From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Use of 'I' and 'me'
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 15:20:16 GMT

In article <pjh.714232717@nessi> pjh@eng.cam.ac.uk (Philippa Hogben) writes:
>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.

Why not the best?  They're the ones whose language has been admired down
the ages; they're the ones whose language has served as a model.  Do we
get lots of complaints about Milton's grammar, or that of the KJV, or
that of Pope and Swift and Dickens?  Their language is exemplary, in
every sense of the word.

>>>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?

By comparing it to any definition of the grammar of the English
language, I can see that  Shakespeare's usage is grammatical.  To be
sure, Shakespeare's own writing is part of the evidence that leads us to
formulate the grammar (and the rules of usage and style); but no
grammar, except for an arbitrary one, will find fault with his work.

>>(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. 

I guess "informal" and "conversational" have suddenly come to mean
"wrong."  News to me...

It might be inappropriate to use this or that usage in a formal business
letter or in a scholarly address or a textbook.  But that does not make
the usage incorrect in other settings.  

Some things, however, are indeed incorrect in all settings: those are
things that are ungrammatical.  Such as placing the article after the
noun.

>That does not mean to say that it would necessarily be uncommon.

But I'm not arguing from demographics!  I'm arguing from the
definitions of grammar, usage, and style.  

Note also that almost all of the usages that people get all het up about
in this group are being used in *informal* speech or writing.  

>>>(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 based
>>on Latin grammar.

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

Grammar isn't based on any formal logic.  Grammar is a set of rules
evolved over time; and the evolution of "you and I" as an undeclinable
unit has simply not proceeded the way the rest of the pronoun-usage
rules have.  It is an idiom, and a  long-established one, and idioms
simply march to their own rules.  

>>>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.

Well, then, where are all the *other* "colloquial" usages?  (You can
also find a lot of "you and me" in Shakespeare, by the way.)

Now let's look at Shakespeare's audience again.  It consisted mainly of
the nobility and citizenry of London -- not the common, uneducated
rabble.  The language that these people expected was, quite simply, the
London dialect of their time, the most advanced form of English in
existence.  Shakespeare did not cut his audience any slack, either: he
peppered his plays with hundreds of loanwords, new coinages, and other
fanciful things.  He did not write down to anyone; his style is
complicated in the extreme.

>>>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.

No, he WAS necessarily grammatically correct.  Because we HAVE no
definition of "grammatical correctness" aside from "what skilled
speakers and writers say and have said."  What concept of "grammatical
correctness" do you propose?  How would you derive it, if not by
studying the history and present state of the language?

In general, native speakers simply don't make mistakes of grammar.
THose learning the language later, do.  There may be non-standard
usages, unusual or inappropriate styles, etc.; but, by any reasonable
definition, Shakespeare's grammar was necessarily correct.

>>>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.)

Exactly.  Hamlet wasn't proposing to take arms against anything but
himself!

>>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?

Exactly.

>>"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.

But "host" is assonant with "nobler" and "opposing."  Those stressed
words don't need competition from a mere modifier; "troubles" is the key
word.

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

>I totally agree.

Roger