobody points to this (as some in this group do) and says,
"Aha!  Sloppy language leads to sloppy thinking!"  

Roger
Xref: sparky alt.usage.english:6638 soc.culture.british:11690